|
|
#42
06-12-2005, 05:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Best Heavyweight Fighter
[ QUOTE ]
D'Amato encouraged Tyson's personality excesses, according to a great article in the New Yorker a number of years ago. Tyson had plenty of problems very early on, and it wasn't only Don King that brought him along as a boxer first and as a human being as a distant second. D'Amato wasn't as bad as King, but that's not saying much. He was definitely no hero [/ QUOTE ] There is no question Tyson was extremely more disciplined of a fighter under Cus than at any other time in his career. Watch the fights themselves for proof of that. I'm not saying Cus didn't use Tyson for his own gain. Don King ruined Tysons style by trying to change him and make him a more 'rounded' fighter. Which was a serious error. b 
|
|
#43
06-12-2005, 05:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Best Heavyweight Fighter
I understand what you mean. People said the same thing about De la Hoya, who also started changing his style and his trainers to become more well-rounded and started having more trouble because of it -- which led him to try even more changes, etc.
|
|
#44
06-12-2005, 05:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: simple answer...
Purely hypothetical, obviously. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
However, watch some film. Foremans punching style compared to Tysons. The torque on the shots. The angle the shots come in from. Tyson had so much torque he left his feet while unwinding into someone on an uppercut. (I remember an analysis where they slo-mo'ed him uncoiling on a guy from a crouch. It was something to see) But granted, I'd say they are close. Neither are really much beyond the other. b
|
|
#46
06-12-2005, 05:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Best Heavyweight Fighter
[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you mean. People said the same thing about De la Hoya, who also started changing his style and his trainers to become more well-rounded and started having more trouble because of it -- which led him to try even more changes, etc. [/ QUOTE ] Del la hoyas problem was he kept moving up in weight class. He could've dominated indefinitely had he not moved up so far. Same could be said for Roy Jones Jr. He could rule the middle-light heavy for a long while. He had some other issues though. Like not going full out on every fight. Which is a recipe for a fighter to get hurt. b
|
|
#47
06-12-2005, 05:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: simple answer...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Tyson had so much torque he left his feet while unwinding into someone on an uppercut. [/ QUOTE ] Thats cuz hes 3 feet tall [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Which is why he should've never attempted to incorporate a jab into his arsenal. b
|
|
#48
06-12-2005, 05:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: simple answer...
And because his arms are so damn short and his trunk is so wide. The power transfer from his core out to his fists doesn't have a lot of time to get lost or go wrong along the way. His whole body really moves as a single unit.
|
|
#49
06-12-2005, 05:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Best Heavyweight Fighter
[ QUOTE ]
Same could be said for Roy Jones Jr. He could rule the middle-light heavy for a long while. He had some other issues though. Like not going full out on every fight. Which is a recipe for a fighter to get hurt. b [/ QUOTE ] yeah, I really wish jones would have had some really high quality opponents in the lighter weight classes, it would have been really something to see how good he could have been if challenged. Tho like you said, he still had that whole mental thing, and dunno how that would have worked out for him, but maybe a worthy adversary would have nipped that in the bud.
|
|
#50
06-12-2005, 05:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Best Heavyweight Fighter
Yeah, he pretty much destroyed those divisions while he was in them. He had freakish punching power for those divisions.
b
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
