Bobby Fischer-Garry Kasparov

Tyson being an 'intimidating slugger' seems to be a misconception held by a lot of people who have no idea about boxing. You're not the only one. I think it mainly stems from the fact that his footwork wasn't great. People assume that fighters who don't dance around have no skill. In fact, he knew he didn't have great footwork and, as compensation, worked extremely hard on his hand speed and accuracy. It's just adapting, like any great fighter does (rope a dope for example, or Frazier learning to fight with both hands)

Anyone who has bothered to actually follow his career and watch his fights prior to making that comment would know how wrong they were. His hand speed and accuracy were phenomenal.

There is no question as to who was the greatest fighter of the two. Definitely Ali...100%. His career can't be matched by Tyson's. He is also responsible for some of the greatest fights of all time. In boxing terms, he is a true legend (if not a bit of a sh*t person)

If we are talking about who would win a fight, both in their prime, then there's no question. Tyson was stronger, fitter and he hit harder. The only place he was lacking in comparison to Ali was his footwork.

Ali was beaten by Frazier. A smaller fighter who wasn't extremely skilled to begin with. He hit hard, and he had an unrivaled chin, but until he adapted his style for Ali, he pretty much only had one hand (however much of a bomb that was). Ali had problems with him when Frazier started using both hands.

Tyson, was stronger, faster and more accurate that Frazier and their footwork was comparable. He could also hit almost equally hard with both hands. All round Tyson was better than Frazier, yet Ali truly struggled with him.

As for Holyfield, you're right. He was past it by then. In fact, he was nearing 'past it' around the time King took over from Cayton (very early 90's). Not surprising. King is notorious for not really giving a damn about his fighters. He wants a spectacle, and doesn't really care how he gets it.

Douglas. Well, there's another story. Douglas fought wel, there's no doubt about it.

Though, tyson's corner men didn't even take anything to deal with cuts. This is how little they prepared for the fight. That's why you see them holding a towel over his cut. Idiots, the lot of them. This shows you how seriously they took Douglas.

Also, Douglas was knocked out in that fight. He was down for a 10 count, yet the referee counted extremely slowly, this can't be disputed. The count arbiter (person officially responsible for the count) was a full 2 seconds ahead of the referee.

With any half decent referee (or child who could count to 10) Tyson had won that fight. Definitely not impressively, but he still won.

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

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

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.

i aint seen him for ages, what's he up to ?

Isn't the point of wiki articles is that they're publically owned?

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.

this is simply untrue.

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....

if memory serves, Holmes did indeed fight Tyson. I think Tyson knocked him out in round 3. I remember the fight.

Holmes looked pretty good in the first 2 rounds, though.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1kUdzwqTRQ

In general, I am of the "latest is greatest" school when it comes to sports. of course, thngs can backslide too, when a sport loses popularity. Boxing's best days may well be behind it, since MMA seems a lot more popular now and probably is where all the best fighter athletes are ending up, my guess.

Same with chess. 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

:P. Over the top for sure. Apologies.

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