Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Bobby Fischer-Garry Kasparov


  • 22 months ago · #241

    FIM-Markus_of_Israel

    congradulations to ganghiskhant, for writing the longest post on here. lol, you sure can type man

  • 22 months ago · #242

    GenghisCant

    mvtjc wrote:
    Genghiskhant wrote:
    mvtjc wrote:
    Genghiskhant wrote:

    Keeping in mind, we are talking about Tyson in his prime. Not on the slippery slope after King took over where started to not bother training and try to rely on a big hit knockout.

    LOL, we are talking about Kasparov vs Fischer actually, all this nonsense are here. Please start another thread.

    The topic has been on evolution in sport for pages now. It's even been compared in Basketball terms.

    Evolution in sport is entirely relevant to this thread. If you don't like it, don't read it.

    Are you stupid? You made it this way, how the heck did it become about a boxer's footwork? Not sure if troll or just stupid.

    Have a look at the quotes in my post. It was as a result of someone comparing Basketball players....Someone prior to that was comparing body builders.

    Evolution in sport is completely relevant in the discussion of who would win out of Kasparov and Fischer.

  • 22 months ago · #243

    GenghisCant

    Markus-Israel wrote:

    congradulations to ganghiskhant, for writing the longest post on here. lol, you sure can type man

    :P. Over the top for sure. Apologies.

    I didn't really notice until I had posted it.

  • 22 months ago · #244

    makikihustle

    mvtjc wrote:

    I still think fischer is overrated.

    The reason he is admired so much by his fans is because he dominated his era. He was so formiddable that it became a badge of honor for those who managed to win a game against him.

  • 22 months ago · #245

    TetsuoShima

    makikihustle wrote:
    mvtjc wrote:

    I still think fischer is overrated.

    The reason he is admired so much by his fans is because he dominated his era. He was so formiddable that it became a badge of honor for those who managed to win a game against him.

    also because of his creativity!!! And by accident many games were visually very appealing.

    Also i like him for a very crazy reason. You know when you beat a computer game often and can beat it easily and you play it again, then you really dont try hard to beat it.. you go weird path be funny because you have the game under control.

    Thats why i like Fischer, sometimes its like the played the player. Its like he knew so much more he had so deep ideas sometimes, its not like chess u usually see. ITs different chess,its like when a master plays with his student. HE has the game under control. I know maybe facts dont prove it, but thats how i see Fischer. It impresses me, he played his opponents like master playing me. Yes it seems like i play normal players but you see they have the game under control, its so amazing, they teach you this and that. they play with you sometimes they even creat amazing positions for you with you thinking youself did it.

     

    sometimes its seems like top level chess is only a game to him unlike other people who seem to strictly play for the outcome. I know Fischer played for the outcome and is actually totally the opposite but thats not how i see his chess. Its like he was totally above all players, i know facts dont prove it but to me he was like a chess god the strongest player who ever lived. He was a true magician to me.

  • 22 months ago · #246

    makikihustle

    Also a fun fact was that in Fischer's retirement, he played 17 blitz games against his friend, a 2450-rated GM, Peter Biyiasas.

    Biyasas lost every game, never surviving to an endgame once.

    Ouch! :D

  • 22 months ago · #247

    supersharp77

    Fischer vs Kasparov.......A subject I have thought on a bit over the years....lets look at it like this......A) Openings Kasparov has more openings played= goood for tournaments but not good for match play...but tough for oponent to prepare for....slight edge to Kasparov...B) Middlegame play....Fischer was very creative and so is Kasparov...slight edge to Fischer....C) endgame play edge to Robert Fischer...(close).  D) Overall preparation......edge to Kasparov (More trainers coaches Russian team etc......E) Intangiable factors..state of mind etc.....Edge to Kasparov......overall you have to give a slight edge to Kasparov......but the match would have been very very very close....

    http://www.truechess.com/web/champs.html   Fischer statistically still on top!!

  • 22 months ago · #248

    FIM-Markus_of_Israel

    lol, its cool genghiskant! but i didnt read that post, i didnt have time. lol ;)

  • 22 months ago · #249

    nameno1had

    Genghiskhant wrote:

    Firstly, I was a decent amateur boxer as a teenager, as was my brother. It is party the reason I am such a big fan. It's good to make assumptions about people you don't know though right.

     

    Secondly, Holmes and Tyson did fight and Tyson won easily. Though he stated afterwards that that wasn't Holmes in his prime and that the fight wasn't anything to be proud of.

     

    If you are going to take part in a discussion about Tyson, while trying to prove your boxing knowledge, you might want to actually watch some of his fights or know something about his career.

    I find it interesting that Holmes had to wait 3 years to fight Tyson. Tyson was 15-0 at the end of 1985, the year Holmes retired. Don King promoted both fighters and could have easily put it together. I am sure Mike would have jumped at the chance and Larry wouldn't have been frightened, it would have been a big payday for him against an exciting and dangerous young fighter. It would have been a chance to really put Tyson on a pedestal should he win and generate bigger money faster, should either fighter have won. The only reason is that it didn't happen, Don King was smart enough to know that Larry, at the top of his game beats Mike. The sorry attempts of Holmes to stick and move, trying to dance around Tyson in their fight was pathetic.  Three years removed from the ring, he was a shell of his former self.

    I will further legitamize Ali, Foreman and Frazier by submitting a 41 year old overweight George Foreman went 10 rounds with Holyfield, standing all of the possible rounds for the fight, something a much younger Tyson failed to do twice.Tyson also lost to Michael Moorer by decision, a man fat old George knocked out for another championship.

    As far as you claiming to be an ametuer boxer, I will only reiterate what I said before, you obviously are no boxer. There is a big difference between trying to be a boxer, actually being one and thinking you understand boxing and having the ability to analyze fighters and styles.

  • 22 months ago · #250

    nameno1had

    TetsuoShima wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:

    Genghiskhant wrote:

    So where are the nonsense statements about Tyson being a slugger coming from then?

     

    Being you are obviously on nonboxer, you don't have the first clue about boxing fundamentals or styles. Mike Tyson almost never used a jab. That is fundamentally in correct. He fought a bunch of scared chumps. He wouldn't have beaten Riddick Bowe and Evander Holy field even in his prime. The reason, the superior boxers, with power and good chins. Tyson himself didn't have a good chin...Larry Holmes wanted to fight him and wish they would have set it up, but Don King knew Tyson would be exposed by an old man, who was a damn good boxer, who beat the hell out of an old Ali....

    i still think Holyfield is probably the greatest boxer in history. Really what a fighter, not only his body and skill but also his mind. Usually you would assume Korchnoi is awesome, but i mean Holyfield wow. Really someone to admire even though im not so into boxing.

    But i dont know Tyson in his prime, man he was like a bull, i mean you know man Tyson that was power. Shame he had no self respect, so much wasted energy, what could he have become. Yes i knos he was Champion and that is a great achievment but he could have gotten so much more.

    I honestly believe Tyson would have really beaten Holmes, Holyfield i dont know. My memory is really bad i actually thought he has beaten Holmes, but i probably have mistaken him for someone else.

    Comparing him to Ali as fighters is a close comparison, but I would say Ali was a better boxer. TO make it more clear what I am say, the gap between how good each of them are as a fighter is narrower and the gap of how good each is as a boxer.

  • 22 months ago · #251

    nameno1had

    ilikeflags wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:

    I used to box...I understand it well actually....

    this is simply untrue.

    Wanna go a round ? I would enjoy giving you a two piece...

  • 22 months ago · #252

    nameno1had

    Genghiskhant wrote:

    Firstly, I was a decent amateur boxer as a teenager, as was my brother. It is party the reason I am such a big fan. It's good to make assumptions about people you don't know though right.

     

    Secondly, Holmes and Tyson did fight and Tyson won easily. Though he stated afterwards that that wasn't Holmes in his prime and that the fight wasn't anything to be proud of.

     

    If you are going to take part in a discussion about Tyson, while trying to prove your boxing knowledge, you might want to actually watch some of his fights or know something about his career.

    I think it is fair to say I have forgotten more about boxing than you learned...I can't remember what I did yesterday half the time, let alone what I saw in 1983...I used to watch fights growing up with my grandpa...He didn't miss a heavyweight championship fight.

  • 22 months ago · #253

    GenghisCant

    nameno1had wrote:
    Genghiskhant wrote:

    Firstly, I was a decent amateur boxer as a teenager, as was my brother. It is party the reason I am such a big fan. It's good to make assumptions about people you don't know though right.

     

    Secondly, Holmes and Tyson did fight and Tyson won easily. Though he stated afterwards that that wasn't Holmes in his prime and that the fight wasn't anything to be proud of.

     

    If you are going to take part in a discussion about Tyson, while trying to prove your boxing knowledge, you might want to actually watch some of his fights or know something about his career.

    I think it is fair to say I have forgotten more about boxing than you learned...I can't remember what I did yesterday half the time, let alone what I saw in 1983...I used to watch fights growing up with my grandpa...He didn't miss a heavyweight championship fight.

    Funny, I'd maintain that you know nothing about boxing. The only difference is, you proved it for me.

    Tyson and Holmes are two of the biggest names in the history of the sport, and you tried to use it as an example to prove your point about Tyson not being a good fighter.

    What were your words...something like,'Don King knew Tyson would have been shown up by an old man' (or something to that effect).

    1. You didn't know that they even fought (unbelievable for someone who claims to be a boxing fan)

    2. You got the result entirely wrong as well. Tyson destroyed him. It wasn't simply a win. He knocked him down so often in such a short space of time that people were actually worried about Holmes and asking for the fight to be stopped.

    Keep in mind, this was part of your argument for proving just how much you know. Going on this, the answer is nothing.

    Hilarious that, after proving you know nothing about Tyson, or the heavyweight division, your response is, 'I've forgotten more about boxing than you learned'...lol. Yeah ok.

    Also funny that you obviously had to run off and google it, before trying to formulate a reply, so you could sound like an authority once again. How could someone who didn't even know they fought now know that he had to wait 3 years for the fight....you didn't even know the fight happenened.

    Nothing like using google to make someone seem like they know what their talking about huh.

  • 22 months ago · #254

    Sunofthemorninglight

    nameno could know "less than zero" about a subject, yet write more than the Encyclopaedia Britannica about it, using the words, "I, me, my, mine".

  • 22 months ago · #255

    makikihustle

    Tyson was a powerhouse hitter. Great bob-and-weave, too. His uppercuts and crosses were crushing.

    His fighting style reminded me a LOT of Joe Frazier. Compact stances, lots of vertical movement and both aggressors. They even had a similar down-and-up style of delivering their punches through, from their legs, as if they were jumping into the delivery.

     

    Ali used his quickness and his psychological taunting to wear down his opponents. He threw his punches from his chest and shoulders, often back-stepping during the delivery, to maximize the effect of his reach. He was elusive, and was always sticking combinations. His punches weren't as hard as Tysons, but his delivery was continuous. Opponents tended to get wobbly and disoriented after absorbing too many straight jabs and then a right cross would come out of nowhere, while Ali was skipping backward, and suddenly they'd find themselves pressing face-first against the mat.

     

    Like Frazier did, Tyson would have caught Ali square on the jaw and knocked him down. But, just like with Frazier, Ali would have gotten back up. He had a strong jaw, despite what the naysayers believe. Foreman was strong enough to lift other boxers off their feet with his punches--a power that rivals, or, in my opinion, outclassed, Tyson's strength. Tyson, as as hard as he hit (which was massively hard), did not hit as hard as Foreman did, in my opinion. Ali absorbed everything Foreman had to give, and gave it right back to him in stinging combos that flew out as if they were being delivered by a flyweight.

    Tyson excelled in shorter fights, where he could overwhelm his opponents with the weight of his punches and the flurry of his aggression.

    Ali excelled in longer fights, where he could grind down his opponents with his stick-and-move dancing and his random bursts of combinations.

     

    My guess between the two: Ali would take the early rounds, even knocking Ali down. But Ali would stay the distance and continue to pepper Tyson throughout the rounds, using his superior reach to connect with jabs, and the clinch whenever Tyson got in too close.

    Ali would win the decision, but he would later acknowledge that Tyson was a "hell of a hitter."

     

    Oh, and supersharp, I agree with all your comparisons, except for the one about Overall Preparation.

    Fischer was the obsessed with prep. It was all he did. He'd out-prep Kasparov's team of lower-rated seconds by a landslide, simply because that's what Fischer did. He obsessed over his preparation to an insane degree.

    Kasparov's team would be prepping 8 hours a day, maybe? Well guess what: Fischer would be prepping 18 hours a day.

    That's what he did.. it's ALL he did. GM Nick DeFirmian agreed, saying that Fischer would have beaten Kasparov because Fischer was that kind of a person--he would study and train to beat any challenger, because most humans weren't insane enough to devote as much time to studying as he was.

  • 22 months ago · #256

    TetsuoShima

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 22 months ago · #257

    PIRATCH

    nameno1had wrote:

    pfren wrote:

    nameno is just a clueless Fischer fan.

    You could follow a clueless Kasparov fan as well- plenty of them.

    Or, alternatively, you can ignore their comments. Sounds right, doesn't it?

     

     

    Out of respect for you or the idea of top GM's, present or past who have played one or both of them, who have analyzed or could analyze things like both of them playing the Sicilian Najdorf, it stands to reason Kasparov picked up where Fischer left off, therefore, I won't demand anyone take me for a spin in their time machine. It stands to reason Fischer was bright enough to see where it's at and had he tried would have easily discovered the lines Kasparov dominated everyone with.

    Not quiet right! I guess Kasparov was not as good in the Sicilian Najdorf as everyone thinks. I read the book of John Nunn about the Sicilian Najdorf and I'm sure John Nunn knows at least as much as Kasparov about this defence! Wink

    Fischer on the other hand was trapped in his first game of the candidates final (against Petrosian). He managed to fight out of a lost position (with the friendly help of Petrosian) and finally won this game (in the ending)!

    I remember a King's Indian game (Jussupow - Kasparov, Barcelona - world cup 1989 1-0) where Kasparov missed a brilliant win (time trouble?)! Surprised

    To say "Fischer was overrated" is rather ridiculous! He was the strongest player in the 1970ies. Karpov didn't reach Fischer's peak! Laughing

    There is also one thing to mention: time trouble (zeitnot)!
    Fischer never had this in his career! Time trouble often spoil games!


Back to Top
This forum topic has been locked.