Hmm, maybe Olympic boxing is scored that way? (I don't know)
In what I think of as regular boxing you can hit the other guy much less, but win with a knockout.
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
Sort:
Sometimes its who hits the hardest , not the most . Marciano is a prime example .
Also through the fight, before the knockout, harder hits are going to fatigue or disorient the opponent vs if he's just tapping you a lot.
Whose going to win, Manny Pacquiao or Floyd Mayweather?
hayabusahayate16 wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
leiph18 wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
leiph18 wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
Tysons strategy was based on intimidation.
I don't know much about boxing, but it sounds like you don't either...
What is there to know? Its boxing, not rocket science. You hit each other, and whomever hits more wins.
Wow, not only have I never boxed, I've never watched an entire boxing match.
But if your posts are anything to go off of, I definitely know more about boxing than you.
And even if I didn't know anything about it, any human endeavor, no matter how trivial on the surface, takes immense talent and work to be the best human at it. I would expect an adult to know this. Your comments come off as intentionally petty.
Its not petty at all. Im just breaking boxing down into its simplest form. Yes it requires what you stated, but in the end, its who hits who the most.
And it really depends on the judges. It depends on their definition of a landed punch. Some think that if you hit your opponent past his block that is a landed punch while some think that it has to also connect solidly. Also some judges will score a round a win for the boxer who hit slightly less but used much less swings. Scoring in boxing is the least concrete method used in any sport.
Actually that is very true, and something i forgot to mention. And no problem with the grammar correction.
Tyson was done as a fighter long before he fought Holyfield the first time. He was a very skilled fighter whose prime ended up being relatively short for reasons outside of boxing.
Anyone who says his wins were based solely on intimidation doesn't follow boxing at all. Yes, some fighters were intimidated by him. That's not the reason he won though.
Reb wrote:
Ali would have beaten Tyson like a rented mule ... Tyson was just a souped up street thug/brawler , Holyfield showed everyone that Tyson had no real skills .
Ali did not seem to think so himself, here's a link with both of them on the same TV show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8sE36tLscQ
I do agree with you however Reb, that the Tyson who fought Holyfield did not seem like the same guy as the Tyson from his very early years.
Here's some of those early knockouts which made his opponents fear him so much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z9mbQk58B0
Greatest fighter of all time, Lenox Lewis.
Not with his ears in Mike Tyson's mouth.
Tyson didn't win any fights by intimidation. He had tremendous skills.
The idiotic manure that people post is beyond appalling.
What great champion did Tyson ever defeat while they were in their prime ?
Reb wrote:
What great champion did Tyson ever defeat while they were in their prime ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson
Tysons cavalcade of greatness. I never really thought about how bad his opponents were.
Reb wrote:
What great champion did Tyson ever defeat while they were in their prime ?
That's a ridiculous question. Tyson's opponents had the greatest combined win loss record of any boxer ever. That's a fact. You can go find it. The people Tyson demolished were not considered great only because he demolished them. Another thing some people don't like to admit, boxing advanced and was a better sport in the 80s and 90s.
We as chess players tend to think that Fischer had strong opposition, which he dominated, because he played in a competitive era where the world chess championship throne was like musical chairs. In a short span, Tal, Botvinnik, Petrosian, and Spassky were all champion. Kasparov had much stronger competition but people point to how many world chess champions that Fischer dominated. Kasparov's contemporaries were not world chess champions simply because of Kasparov. Karpov, Kramnik, and Anand were all far greater players than Fischer ever competed with.
It's the same with Jordan. Jordan actually faced the best competition in NBA history. There was no Lakers/Celtics type of rivalry because That Bulls team was that much more dominant. Some of the teams that he vanquished were better than most past NBA champions. Some of the players from that era that retired with no rings were actually far better than past players that did.
I asked a simple question and you cant give me one name ? Tyson did not defeat a single great fighter in their prime . Holyfield dominated Tyson so bad that Tyson bit him like the common street thug he is ! LOL
I_Am_Second wrote:
Reb wrote:
What great champion did Tyson ever defeat while they were in their prime ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson
Tysons cavalcade of greatness. I never really thought about how bad his opponents were.
None of his fans do .
Justs99171 wrote:
Reb wrote:
What great champion did Tyson ever defeat while they were in their prime ?
That's a ridiculous question. Tyson's opponents had the greatest combined win loss record of any boxer ever. That's a fact. You can go find it. The people Tyson demolished were not considered great only because he demolished them. Another thing some people don't like to admit, boxing advanced and was a better sport in the 80s and 90s.
We as chess players tend to think that Fischer had strong opposition, which he dominated, because he played in a competitive era where the world chess championship throne was like musical chairs. In a short span, Tal, Botvinnik, Petrosian, and Spassky were all champion. Kasparov had much stronger competition but people point to how many world chess champions that Fischer dominated. Kasparov's contemporaries were not world chess champions simply because of Kasparov. Karpov, Kramnik, and Anand were all far greater players than Fischer ever competed with.
It's the same with Jordan. Jordan actually faced the best competition in NBA history. There was no Lakers/Celtics type of rivalry because That Bulls team was that much more dominant. Some of the teams that he vanquished were better than most past NBA champions. Some of the players from that era that retired with no rings were actually far better than past players that did.
I think youre mistaking what some are saying about Tyson. I enjoyed his fights, but he got by on intimidation, and knockouts.
A 1998 ranking of "The Greatest Heavyweights of All-Time" by Ring magazine placed Tyson at No.14 on the list. Despite criticism of facing underwhelming competition during his unbeaten run as champion, Tyson's knockout power and intimidation factor made him the sport's most dynamic box office attraction.
In Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years, released in 2002, Tyson was ranked at No. 72. He is ranked No. 16 on Ring Magazine's 2003 list of 100 greatest punchers of all time.
Reb wrote:
What great champion did Tyson ever defeat while they were in their prime ?
Frank Bruno.
I_Am_Second wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
Reb wrote:
What great champion did Tyson ever defeat while they were in their prime ?
That's a ridiculous question. Tyson's opponents had the greatest combined win loss record of any boxer ever. That's a fact. You can go find it. The people Tyson demolished were not considered great only because he demolished them. Another thing some people don't like to admit, boxing advanced and was a better sport in the 80s and 90s.
We as chess players tend to think that Fischer had strong opposition, which he dominated, because he played in a competitive era where the world chess championship throne was like musical chairs. In a short span, Tal, Botvinnik, Petrosian, and Spassky were all champion. Kasparov had much stronger competition but people point to how many world chess champions that Fischer dominated. Kasparov's contemporaries were not world chess champions simply because of Kasparov. Karpov, Kramnik, and Anand were all far greater players than Fischer ever competed with.
It's the same with Jordan. Jordan actually faced the best competition in NBA history. There was no Lakers/Celtics type of rivalry because That Bulls team was that much more dominant. Some of the teams that he vanquished were better than most past NBA champions. Some of the players from that era that retired with no rings were actually far better than past players that did.
I think youre mistaking what some are saying about Tyson. I enjoyed his fights, but he got by on intimidation, and knockouts.
A 1998 ranking of "The Greatest Heavyweights of All-Time" by Ring magazine placed Tyson at No.14 on the list. Despite criticism of facing underwhelming competition during his unbeaten run as champion, Tyson's knockout power and intimidation factor made him the sport's most dynamic box office attraction.
In Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years, released in 2002, Tyson was ranked at No. 72. He is ranked No. 16 on Ring Magazine's 2003 list of 100 greatest punchers of all time.
Need more be said ? Not even in the top 10 of the best heavyweights . I rest my case .
Reb wrote:
lol "I rest my case"... do you decide what the greatest albums of all time must be by consulting rolling stone magazine too?
I_Am_Second wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
Reb wrote:
What great champion did Tyson ever defeat while they were in their prime ?
That's a ridiculous question. Tyson's opponents had the greatest combined win loss record of any boxer ever. That's a fact. You can go find it. The people Tyson demolished were not considered great only because he demolished them. Another thing some people don't like to admit, boxing advanced and was a better sport in the 80s and 90s.
We as chess players tend to think that Fischer had strong opposition, which he dominated, because he played in a competitive era where the world chess championship throne was like musical chairs. In a short span, Tal, Botvinnik, Petrosian, and Spassky were all champion. Kasparov had much stronger competition but people point to how many world chess champions that Fischer dominated. Kasparov's contemporaries were not world chess champions simply because of Kasparov. Karpov, Kramnik, and Anand were all far greater players than Fischer ever competed with.
It's the same with Jordan. Jordan actually faced the best competition in NBA history. There was no Lakers/Celtics type of rivalry because That Bulls team was that much more dominant. Some of the teams that he vanquished were better than most past NBA champions. Some of the players from that era that retired with no rings were actually far better than past players that did.
I think youre mistaking what some are saying about Tyson. I enjoyed his fights, but he got by on intimidation, and knockouts.
A 1998 ranking of "The Greatest Heavyweights of All-Time" by Ring magazine placed Tyson at No.14 on the list. Despite criticism of facing underwhelming competition during his unbeaten run as champion, Tyson's knockout power and intimidation factor made him the sport's most dynamic box office attraction.
In Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years, released in 2002, Tyson was ranked at No. 72. He is ranked No. 16 on Ring Magazine's 2003 list of 100 greatest punchers of all time.
Need more be said ? Not even in the top 10 of the best heavyweights . I rest my case .
Tysons strategy was based on intimidation.
I don't know much about boxing, but it sounds like you don't either...
What is there to know? Its boxing, not rocket science. You hit each other, and whomever hits more wins.
Wow, not only have I never boxed, I've never watched an entire boxing match.
But if your posts are anything to go off of, I definitely know more about boxing than you.
And even if I didn't know anything about it, any human endeavor, no matter how trivial on the surface, takes immense talent and work to be the best human at it. I would expect an adult to know this. Your comments come off as intentionally petty.
Its not petty at all. Im just breaking boxing down into its simplest form. Yes it requires what you stated, but in the end, its who hits who the most.