wing chung and boxing

Discussion in 'Boxing' started by pseudo, Mar 25, 2014.

  1. Saved_in_Blood

    Saved_in_Blood Valued Member

    Not at all... I'm just proving that I know more about this subject than you do. You aren't a boxer... all I do is read about this stuff, watch fights over and over again... all you do is try to throw your supposed "infinite" knowledge around about all arts all the time and sometimes just wind up looking like a moron. If I don't know about something, at least I admit it, as I did about WC. You have a severe inferiority complex... the sad part is you THINK it's a superior one.
  2. Saved_in_Blood

    Saved_in_Blood Valued Member

    oh well, you'll come back with something to try to save face since I countered your lack of points with actual logic.
  3. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    Here is the quote where you make a comment about it being a style vs style fight. Tyson's size and style had nothing to do with him losing. He didn't train and was no way ready to fight. A good manager would have had him in shape and would have laid out a good fight plan for him. Doesn't mean he would have won. Style had nothing to do with it. Joe Frazier a short hard hitting swarmer had no trouble beating taller boxers including Ali.
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    See that SiB - that's called someone else spotting your nonsense

    I am not a boxer but I do box so what's your point?
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Clearly we have a very different definition of what the word "logic" means
  6. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Highly Skilled Peeper Supporter

    Well, at least the thread is straying off topic into a discussion about Boxing. :p
  7. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    Hey the wrestling stuff was on topc too, it was all about how to use the centerline.
  8. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Highly Skilled Peeper Supporter

    Obviously, you have to work yourself up on the food chain to get to the crem de la crem of boxing. So the bottom, Wing Chun, then slightly above the bottom, wrestling, and a skyrocket jump up to the sweet science.

  9. belltoller

    belltoller OffTopic MonstreOrdinaire Supporter

    Early on Mike was a very good defensive fighter - he ducked, slipped, countered, blocked - very well. He was in constant motion.

    He was a well balanced fighter technically and carried an aura about him, according to a Boxing Digest writer observing him at the time, that reminded one of Sonny Liston.

    He wasn't very tall and fought in a kind of hunched-squat that made the taller fighters to have to swing down - not easy with a constantly moving target. (check out 0:41 of "Early Career KO's !) This helped him with working the body once he got on the inside.

    He did lack mental toughness and grit. Which is probably why the middle/later parts of his career were what they were. I think that also played into Tyson's inability to come-from-behind. If Tyson didn't have his opponent buffaloed from the start or ran into trouble early... He tended to be impatient and could be frustrated.

    Ya, loosing Cus D'Amato...and it didn't help that Tyson was locked up for 3 years - 3 prime years


    Nice footwork, movement, defensive boxing
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  10. Zinowor

    Zinowor Moved on

    I don't think I've seen you admit being wrong about anything boxing related. Does that mean you think you're never wrong about boxing?

    Doesn't that sound a little implausible to you?
  11. Saved_in_Blood

    Saved_in_Blood Valued Member

    well the topic was about WC and when I mentioned about the centerline I had said "I don't know much about WC admittedly so maybe I'm wrong about that". I never said I wasn't wrong about boxing, but I stay up on what's going on in the boxing world and I love the sport... it's my first love in sports in general, so I'd like to think in many boxing related areas I know a lot. I don't care really what it sounds like though (without trying to be rude).
  12. Saved_in_Blood

    Saved_in_Blood Valued Member

    I appreciate boxers ability. Sure I like others. I loved Ricky when he was fighting and he had a TON of flaws. I like Cotto and feel if it wasn't for the first margacheato fight, we would have seen a lot of greater things from him. Collazo I like, he's slick and when he's the underdog, he usually surprises people. Always liked Wright, did like Mosley, but he was rather one dimensional. Manny's style never really impressed me, and though I like him as a person I think Ariza was adding a lot of mysterious things to his magic shakes that gave him that extra pop and endurance, plus lunging in with his punches to create more power was bound to get him KO'd by the guy who could time him properly. I do like Bradley. Heart like Holyfield, but much more talented and has defied the odds on many occasions.
  13. Saved_in_Blood

    Saved_in_Blood Valued Member

    Ali isn't Frazier though is he?... that should be all that needs to be said there.

    Also I will add since you quoted me that you have yet to prove my point wrong. You brought up a different fighter from a different era that pretty much EVERYONE on here admits would have handed Tyson a serious beating (Ali), so again why compare Frazier to him? Frazier was also better IMO than Tyson.
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  14. Saved_in_Blood

    Saved_in_Blood Valued Member

    Yes we do in the sense that you're logic tells you you're ALWAYS right and in this case I'm telling you you're not... you just cant admit it.
  15. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest


    I was comparing Frazier to Tyson and showing that a short hard hitting swarmer could defeat taller boxers(the style). Your original post implied that Tyson couldn't win because he was short and would have difficulty with taller boxers. Frazier is an example that disproves your premise. Tyson may not have been able to beat taller boxers but it was not because of his style or size.
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    So we have me and the rest of the board telling you that you have an erroneous position....then we have you saying you are right

    Guess who my money is on?

    You made a point, it was rebutted get over it. I will always admit when I am wrong - on this I am not. Tyson was beaten by Douglas because Tyson had demons he couldn't control and was physically and mentally not prepared. He took on a mid carder and got caught out by being out of shape....nothing to do with style, reach, range or anything else you claimed. Some of teh fighters Douglas LOST too Tyson mauled...and they were as big if not bigger than Douglas

    That's L-O-G-I-C

    What you are doing is saying lots of irrelevant opinions about Tyson being overrated and about me debating the above point...that is emotion not logic

    Do you even know what point you are arguing anymore?
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  17. icefield

    icefield Valued Member

    as you have pointed out smaller fighters can beat bigger fighters, and tyson did this throughout his early career, what happened to him was too much fame too early to a man not ready for it, and who had lost his mentor and coach, that doesnt change the fact that for a few years he was the best heavyweight on the planet and laid out bigger fighters for fun

    Anyone saying he wasnt a great fighter in his prime is really really silly
  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Everyone Tyson beat was a tall guy

    Taking Buster Douglas who was 6'3 1/2" as "tall" by the standard SiB set, we have

    David Jaco 6'6"
    Tyrell Biggs 6'5"
    Tony Tucker 6'5"
    Mitch Green 6'5"
    James Tillis 6'5"
    Reggie Gross 6'4"
    Alfonso Ratcliff 6'4"
    Pinklon Thomas 6'3"
    Larry Holmes 6'3"
    Tony Tubbs 6'3"
    Razor Ruddock 6'3"
    Frank Bruno 6'3"

    Even the "short" fighters weren't tiny

    Trevor Berbick 6'2"
    Jesse Ferguson 6'2"
    Michael Spinks 6'2"

    So the "Tyson couldn't beat tall fighters" claim is absolute bollocks
  19. Saved_in_Blood

    Saved_in_Blood Valued Member

    Tyson was also smaller than Frazier, who is listed anywhere from 5'11.5" to 6'0, while Tyson was 5'10". That little bit of extra height can and does make a difference. I didn't say a swarmer couldn't beat a taller boxer... what I said that that Douglass fought the near perfect fight. People are blaming Tyson's lifestyle and giving zero credit to Buster, who used his jab exceptionally well, controlled the distance pretty much most of the fight and lastly, wasn't afraid or intimidated at all by Tyson, which obviously helps a lot coming into a fight.

    Frazier was tougher, had more heart and an overall will to win no matter what than Mike did which is why in this case, the swarmer could beat the boxer... but don't forget that he was also beaten by boxers as well.
  20. Zinowor

    Zinowor Moved on

    I see. But what you say here and what I see in this thread is a bit contradicting.

    Since you're a boxing fan, I find it strange you can't appreciate a prime Mike Tyson. I do understand though. The failure of his career is haunted by a mountain of excuses. It's just that this is one of those rare cases where they're true.

    I consider Mike Tyson the unluckiest fighter of my time. Literally everything went wrong with him and we can't even tell other people this, because it just sounds like a million excuses.

Share This Page