nice tyson videos

[instant.muscle]

You slam the retrospect method of analyzing flaws and promote creating some hypothetical heavyweight tournament where all enviornmental factors are optimized for Tyson then dub him the greatest? I don't see that as a more accurate assessment of ability. Of course you can only analyze someone's flaws in hindsight. You have to see the guy fight before you can analyze his strengths and weaknesses. It's no less accurate than peering into a parallel universe where Tyson has every advantage. Certainly we hindsight analysts can be proven wrong if you want to try. Just watch his fights and find situations where our analysis does not hold true.

All great boxers throughout history fought through adversity both in and out of the ring. You're admitting Tyson failed to maximize his potential against adversity. That's why many consider him just outside the perimeter of greatness.

tyson in his prime would woop anyone, he should have never lost a fight ever, don king fucked up tyon's career

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

Bros, in the name of peace I present you with the King of KTFO, Julian Jackson. He suffered from a rare birth defect. Instead of hands, he was born with sleeping pills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMmxJHvkEy0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhVi7cH-LaQ

 

[rykertest]

he was good but he ain't no Ivan Drago.

 

[medical]

tyson in his prime would woop anyone, he should have never lost a fight ever, don king fucked up tyon's career

He would whip anyone who was fighting at the time, but not even close to all time! Watch some of the epic heavyweight battles of the 60's and 70's. Ali-Frazier, Frazier-Norton, Ali-Norton, Ali-Foreman...........fights where they beat the crap out of each other for 15 rounds! Half of those fights would have been stopped in the first round in the era Tyson fought in. And go back farther than that: Demsey, Marciano, Patterson, LOUIS!!!! Tyson was not even in the same league. Could he have been? Maybe, with the right training......but never mentally.

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

He would whip anyone who was fighting at the time, but not even close to all time! Watch some of the epic heavyweight battles of the 60's and 70's. Ali-Frazier, Frazier-Norton, Ali-Norton, Ali-Foreman...........fights where they beat the crap out of each other for 15 rounds! Half of those fights would have been stopped in the first round in the era Tyson fought in. And go back farther than that: Demsey, Marciano, Patterson, LOUIS!!!! Tyson was not even in the same league. Could he have been? Maybe, with the right training......but never mentally.

I would put Tyson's ability near Dempsey's and I think Tyson would ruin Floyd Patterson.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I think it's funny how so many people are more or less ashamed at the fact that Tyson would return again, saying what's he doing, he's way past his prime, how emarassing and so on. No shit, you think he doesn't realize it?
Big deal, let him do what he wants. It's his life, not anyone elses.

 

[wootoom]

Ivan Drago would own him

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

I think it's funny how so many people are more or less ashamed at the fact that Tyson would return again, saying what's he doing, he's way past his prime, how emarassing and so on. No shit, you think he doesn't realize it?
Big deal, let him do what he wants. It's his life, not anyone elses.

No kidding. The guy has to eat. He publicly admitted it himself that he doesn't have it anymore.

 

[JumpBallWinner]

You slam the retrospect method of analyzing flaws and promote creating some hypothetical heavyweight tournament where all enviornmental factors are optimized for Tyson then dub him the greatest? I don't see that as a more accurate assessment of ability. Of course you can only analyze someone's flaws in hindsight. You have to see the guy fight before you can analyze his strengths and weaknesses. It's no less accurate than peering into a parallel universe where Tyson has every advantage. Certainly we hindsight analysts can be proven wrong if you want to try. Just watch his fights and find situations where our analysis does not hold true.

All great boxers throughout history fought through adversity both in and out of the ring. You're admitting Tyson failed to maximize his potential against adversity. That's why many consider him just outside the perimeter of greatness.

I don't slam anything. I just think that the people who think they see alot of flaws in his game now are either going by his fights after his technique had gone to crap (and that's most of his fights). I don't think you only analyze someone's flaws in hindsight. I think that alot of guys getting ready to fight him were probably coming up with all of these great ways to beat him also, until they got in the ring with him. My main problem with people pointing out all this stuff now is that it's alot easier said than done. He was facing professionals, with professional trainers. How come out of all of them, none of them were able to figure it out how easily he could be beatin as everyone seems to be able to do now? Because it's easy to sit and watch someone and say "oh, someone could just do that, or find a way to do that, look, he's not even that good at that" and on and on and on..... but it's not as easy to be standing in front of him and put all of those theories to test and come out victorious.

And my fantasy tournament is just another way of me saying that I think that Tyson in his prime could beat any other fighter in their prime. I respect anyone's opinion if they give solid reasons to why they believe another fighter could beat him. Alot of people say Ali would've beatin him. I don't think Ali would've lasted three rounds with him, but at the same time, alot of people didn't think Ali was gonna last three rounds with George Foreman and he proved them all wrong. So while I can list all of the reasons that I think Tyson would dominate him, someone can reasonably say that Ali deserves the benifit of the doubt simply for what he did to Foreman. The case can never be proven either way because we can't line them up across from each other in their primes and let them fight. That's why I said I wish we could, and that I'd bet it all on Tyson if we could.

As far as Tyson's failure to ever achieve a fraction of what he was capable of. I do blame him for that. He's stupid when it comes to controlling his life and making the right choices. Don't confuse me saying what I think he could've been with me saying that's how he should be looked at. I don't give him credit for anything he didn't do. But I believe without question that he coulda been hands down the greatest ever. Was he? No. He didn't earn it. It's just one of those things that frustrates the hell out of you when you see so much potential getting wasted.

 

[JumpBallWinner]

He would whip anyone who was fighting at the time, but not even close to all time! Watch some of the epic heavyweight battles of the 60's and 70's. Ali-Frazier, Frazier-Norton, Ali-Norton, Ali-Foreman...........fights where they beat the crap out of each other for 15 rounds! Half of those fights would have been stopped in the first round in the era Tyson fought in. And go back farther than that: Demsey, Marciano, Patterson, LOUIS!!!! Tyson was not even in the same league. Could he have been? Maybe, with the right training......but never mentally.

People always point to these great fights (and yes, they were great and I love watching them) when trying to dismiss Tyson. I don't get it. These fights proved that there were others with ability so comparable to their opponents that neither could really dominate the other. What if someone is so dominate that nobody can give them a battle? Does that mean that Frazier was better than them because him and Ali were so closly matched that they slugged it out going back and fourth for 15 rounds a few times? What if Tyson would've instead fought in their era. And let's just say for the sake of argument here that he looked the same way against all of the aboved mentioned fighters that he did against Briggs, Holmes, and Spinks. Then you know what people would say? They would say that he didn't have any competition and to look back at the great fights Joe Louis, Marcianao, and Dempsy all fought in their times.

What I'm saying is that it's possible to be so dominate that it makes it look like you have no competition. Why does a fighter's ability have to be low enough that someone else can come close to it and give them "a war" in order for them to be deserving of respect amoungst the all timers? Is it not possible to be so good that nobody can give you a great fight, regardless of how good they are when it comes to all other fighters?

The only way to prove me theory of course would be to have Fraizer, Ali, Norton, Foreman, Dempsy, Marciano, Louis, Tyson, Lewis all in their primes at the same time and let them all fight to prove who was the best, and if any of them were in fact just benifiting from destroying weak competition. And unfortunately, that'll never be possible.