Tyson vs Holyfield I

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Lol at you saying Stockton had anything to do with the NBA ratings. It was all Jordan.

More exposure to the masses is what I meant. The league (until the last few years) was golden at that point. Lakers and Celts in the 80's followed by the Bulls, Rockets and the Spurs of the 90's. Is Chris Paul as well known to the public as John Stockton was at the height of his career?

Spurs did nothing in the 90's till 99. Paul hasn't achieved anything yet and his shirt would still be a higher seller than Stockton.

Anyway this topic is about Tyson-Holyfield.

Did the spurs usher in the next decade? Of course they did. Coulda Woulda shoulda. I asked who is more well known to the public?

Anyway you got fucking owned on both topics in the same thread, a thread that you started. You're very difficult to reason with even when the examples are laid out in front of you.

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Lol at you saying Stockton had anything to do with the NBA ratings. It was all Jordan.

More exposure to the masses is what I meant. The league (until the last few years) was golden at that point. Lakers and Celts in the 80's followed by the Bulls, Rockets and the Spurs of the 90's. Is Chris Paul as well known to the public as John Stockton was at the height of his career?

Spurs did nothing in the 90's till 99. Paul hasn't achieved anything yet and his shirt would still be a higher seller than Stockton.

Anyway this topic is about Tyson-Holyfield.

Did the spurs usher in the next decade? Of course they did. Coulda Woulda shoulda. I asked who is more well known to the public?

Anyway you got fucking owned on both topics in the same thread, a thread that you started. You're very difficult to reason with even when the examples are laid out in front of you.

Lol, just because you don't agree with my opinion doesn't mean I got owned. Your examples were stupid and just your opinion not actual facts.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Lol at you saying Stockton had anything to do with the NBA ratings. It was all Jordan.

More exposure to the masses is what I meant. The league (until the last few years) was golden at that point. Lakers and Celts in the 80's followed by the Bulls, Rockets and the Spurs of the 90's. Is Chris Paul as well known to the public as John Stockton was at the height of his career?

Spurs did nothing in the 90's till 99. Paul hasn't achieved anything yet and his shirt would still be a higher seller than Stockton.

Anyway this topic is about Tyson-Holyfield.

Did the spurs usher in the next decade? Of course they did. Coulda Woulda shoulda. I asked who is more well known to the public?

Anyway you got fucking owned on both topics in the same thread, a thread that you started. You're very difficult to reason with even when the examples are laid out in front of you.

Lol, just because you don't agree with my opinion doesn't mean I got owned. Your examples were stupid and just your opinion not actual facts.

My examples from living in this country during that time and being a rabid basketball fan at that time and witnessing a guy being left off of the Olympics with zero public outcry for a guy that was for what its worth a failure? Stockton never won shit was but was respected and liked, case closed. You're opinion is unsupported and based off of who would sell more jerseys. That logic was destroyed when I explained to you how merchandising in the NBA was at the time and how using jersey sales to define popularity is moot.

Your Tyson fight analysis was terrible as well, you made the point that Holyfield was dirty, so was Tyson and plenty of greats that have competed in the sport and sports in general. I posted a video of Tyson blatantly elbowing Bruno in the face and you responded with nothing.

Tyson was a larger than life character though. People didn't care what he did and he was still popular. Jersey sales has a lot to do with popularity.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Tyson was a larger than life character though. People didn't care what he did and he was still popular. Jersey sales has a lot to do with popularity.

Has not had. I agree today we can measure a players popularity by jersey sales. The same case cannot be made when measuring the popularity of a player from a previous generation other than Michael Jordan.

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Tyson was a larger than life character though. People didn't care what he did and he was still popular. Jersey sales has a lot to do with popularity.

Has not had. I agree today we can measure a players popularity by jersey sales. The same case cannot be made when measuring the popularity of a player from a previous generation other than Michael Jordan.

Why would it be different today? Don't worry about it. It's 4am in the morning and i'm to tired for this.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Tyson was a larger than life character though. People didn't care what he did and he was still popular. Jersey sales has a lot to do with popularity.

Has not had. I agree today we can measure a players popularity by jersey sales. The same case cannot be made when measuring the popularity of a player from a previous generation other than Michael Jordan.

Why would it be different today? Don't worry about it. It's 4am in the morning and i'm to tired for this.

Because they didn't sell Jersey's like they do today. NBA marketing is completely different than it use to be. Do you even know what you're arguing?

Your Tyson comment is correct but I don't understand where it fits anywhere in this discussion? What does Tyson's popularity have to do with Holyfield kicking his ass and John Stockton's popularity?

Again, I ask you, how old are you?

If you read my post I said Holyfield would've won anyway.

This fight illustrated the difference between a truly tough man and an image-made tough guy. These guys could fight 100 times on Mike's best night and Evander destroys him every time.

lol freak I had heard you did poorly in this thread but man.

I think its comical that people like to piss and whine about Holyfields headbutts

The bully got bullied big fucking deal

Tyson initiated some of the headbutts by moving into Holyfield, its jsut a great excuse Mike and the film "Tyson" has tried to claim as the reason Mike lost

want the real reason? watch the 1st round again, Mike tags Holyfield, Holyfield pushes Mike backwards and nails him.

Fights over from that moment on, Tyson wasnt used to getting outmuscled especially by a small guy like Holyfield, he was weak mentally and always has been. Mike needs an excuse for why an old guy that everyone thought was shot kicked the shit out of him

Fight was perfectly stopped, Mike didnt kow what the fuck was happening when it was stopped

Birdofthad wrote:

I think its comical that people like to piss and whine about Holyfields headbutts

The bully got bullied big fucking deal

Tyson initiated some of the headbutts by moving into Holyfield, its jsut a great excuse Mike and the film "Tyson" has tried to claim as the reason Mike lost

want the real reason? watch the 1st round again, Mike tags Holyfield, Holyfield pushes Mike backwards and nails him.

Fights over from that moment on, Tyson wasnt used to getting outmuscled especially by a small guy like Holyfield, he was weak mentally and always has been. Mike needs an excuse for why an old guy that everyone thought was shot kicked the shit out of him

Fight was perfectly stopped, Mike didnt kow what the fuck was happening when it was stopped

In my earlier post I said Holyfield would've won anyway and that he didn't need the headbutts.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

lol freak I had heard you did poorly in this thread but man.

Wow, Wolf going against me. Wow that's a surprise.

I never had any beef with you. You got all mad because of my sig. This beef is all you bud.

You only put it up because I don't believe in life outside earth so don't bullshit everyone and say I started it.

damn even after all these years,some people still try to justify holyfield having tyson's number.besides boxing skills when they met,the most pertinent thing to me was behaviour in the ring before their first fight.tyson walking round like a caged beast,trying to intimidate.holyfield,smiling,singing.perfect example of 2 polar opposites.one who had only 1 plan,to scare,bully his opponent(taken shortcuts).the other who was at peace,calm because he knew he was prepared totally.
bottom line imo,they fight holyfield wins 9/10

shakefree wrote:

damn even after all these years,some people still try to justify holyfield having tyson's number.besides boxing skills when they met,the most pertinent thing to me was behaviour in the ring before their first fight.tyson walking round like a caged beast,trying to intimidate.holyfield,smiling,singing.perfect example of 2 polar opposites.one who had only 1 plan,to scare,bully his opponent(taken shortcuts).the other who was at peace,calm because he knew he was prepared totally.
bottom line imo,they fight holyfield wins 9/10

I agreed with that. That's why I said he didn't need to fight dirty.

ok but ear biting wasn't dirty?headbutts are only perceived by outsiders as dirty,but earbiting,there's no argument.it was the last act of a bully who knew he had met his mental match.

Tyson wouldn't have bite him if Holyfield didn't Headbutt him.

yeah,yeah,ok.now they have a referee to judge on things like this,but no matter,a fighter properly prepared would fight through a headbutt(eg gatti),but one who has had his bluff called has no plan b.all he has left is like his preperation...the easy way out.if tyson was real(at that stage of his career),he would of done his best to beat holyfield even more,but,he took the easy way out...DQ.which if you look at his career,is how he reacted to adversity,the easy way.adversity is what defines a warrior,which is what holyfield was.my opinion remains,as fighters,they werte polar opposites.

He was getting hurt by the headbutts and the ref was doing nothing.

ok,we agree to disagree,but my last word on it...true warriors find away out,they don't find excuses.chat later

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

What are your thoughts on this fight? Should it have been stopped when it did? Did Holyfield plan those headbutts? What did you think about the whole fight?

I worked with Ken and Holyfield in the past and I can offer some insight. The headbutts were NOT "planned" as far as being part of the fight plan. They were not intentional, in that Evander never moved his head forward into Mike to initiate contact. What Evander did, was actually suggested by Eddie Futch in passing when he was talking about how he would have told Joe Frazier to fight Tyson. Take away Mikes forward movement and momentum (which he always said was the most vital part of Tyson's game-plan) and Futch thought Tyson was an extremely ordinary fighter. The suggestion? Dont pull back from those leaping hooks of Tyson's (which most fighters did) and dont duck under them and into Tyson's uppercut (which many fighters did) instead, step INSIDE the arc of the punch, out of harms way, and give Tyson the choice of ramming his own head into the top of your skull, or take a step backwards. That was it. That was what Holyfield did to perfection against Tyson. Its why Evander never got a point taken or a warning. He was not breaking the rules. He was not fighting "dirty". He was just avoiding a punch. Tyson was the one who slammed his own face DOWN onto Holfyields head most of the time.
The other thing about the fight was that Tyson landed his Sunday punch in the first 19 seconds and rocked Evander. Evander in training had noticed that Tyson would always "dip" his shoulder when he was launching the left hook and was keying off it. Tyson shocked him by "dipping" and then throwing a RIGHT hand. Holyfield ducked right into it and has admitted he was hurt by it. Evander went to the ropes and Tyson followed him throwing. Evander weathered the initial barrage and then NAILED Tyson with a left hook and a solid body punch that hurt Tyson and basically won him the fight right there. From that point on, Tyson was the hunted and not the hunter. He was mentally fragile his whole career and at that moment, Holyfield got in his head and built on it the rest of the fight until the stoppage.

I can also tell you that as teenagers, Tyson and Holyfield sparred in Denver during the amateur championships. That session got extremely heated and Atlas terminated it because the guys were going at each other so hard. To this DAY, Evander said he knew that very day that he would one-day KO Mike Tyson for the heavyweight championship and started working towards it. Tyson said in an interview segment with Oprah that was heavily edited, that his whole career as champion he always felt that Holyfield was the "monster" that he would have to defeat to ever truly feel like he was champion. He was alwys afraid of Evander a bit.

One other side-note that I think is interesting. I sat next to Bobby Czyz years before the Tyson vs Holyfield fight at Naseem Hamed vs Augie Sanchez. Bobby leaned over and said to me "If I had to fight that wild little dude (meaning Hamed) I would step to him as he punches and let him ram his head onto the top of my skull. I bet that would stop that lunging shit!"
For you that dont know, Czyz was never the most athletically gifted or talented fighter, but he was VERY crafty in the ring and had some serious skills. He knew ALL the little tricks that make the difference between being a top contender and a champion. Watch his fights when he was at 190 pounds. He put on boxing clinics without a lot of bouncing or moving around. Just great positioning and timing.

awesome stories BLawyer, you said basically what i said with Tyson landing his sunday punch first round and thats the fight your also right about Mike lunging into Holyfield initiatin most of the butts

i think its a joke that people can watch Holyfield beat Mikes ass for what 14 rounds and they think a headbutt is what won the fight? what a joke