Fighters That Could Take Tyson In The Prime

First topic message reminder :

I was watching this amazing video of Tyson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QACELH3www and it got me thinking, is there anyone that could have actually taken Tyson in the prime? Obviously people would put someone like Muhammed Ali, but in complete honesty I think he would actually have taken him, just my personal opinion... But do you guys think that there would have been a Heavyweight on the planet that could have taken Pre-Prison and before he began cutting his training like Pre-Buster Douglas? Because in my personal opinion there isn't a fighter on the planet that could have honestly taken him, his pure aggression and power was enough to take out a lot of guys in the later stages, but when you mixed that with his athletisicm and ability to not get caught whilst coming in was just purely incredible, I would love to see Haye have taken on Tyson in his prime, personally I think you need to have a guy that has speed and 1 punch knockout power, enough to rock him back (I know what you're thinking what about Muhammed Ali?) But I just don't see it happening. I don't think Haye would beat him by the way but give him a decent fight. Or even a Valuev don't forget how big Valuev was and how much of a small Heavyweight Tyson was, could he have even reached his head!? :O

Scottrf wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:He doesn't have the power to deter Foreman.

Tyson we are talking about?

Foreman has one of the most under rated chins in the division, D'Amato himself acknowledged that Tyson had nothing to beat Foreman with likening him to Frazier

The Mighty Atom wrote:Doesn't change the fact that Tyson was still scared stiff of Foreman, you can deny it all you want but its there in black and white.

No version of Tyson ever beats the Foreman who destroyed Frazier, the power of the man is too much, i'd never seen a fighter lifted of his feet by a punch before, that happens to Tyson and he simply doesn't get up. He doesn't have the power to deter Foreman nor would he be difficult for him to find, he wants a fighter coming to him and that's exactly what Tyson would do.

Have you heard Tyson's version of events of you are passing one side of the story as fact? A tad D4esque there imo.

Once again you pass of your opinions as fact when you say no version of tyson beats George. The George that yo to'd with Lyle who was slower and more crude (with less power) than Tyson? And Tyson lacking power to deter George? Its almost on par with your Rocky-esque(Balboa) comment by saying a certain fighter refused to go down. Hilarious but obviously blinded by your dislike of tyson.

Lyle knocked him down and Tyson keeps him there imo.

Tyson was very hard to hit clean and I have seen tyson send an opponent literally flying.

manos de piedra wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:I'm not suggesting that Jeffries is anything other than a 20 round fighter because he was not and probably could never be anything other than that but it highlights Corbetts ability to compete with someone holding every conceivable physical advantage. The style of Tyson is what would win it for me not necessarily his added size, to beat Tyson you need to be a boxer puncher with either a stinging jab like Holmes or someone in the style of Foreman.

I tend to agree. The weight thing isnt the be all and end all but it is significant. Obviously against less skilled heavies Corbett could nullify the weight differences and in this regard Jeffries is probably a good match up for him if you are talking a 12 rounder. I would back him to win that on points.

But against a natural 12 round fighter who naturally outweighs him by 40/50 pounds and is reasonably skillful himself then it does become a significant factor I think.

Depends on the fighter, his skill level and how he uses his size

There's a big difference between Lewis, Vitali and Bowe to say Baer, Wlad and Carnera

The Mighty Atom wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:He doesn't have the power to deter Foreman.

Tyson we are talking about?

Foreman has one of the most under rated chins in the division, D'Amato himself acknowledged that Tyson had nothing to beat Foreman with likening him to Frazier

He had a very strong chin. All praise to Ali for KOing him. Ali's power was very under-estimated.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Doesn't change the fact that Tyson was still scared stiff of Foreman, you can deny it all you want but its there in black and white.

No version of Tyson ever beats the Foreman who destroyed Frazier, the power of the man is too much, i'd never seen a fighter lifted of his feet by a punch before, that happens to Tyson and he simply doesn't get up. He doesn't have the power to deter Foreman nor would he be difficult for him to find, he wants a fighter coming to him and that's exactly what Tyson would do.

Have you heard Tyson's version of events of you are passing one side of the story as fact? A tad D4esque there imo.

Once again you pass of your opinions as fact when you say no version of tyson beats George. The George that yo to'd with Lyle who was slower and more crude (with less power) than Tyson? And Tyson lacking power to deter George? Its almost on par with your Rocky-esque(Balboa) comment by saying a certain fighter refused to go down. Hilarious but obviously blinded by your dislike of tyson.

Lyle knocked him down and Tyson keeps him there imo.

Tyson was very hard to hit clean and I have seen tyson send an opponent literally flying.

Now you're being plain daft, az.

These are EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS. If you won't believe those, then what will you believe ? You think Tyson's people wouldn't have seen this by now and opened a lawsuit if it weren't true ?

At some point you just have to accept something when overwhelming evidence is provided in support of it.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:He doesn't have the power to deter Foreman.

Tyson we are talking about?

Foreman has one of the most under rated chins in the division, D'Amato himself acknowledged that Tyson had nothing to beat Foreman with likening him to Frazier

Deter is different than KO and Tyson hit harder than Ali.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Doesn't change the fact that Tyson was still scared stiff of Foreman, you can deny it all you want but its there in black and white.

No version of Tyson ever beats the Foreman who destroyed Frazier, the power of the man is too much, i'd never seen a fighter lifted of his feet by a punch before, that happens to Tyson and he simply doesn't get up. He doesn't have the power to deter Foreman nor would he be difficult for him to find, he wants a fighter coming to him and that's exactly what Tyson would do.

Have you heard Tyson's version of events of you are passing one side of the story as fact? A tad D4esque there imo.

Once again you pass of your opinions as fact when you say no version of tyson beats George. The George that yo to'd with Lyle who was slower and more crude (with less power) than Tyson? And Tyson lacking power to deter George? Its almost on par with your Rocky-esque(Balboa) comment by saying a certain fighter refused to go down. Hilarious but obviously blinded by your dislike of tyson.

Lyle knocked him down and Tyson keeps him there imo.

Tyson was very hard to hit clean and I have seen tyson send an opponent literally flying.

There was me thinking we only considered the prime of a boxer or are you now moving goalposts?
Tyson never beat anyone as good as Frazier or Norton, his style which is very similar to Fraziers suggests to me Foreman beats him easily within 4/5 rounds. Stylistically Tyson doesn't have anything that Foreman struggled against. Mental strength does play a part in someones ability to take a punch, Hagler himself said that was the only thing that stopped him from going down against Hearns. Mental preparation is a huge part of boxing

Well said atom - and mental strength is one thing Tyson lacked.

You've seen the evidence in black and white az.

And faced with the overwhelming proof that Tyson didn't want to fight a 45, returning, fat old veteran - you choose to deny this ever happened.

Read a "coward and his due" by the way. Its why people like Atlas - who knew Tyson very well, never gave him a chance against Holyfield.

When a fighter goes down (not voluntarily by taking a knee) it is a biological thing in that the punch disorientates then ie seperates them from their senses. They have no choice but to go down. Hagler saying that is simply machismo. If hit right you go. It is that simple. I bet Ali mentally prepared himself not to get floored by Frazier, but he still went down.

I am not shifting any goalposts. The difference between Frazier and Tyson is speed of punch and movement. Frazier was never hard ot hit. Tyson was.

Getting knocked down isn't simply biological, mental strength prepares you for a punch, much the reason why Benn could take a punch once he got used to getting punched or did his biology magically change?

Tyson also doesn't have the toughness or left hook of Frazier, which as a single punch is better than any punch Tyson had. Think Tysons trainer knows better than anyone who he was capable of beating.

oxring wrote:Well said atom - and mental strength is one thing Tyson lacked.

You've seen the evidence in black and white az.

And faced with the overwhelming proof that Tyson didn't want to fight a 45, returning, fat old veteran - you choose to deny this ever happened.

Read a "coward and his due" by the way. Its why people like Atlas - who knew Tyson very well, never gave him a chance against Holyfield.

I've seen one side of the story. Regardless I find it inconceivable to even think that the Foreman who squeaked past Qawi and Cooper would have a chance against Tyson. As for Atlas, I have said here many times before that I take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Didn't he also pick Spinks to beat Tyson?

Moreover, having laced them up before I dont particularly like it when other boxers are referred to as cowards. Atlas should know better.

He dislikes Tyson (rightfully also) for tyson's dalliances with his sister. As for me I would have shot tyson at that point.

If Frazier was never hard to hit, then why did he make Ali miss for fun in the fight of the century (fight 1, in case you didn't know)?

Ali a damn site more accurate than Tyson.

And no - its not "if hit right you go"

Else we wouldn't discuss "soft" knockdowns would we? Cotto-Margarito - Cotto didn't go down because he had to. He went down to avoid some pressure and clear his head - (he took a knee btw, in case you didn't know). So know, its not as simple as that.

And if Tyson was so hard to hit, why did Douglas, the only time he was ever motivated and fit, land so much leather on him?

There is an element of mental strength. Only a small bit. Being knocked down is an involuntary action.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Well said atom - and mental strength is one thing Tyson lacked.

You've seen the evidence in black and white az.

And faced with the overwhelming proof that Tyson didn't want to fight a 45, returning, fat old veteran - you choose to deny this ever happened.

Read a "coward and his due" by the way. Its why people like Atlas - who knew Tyson very well, never gave him a chance against Holyfield.

I've seen one side of the story. Regardless I find it inconceivable to even think that the Foreman who squeaked past Qawi and Cooper would have a chance against Tyson. As for Atlas, I have said here many times before that I take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Didn't he also pick Spinks to beat Tyson?

Moreover, having laced them up before I dont particularly like it when other boxers are referred to as cowards. Atlas should know better.

He dislikes Tyson (rightfully also) for tyson's dalliances with his sister. As for me I would have shot tyson at that point.

Read the damn article azania before commenting.

If you're not going to accept the knowledge say so. He makes a long point atthe beginning about "lacing up= not coward, coward in different ways etc etc".

Just read the bloody thing - and then we can debate on a balanced footing.

Because at the moment, I and other posters are proving you wrong and ill informed with evidence and statements - and you're arguing the opposite based on no evidence or logic whatsoever.

1. That article does take into account both sides, it discusses what was said in the Tyson camp
2. Foreman hardly squeaked past Qawi and Cooper, both finished well within the distance
3. It's not a case of Foreman at that time having a chance of beating Tyson, it's the fact he was never given the chance to prove it either way because Tyson WAS scared of him

azania wrote:There is an element of mental strength. Only a small bit. Being knocked down is an involuntary action.

Your confusing getting knocked down with knocked out

oxring wrote:If Frazier was never hard to hit, then why did he make Ali miss for fun in the fight of the century (fight 1, in case you didn't know)?

Ali a damn site more accurate than Tyson.

And no - its not "if hit right you go"

Else we wouldn't discuss "soft" knockdowns would we? Cotto-Margarito - Cotto didn't go down because he had to. He went down to avoid some pressure and clear his head - (he took a knee btw, in case you didn't know). So know, its not as simple as that.

And if Tyson was so hard to hit, why did Douglas, the only time he was ever motivated and fit, land so much leather on him?

I did mention taking a knee in the post above. Getting Ko's is involuntary. Your legs disobey your brain. No amount of mental strength will get you up even if you wanted to.

Ali threw straight punches. He never went for the body or threw many hooks. Against a bobbing style like Frazier, hooks were needed.

Compare the tyson in the douglas to the tyson in the other fights where he was less than inspired (Smith Tucker). You will see that the Dougles version of Tyson was very static with hardly any upper body movement. It destroyed his effectiveness offensively and defensively.

Atom

I am not confusing the two. The KO punch is not often the harder punch either. It depends on the point of impact and the result of when your brain hits the inside of your skull. The response is always automatic, you either go down and get up (either scrambled or not so much) or you go down for a longer period hence a KO.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:If Frazier was never hard to hit, then why did he make Ali miss for fun in the fight of the century (fight 1, in case you didn't know)?

Ali a damn site more accurate than Tyson.

And no - its not "if hit right you go"

Else we wouldn't discuss "soft" knockdowns would we? Cotto-Margarito - Cotto didn't go down because he had to. He went down to avoid some pressure and clear his head - (he took a knee btw, in case you didn't know). So know, its not as simple as that.

And if Tyson was so hard to hit, why did Douglas, the only time he was ever motivated and fit, land so much leather on him?

Tyson' s head and upper body movement were never consistent, even when he was at his best. He had a habit of using it for a couple of rounds while he felt his opponent out and then abandoning it.

Check the Pinklon Thomas fight for proof.

I did mention taking a knee in the post above. Getting Ko's is involuntary. Your legs disobey your brain. No amount of mental strength will get you up even if you wanted to.

Ali threw straight punches. He never went for the body or threw many hooks. Against a bobbing style like Frazier, hooks were needed.

Compare the tyson in the douglas to the tyson in the other fights where he was less than inspired (Smith Tucker). You will see that the Dougles version of Tyson was very static with hardly any upper body movement. It destroyed his effectiveness offensively and defensively.

Tyson's head and body movement, even at his best, were often abandoned after the first couple of rounds of feeling his opponent out.

Check the Pinklon Thomas fight for proof.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Well said atom - and mental strength is one thing Tyson lacked.

You've seen the evidence in black and white az.

And faced with the overwhelming proof that Tyson didn't want to fight a 45, returning, fat old veteran - you choose to deny this ever happened.

Read a "coward and his due" by the way. Its why people like Atlas - who knew Tyson very well, never gave him a chance against Holyfield.

I've seen one side of the story. Regardless I find it inconceivable to even think that the Foreman who squeaked past Qawi and Cooper would have a chance against Tyson. As for Atlas, I have said here many times before that I take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Didn't he also pick Spinks to beat Tyson?

Moreover, having laced them up before I dont particularly like it when other boxers are referred to as cowards. Atlas should know better.

He dislikes Tyson (rightfully also) for tyson's dalliances with his sister. As for me I would have shot tyson at that point.

Read the damn article azania before commenting.

If you're not going to accept the knowledge say so. He makes a long point atthe beginning about "lacing up= not coward, coward in different ways etc etc".

Just read the bloody thing - and then we can debate on a balanced footing.

Because at the moment, I and other posters are proving you wrong and ill informed with evidence and statements - and you're arguing the opposite based on no evidence or logic whatsoever.

I scan read the article (I'm at work). It seemed one sided. I am still to hear Tyson's version.

But I maintain that the Foreman who fought and went to hell and back with cooper and qawi posed little to no threat to tyson.

The Mighty Atom wrote:1. That article does take into account both sides, it discusses what was said in the Tyson camp
2. Foreman hardly squeaked past Qawi and Cooper, both finished well within the distance
3. It's not a case of Foreman at that time having a chance of beating Tyson, it's the fact he was never given the chance to prove it either way because Tyson WAS scared of him

1) The article does not take both sides. It states what some CLAIM Tyson said.
2) He went life and death with Qawi who rocked him a few times. Cooper also.
3) Hearsay is never fact.

I see, you ignore anything that goes against your ingrained opinions

Why wouldn't Tyson fight him then?

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Well said atom - and mental strength is one thing Tyson lacked.

You've seen the evidence in black and white az.

And faced with the overwhelming proof that Tyson didn't want to fight a 45, returning, fat old veteran - you choose to deny this ever happened.

Read a "coward and his due" by the way. Its why people like Atlas - who knew Tyson very well, never gave him a chance against Holyfield.

I've seen one side of the story. Regardless I find it inconceivable to even think that the Foreman who squeaked past Qawi and Cooper would have a chance against Tyson. As for Atlas, I have said here many times before that I take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Didn't he also pick Spinks to beat Tyson?

Moreover, having laced them up before I dont particularly like it when other boxers are referred to as cowards. Atlas should know better.

He dislikes Tyson (rightfully also) for tyson's dalliances with his sister. As for me I would have shot tyson at that point.

Read the damn article azania before commenting.

If you're not going to accept the knowledge say so. He makes a long point atthe beginning about "lacing up= not coward, coward in different ways etc etc".

Just read the bloody thing - and then we can debate on a balanced footing.

Because at the moment, I and other posters are proving you wrong and ill informed with evidence and statements - and you're arguing the opposite based on no evidence or logic whatsoever.

I scan read the article (I'm at work). It seemed one sided. I am still to hear Tyson's version.

But I maintain that the Foreman who fought and went to hell and back with cooper and qawi posed little to no threat to tyson.

The truth often is one sided, az.

If he did it, he did it, and there won't BE another side. Again, these guys WERE IN THE ROOM WITH HIM WHEN IT HAPPENED.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:1. That article does take into account both sides, it discusses what was said in the Tyson camp
2. Foreman hardly squeaked past Qawi and Cooper, both finished well within the distance
3. It's not a case of Foreman at that time having a chance of beating Tyson, it's the fact he was never given the chance to prove it either way because Tyson WAS scared of him

1) The article does not take both sides. It states what some CLAIM Tyson said.
2) He went life and death with Qawi who rocked him a few times. Cooper also.
3) Hearsay is never fact.

1. It claims what those in Tysons camp said, this isn't even a point of debate, if it wasn't true why were they never revoked?
2. Not sure how you go life and death over 2 rounds
3. It's a fact that Tyson wanted no part of Foreman, dispute this all you want but it's the truth

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:1. That article does take into account both sides, it discusses what was said in the Tyson camp
2. Foreman hardly squeaked past Qawi and Cooper, both finished well within the distance
3. It's not a case of Foreman at that time having a chance of beating Tyson, it's the fact he was never given the chance to prove it either way because Tyson WAS scared of him

1) The article does not take both sides. It states what some CLAIM Tyson said.
2) He went life and death with Qawi who rocked him a few times. Cooper also.
3) Hearsay is never fact.

1. It claims what those in Tysons camp said, this isn't even a point of debate, if it wasn't true why were they never revoked?
2. Not sure how you go life and death over 2 rounds
3. It's a fact that Tyson wanted no part of Foreman, dispute this all you want but it's the truth

1) A claim is never a fact unless verified.
2) My mistake. Cooper was a blowout.
3) A claim is never a fact or a truth no matter how you emphasise it or how strongly you want to believe it. That my friend is a (legally verified) fact

So unless Tyson himself was to say he was scared the opinions of everyone else is irrelevant?

Best not to make stuff up without knowing the real facts

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Well said atom - and mental strength is one thing Tyson lacked.

You've seen the evidence in black and white az.

And faced with the overwhelming proof that Tyson didn't want to fight a 45, returning, fat old veteran - you choose to deny this ever happened.

Read a "coward and his due" by the way. Its why people like Atlas - who knew Tyson very well, never gave him a chance against Holyfield.

I've seen one side of the story. Regardless I find it inconceivable to even think that the Foreman who squeaked past Qawi and Cooper would have a chance against Tyson. As for Atlas, I have said here many times before that I take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Didn't he also pick Spinks to beat Tyson?

Moreover, having laced them up before I dont particularly like it when other boxers are referred to as cowards. Atlas should know better.

He dislikes Tyson (rightfully also) for tyson's dalliances with his sister. As for me I would have shot tyson at that point.

Read the damn article azania before commenting.

If you're not going to accept the knowledge say so. He makes a long point atthe beginning about "lacing up= not coward, coward in different ways etc etc".

Just read the bloody thing - and then we can debate on a balanced footing.

Because at the moment, I and other posters are proving you wrong and ill informed with evidence and statements - and you're arguing the opposite based on no evidence or logic whatsoever.

I scan read the article (I'm at work). It seemed one sided. I am still to hear Tyson's version.

But I maintain that the Foreman who fought and went to hell and back with cooper and qawi posed little to no threat to tyson.

The truth often is one sided, az.

If he did it, he did it, and there won't BE another side. Again, these guys WERE IN THE ROOM WITH HIM WHEN IT HAPPENED.

The truth can only be established when both parties have said their piece. So far all you have provided are claims that Tyson said this and that. Boxing people are well known for embelishing their truths. See Arum as a prime example. And who is to believe King and Benton. Would you buy a car from them?

Atom

So unless Tyson himself was to say he was scared the opinions of everyone else is irrelevant?

Best not to make stuff up without knowing the real facts

I would like to hear Tyson's version of events not an untrustworthy third party.

You do realise that third party wouldn't be able to make that stuff up without being met by a rather big lawsuit for defamation of character don't you?

The Mighty Atom wrote:You do realise that third party wouldn't be able to make that stuff up without being met by a rather big lawsuit for defamation of character don't you?

Not always.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Well said atom - and mental strength is one thing Tyson lacked.

You've seen the evidence in black and white az.

And faced with the overwhelming proof that Tyson didn't want to fight a 45, returning, fat old veteran - you choose to deny this ever happened.

Read a "coward and his due" by the way. Its why people like Atlas - who knew Tyson very well, never gave him a chance against Holyfield.

I've seen one side of the story. Regardless I find it inconceivable to even think that the Foreman who squeaked past Qawi and Cooper would have a chance against Tyson. As for Atlas, I have said here many times before that I take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Didn't he also pick Spinks to beat Tyson?

Moreover, having laced them up before I dont particularly like it when other boxers are referred to as cowards. Atlas should know better.

He dislikes Tyson (rightfully also) for tyson's dalliances with his sister. As for me I would have shot tyson at that point.

Read the damn article azania before commenting.

If you're not going to accept the knowledge say so. He makes a long point atthe beginning about "lacing up= not coward, coward in different ways etc etc".

Just read the bloody thing - and then we can debate on a balanced footing.

Because at the moment, I and other posters are proving you wrong and ill informed with evidence and statements - and you're arguing the opposite based on no evidence or logic whatsoever.

I scan read the article (I'm at work). It seemed one sided. I am still to hear Tyson's version.

But I maintain that the Foreman who fought and went to hell and back with cooper and qawi posed little to no threat to tyson.

The truth often is one sided, az.

If he did it, he did it, and there won't BE another side. Again, these guys WERE IN THE ROOM WITH HIM WHEN IT HAPPENED.

The truth can only be established when both parties have said their piece. So far all you have provided are claims that Tyson said this and that. Boxing people are well known for embelishing their truths. See Arum as a prime example. And who is to believe King and Benton. Would you buy a car from them?

Atom

So unless Tyson himself was to say he was scared the opinions of everyone else is irrelevant?

Best not to make stuff up without knowing the real facts

I would like to hear Tyson's version of events not an untrustworthy third party.

Then what is the worth of ANY opinions at a forum such as this ?

Do you have a FACT to prove that Tyson punched harder than fighter x ?

Have you ONCE PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT MILKSHAKES MAKE A FIGHTER BORN IN 1960 BETTER THAN A FIGHTER BORN IN 1959 ?

No, you haven't.

Untrustworthy third party!

These are some of the most respected boxing journalists in the world and they are untrustworthy?

The bottomline was laid down above - these facts are well known and well published (Holyfield cites similar in his book, he has NEVER been challenged on them). You seem incapable of accepting anything that goes against your preconceived notions.

It is double standards to refuse to admit the quotes of people who were there at the time.

And to then offer your own, made up, ridiculous excuse for Tyson-Foreman not happening: "Tyson didn't want to hurt old George".

We're talking about Don King here, if anybody said a false truth about Tyson you can be certain that he'd have something to say about it or would he suddenly have a change of heart on that one occassion?

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:You do realise that third party wouldn't be able to make that stuff up without being met by a rather big lawsuit for defamation of character don't you?

Not always.

Of course azania. Uncle Don King wasn't known for being litigious was he...

Azania, on this page alone you have written:
1) Being able to take a punch and not get knocked down only has a very small mental element
2) Frazier was never hard to hit
3) You know better than Ali the tactics he should have used in a particular fight

I disagree with all 3 comments along with the rest of the boxing community.

oxring wrote:Untrustworthy third party!

These are some of the most respected boxing journalists in the world and they are untrustworthy?

The bottomline was laid down above - these facts are well known and well published (Holyfield cites similar in his book, he has NEVER been challenged on them). You seem incapable of accepting anything that goes against your preconceived notions.

It is double standards to refuse to admit the quotes of people who were there at the time.

And to then offer your own, made up, ridiculous excuse for Tyson-Foreman not happening: "Tyson didn't want to hurt old George".

Journos reported what was said. I am not casting dowbt on them.

For me, its pretty obvious that when Tyson was up against it, he didn't show a plan b. I wouldn't call that cowardly but rather he didn't possess enough boxing intelligence. He continued doing the same thing with no effect. Didn't Einstein say that a sign of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results?

ChelskiFanski wrote:Azania, on this page alone you have written:
1) Being able to take a punch and not get knocked down only has a very small mental element
2) Frazier was never hard to hit
3) You know better than Ali the tactics he should have used in a particular fight

You are a f***ing special who clearly knows f**k all about boxing.

Thank you for your wonderful contribution.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:You do realise that third party wouldn't be able to make that stuff up without being met by a rather big lawsuit for defamation of character don't you?

Not always.

Of course azania. Uncle Don King wasn't known for being litigious was he...

I have no doubt those things were said. My doubt is their accuracy and the context they were said in. Would you buy a car off any of those guys?

About as useful as your contribution of Tyson never openly said it so it can't be true despite all evidence suggesting he did

The Mighty Atom wrote:We're talking about Don King here, if anybody said a false truth about Tyson you can be certain that he'd have something to say about it or would he suddenly have a change of heart on that one occassion?

Why would King sue on behalf of Tyson?

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:We're talking about Don King here, if anybody said a false truth about Tyson you can be certain that he'd have something to say about it or would he suddenly have a change of heart on that one occassion?

Why would King sue on behalf of Tyson?

He sued Douglas. Amongst others. So yes.

azania wrote:

ChelskiFanski wrote:Azania, on this page alone you have written:
1) Being able to take a punch and not get knocked down only has a very small mental element
2) Frazier was never hard to hit
3) You know better than Ali the tactics he should have used in a particular fight

You are a f***ing special who clearly knows f**k all about boxing.

Thank you for your wonderful contribution.

Care to explain how any of those comments make any sense whatsoever? I guess if you really felt like it you could argue 3). But 1) and 2) are pure rubbish.

I think I summed it up well in my first comment.

Answer this again. You must have missed it before.

It is double standards to refuse to admit the quotes of people who were there at the time.

And to then offer your own, made up, ridiculous excuse for Tyson-Foreman not happening: "Tyson didn't want to hurt old George".

Do you disagree, or are you still defending your rather indefensible position?

Tyson was Kings prized asset, any slight made about him could potentially impact on future earnings and the leech in King would just see an excuse to try and make some easy money. We can't downplay how much King was driven by money and money alone.

For all Tysons faults, he was an avid student of the sport and spent hours locked away watching tapes of past fighters. He was fascinated by other eras.

Naturally as a youngster under D'Amatos wing he came across a certain George Foreman. In him Tyson saw a monster and a legend. A man equally as used to seeing opponents collapse as Tyson was. It was Tyson who said to D'Amato early on as a teenager that Foreman would be a fighter that would scare him stiff if in the other corner. A man equally as ferocious and hard punching as Tyson ever dreamt. D'Amato confirmed what a nightmare prospect Foreman would be for someone of Tysons style. Never did Tyson imagine at this point that he might one day have to face him.

Years later the auro that Tyson held Foreman in had not worn off and the memories of those tapes watched in D'Amatos house had not faded. Tyson did not look at Foremans age when faced by him he merely saw the reflection of a fighter he dreaded to face and would not be intimidated by him and was terrified of the prospect.

Whether or not his fears were unfounded at that point is of course debateable, but there is no doubt that Foreman had put the frightners on Tyson just as he had many years before in D'Amatos study.

Colonial Lion wrote:Whether or not his fears were unfounded at that point is of course debateable, but there is no doubt that Foreman had put the frightners on Tyson just as he had many years before in D'Amatos study.

Agreed

oxring wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:Whether or not his fears were unfounded at that point is of course debateable, but there is no doubt that Foreman had put the frightners on Tyson just as he had many years before in D'Amatos study.

Agreed

Likewise.

The Mighty Atom wrote:About as useful as your contribution of Tyson never openly said it so it can't be true despite all evidence suggesting he did

Evidence provided by less than honest people. Yeah right. We are talking about 45 year old Foreman here. The man who had issues with Alex Stewart amongst others. Goodness me. If Qawi could give him problems, I seriously doubt if he Tyson was scared to lose to him. Quotes like that have to have context and maybe it was Tyson blowing off steam. He fought and beat far tougher fighters before and after foreman.

Foreman was 41 at the time and had yet to lose since his return to the sport, Tyson didn't see him as an old man he saw him as George Foreman, the man who had destroyed Frazier.

Taking into account all the evidence we have it points to Tyson being scared of Foreman, there is nothing to suggest the opposite.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:About as useful as your contribution of Tyson never openly said it so it can't be true despite all evidence suggesting he did

Evidence provided by less than honest people. Yeah right. We are talking about 45 year old Foreman here. The man who had issues with Alex Stewart amongst others. Goodness me. If Qawi could give him problems, I seriously doubt if he Tyson was scared to lose to him. Quotes like that have to have context and maybe it was Tyson blowing off steam. He fought and beat far tougher fighters before and after foreman.

The author of that article is one of the most widely respected fight journalists alive. What right do you have to question his integrity ? You probably never heard of him until today.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:We're talking about Don King here, if anybody said a false truth about Tyson you can be certain that he'd have something to say about it or would he suddenly have a change of heart on that one occassion?

Why would King sue on behalf of Tyson?

He sued Douglas. Amongst others. So yes.

Different context altogether.