Bigger freak athlete Lebron or Tysons

Moderators: Dirk, jamaalstar21, zimpy27, infinite11285, GeorgeMarcus, BombsquadSammy, ken6199, Domejandro, KingDavid, bwgood77

?

Mike Tyson
37
35%
Tyson Fury
6
6%
Lebron James
63
59%
 
Total votes: 106

Duke4life831
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 22,067
And1: 35,150
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
   

Re: Bigger freak athlete Lebron or Tysons 

Post#61 » by Duke4life831 » Sun Aug 2, 2020 12:58 am

Ben-N1ce wrote:
Read on Twitter

Of all of the bad Twitter takes, this one is right up there with the worst. Oh my god this is beyond stupid.
SOdisciple
Sophomore
Posts: 178
And1: 285
Joined: Aug 25, 2017
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Bigger freak athlete Lebron or Tysons 

Post#62 » by SOdisciple » Sun Aug 2, 2020 1:30 am

Ben-N1ce wrote:
Read on Twitter


Read on Twitter

One of the few times I literally laughed out loud when I saw this response to the dudes tweet
User avatar
NO-KG-AI
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 37,546
And1: 9,226
Joined: Jul 19, 2005
Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets

Re: Bigger freak athlete Lebron or Tysons 

Post#63 » by NO-KG-AI » Sun Aug 2, 2020 1:39 am

porcerel wrote:
NO-KG-AI wrote:It's weird that people are bringing up the stamina and conditioning of boxers, when Mike gassed early in fights, and look bad whenever fights went long.


What fights did Tyson, in top shape during his prime, and especially his peak years, gas early? He looked fine against Tony Tucker and Bonecrusher Smith late. He looked fine going deep against Ferguson, Tillis, and Green. Furthermore, he held his power, reflexes, and speed into the middle rounds against Tyrell Biggs and Pinklon Thomas. Won the championship rounds against Ruddock, too. This is just patently false.


Oh yea, I forgot, we have to put a million qualifiers for "prime Tyson" to protect his legacy. Either way, even if you gave Tyson stamina, which is kind of crazy, given he isn't even special in that regard in his own sport(And LeBron is one of the most cardio tested players and load heavy players of all time), he's still not beating LeBron in almost any athletic competition outside of fighting.

Mike was a 6 round fighter, even his own trainers said that. Not a real knock, most fast twitch, ridiculous athletes can't put that kind of output forever, and 6 rounds is still a LONG time. But he's not a cardio wizard or anything special compared to others of his own sport. He's definitely not going to beat LeBRon in some other athletic competition outside of a fight because he simply outlasts him from a cardio standpoint.
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
porcerel
Junior
Posts: 414
And1: 701
Joined: Feb 11, 2012
   

Re: Bigger freak athlete Lebron or Tysons 

Post#64 » by porcerel » Sun Aug 2, 2020 6:36 am

NO-KG-AI wrote:
porcerel wrote:
NO-KG-AI wrote:It's weird that people are bringing up the stamina and conditioning of boxers, when Mike gassed early in fights, and look bad whenever fights went long.


What fights did Tyson, in top shape during his prime, and especially his peak years, gas early? He looked fine against Tony Tucker and Bonecrusher Smith late. He looked fine going deep against Ferguson, Tillis, and Green. Furthermore, he held his power, reflexes, and speed into the middle rounds against Tyrell Biggs and Pinklon Thomas. Won the championship rounds against Ruddock, too. This is just patently false.


Oh yea, I forgot, we have to put a million qualifiers for "prime Tyson" to protect his legacy. Either way, even if you gave Tyson stamina, which is kind of crazy, given he isn't even special in that regard in his own sport(And LeBron is one of the most cardio tested players and load heavy players of all time), he's still not beating LeBron in almost any athletic competition outside of fighting.

Mike was a 6 round fighter, even his own trainers said that. Not a real knock, most fast twitch, ridiculous athletes can't put that kind of output forever, and 6 rounds is still a LONG time. But he's not a cardio wizard or anything special compared to others of his own sport. He's definitely not going to beat LeBRon in some other athletic competition outside of a fight because he simply outlasts him from a cardio standpoint.


As I expected, you were unable to refute the actual evidence I pointed to that Tyson could indeed maintain excellent stamina, punching power, and reflexes throughout the mid and late rounds. He showed this against Tony Tucker (a very solid heavyweight), Razor Ruddock, James Smith, several title defenses going into the mid rounds, and multiple pre-title fights (Green, Tillis, Ferguson, Ribalta). If he had poor stamina, Ruddock would have beaten him up in the mid to late rounds, and that did not happen. If Tyson completely gassed, he never would have been able to nearly stop Douglas late (you may point to the fact he was thoroughly beaten in this fight, but that was an issue of skill and Douglas' ability to control distance with the jab and movement working perfectly with Tyson's more static upper body movement and morphing into a more predictable slugger - a transition which began in the first Bruno fight). Again, never once did you provide actual evidence for your assertion that he had a penchant for gassing early when he was well-trained.

Let me go a bit further:

(1) Tony Tucker was an excellent heavyweight with real talent, who probably underachieved because of drug use. He was athletic, technically solid, and was avoided by Spinks in the late 1980s, who opted to fight Gerry Cooney instead. Over the first six rounds of the Tyson fight, he boxed exceptionally well and landed some really crisp uppercut and counter rights down the pipe. He arguably won two or three rounds. Tyson, however, took over the fight after the half-way point. He utilized his defensive maneuvers from the crouch to time the much-taller Tucker with counter jabs, jabbed his way in, showed more upper body movement, and displayed the advanced skills he possessed to carry him to a wide decision victory. You said Tyson looked bad late. This is a fight that directly contradicts that faulty assertion. Could this performance, which highlighted Tyson's elite integration of offense and defense, have been possible without good stamina? No.

(2) The second Razor Ruddock fight was a crystal clear example that Tyson could hold a steady workrate past the half-way mark. The first Ruddock fight saw Tyson a bit hurt by the famed Ruddock Smash left uppercut, but he continued to go to work, dug deep, and stopped Ruddock in the middle rounds. In both fights, he was primed and ready to go the distance and did so in the rematch in what was a grueling give and take affair. Again, directly refutes your assertion.

Tyson is at the tail-end of the top ten heavyweights ever. I don't consider him a completely unbeatable force at his best, and guys like Ali, Lewis, Foreman, Holmes, Liston, etc. would either be favorites or have very legitimate shots of defeating him. But in those instances, stamina would not be the deciding issue. Instead, there would be issues of styles (Foreman), his tendency to languish on the inside and allow himself to be tied up and re-set (Ali, Lewis), etc. Sure the stamina would come to bear in a couple of those matchups, but the primary issue would be the mesh of styles and skills, not merely waiting until Tyson somehow gassed early, which never happened.

I know you want to get into the whole "Tyson apologist" thing, and that's fine if you want to ignore legitimate circumstances and the fact that fighters throughout history spanning every weight class have entered periods of their careers where they are no longer the same physical force they once were. This isn't adding a "million qualifiers" to protect a legacy. It's dealing in a critical analysis of facts and evidence from real film-study.

If we are to write the reality off that fighters do change stylistically and physically based upon natural aging, lifestyles, etc., we can say things like: Bernard Hopkins didn't or couldn't throw many punches (ignoring his tenure at 160 from the early 90s to 2001ish); Marvin Hagler didn't utilize much lateral movement and was more of a brawler (ignoring the Sibson, Antuofermo, Hamsho, etc. fights); Roy Jones could never take a shot (ignoring taking some hard shots from Hopkins, Toney, Ruiz, etc.); Roberto Duran was always befuddled by movement (ignoring the Leonard I, Ernesto Marcel, Bizzarro, Fernandez, Viruet fights). But we both know that isn't reality. Issues come about later in fighters' careers that aren't an issue during their better days. Often, these issues are NOT simply a product of facing better opposition, as they manifest even against opponents of lesser quality than they looked flawless against in the past. And if you are going to say Tyson gassed early and looked bad when he didn't stop guys early on, this would be to blatantly ignore a large body of evidence in the aforementioned fights that I mentioned.

Tyson, when in good physical form, never showed he would gas out early, both before and after Douglas. Even post-prison, he was able to hang in there despite losing the rounds to Holyfield. There can be ZERO dispute that Tyson was woefully under trained after leaving Kevin Rooney and being guided by yes-men like Aaron Snowell and Stacey McKinley. He was partying, doing drugs, drinking, and having training camps about a third of the length he should have been. If you want to see Tyson with legitimately below-average stamina, you'd need to flash forward to the Nielson/Botha chapter of his career, and everything following.

Tyson's discipline left a lot to be desired, but when he was in peak physical form, he was absolutely able to do 12 rounds while maintaining a solid workrate, his composite punching prowess, his power, and defensive reflexes. Did these attributes fade a bit after six? Sure, which is to be expected from a thick, muscled guy fighting a high-octane, high energy-expenditure style. Was he Frazier or Marciano in that department? No. But did his physical tools outright dissipate past round 3, or 6? No. Did he routinely gas out early? Absolutely not. That's comical.

And nowhere did I say LeBron wasn't the better athlete. On most standard metrics and measurements of athletic ability, LeBron obviously comes out well ahead. Doesn't change the fact that both were once in a generation physical marvels in their respective sports.
User avatar
NO-KG-AI
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 37,546
And1: 9,226
Joined: Jul 19, 2005
Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets

Re: Bigger freak athlete Lebron or Tysons 

Post#65 » by NO-KG-AI » Sun Aug 2, 2020 12:41 pm

porcerel wrote:
NO-KG-AI wrote:
porcerel wrote:
What fights did Tyson, in top shape during his prime, and especially his peak years, gas early? He looked fine against Tony Tucker and Bonecrusher Smith late. He looked fine going deep against Ferguson, Tillis, and Green. Furthermore, he held his power, reflexes, and speed into the middle rounds against Tyrell Biggs and Pinklon Thomas. Won the championship rounds against Ruddock, too. This is just patently false.


Oh yea, I forgot, we have to put a million qualifiers for "prime Tyson" to protect his legacy. Either way, even if you gave Tyson stamina, which is kind of crazy, given he isn't even special in that regard in his own sport(And LeBron is one of the most cardio tested players and load heavy players of all time), he's still not beating LeBron in almost any athletic competition outside of fighting.

Mike was a 6 round fighter, even his own trainers said that. Not a real knock, most fast twitch, ridiculous athletes can't put that kind of output forever, and 6 rounds is still a LONG time. But he's not a cardio wizard or anything special compared to others of his own sport. He's definitely not going to beat LeBRon in some other athletic competition outside of a fight because he simply outlasts him from a cardio standpoint.


As I expected, you were unable to refute the actual evidence I pointed to that Tyson could indeed maintain excellent stamina, punching power, and reflexes throughout the mid and late rounds. He showed this against Tony Tucker (a very solid heavyweight), Razor Ruddock, James Smith, several title defenses going into the mid rounds, and multiple pre-title fights (Green, Tillis, Ferguson, Ribalta). If he had poor stamina, Ruddock would have beaten him up in the mid to late rounds, and that did not happen. If Tyson completely gassed, he never would have been able to nearly stop Douglas late (you may point to the fact he was thoroughly beaten in this fight, but that was an issue of skill and Douglas' ability to control distance with the jab and movement working perfectly with Tyson's more static upper body movement and morphing into a more predictable slugger - a transition which began in the first Bruno fight). Again, never once did you provide actual evidence for your assertion that he had a penchant for gassing early when he was well-trained.

Let me go a bit further:

(1) Tony Tucker was an excellent heavyweight with real talent, who probably underachieved because of drug use. He was athletic, technically solid, and was avoided by Spinks in the late 1980s, who opted to fight Gerry Cooney instead. Over the first six rounds of the Tyson fight, he boxed exceptionally well and landed some really crisp uppercut and counter rights down the pipe. He arguably won two or three rounds. Tyson, however, took over the fight after the half-way point. He utilized his defensive maneuvers from the crouch to time the much-taller Tucker with counter jabs, jabbed his way in, showed more upper body movement, and displayed the advanced skills he possessed to carry him to a wide decision victory. You said Tyson looked bad late. This is a fight that directly contradicts that faulty assertion. Could this performance, which highlighted Tyson's elite integration of offense and defense, have been possible without good stamina? No.

(2) The second Razor Ruddock fight was a crystal clear example that Tyson could hold a steady workrate past the half-way mark. The first Ruddock fight saw Tyson a bit hurt by the famed Ruddock Smash left uppercut, but he continued to go to work, dug deep, and stopped Ruddock in the middle rounds. In both fights, he was primed and ready to go the distance and did so in the rematch in what was a grueling give and take affair. Again, directly refutes your assertion.

Tyson is at the tail-end of the top ten heavyweights ever. I don't consider him a completely unbeatable force at his best, and guys like Ali, Lewis, Foreman, Holmes, Liston, etc. would either be favorites or have very legitimate shots of defeating him. But in those instances, stamina would not be the deciding issue. Instead, there would be issues of styles (Foreman), his tendency to languish on the inside and allow himself to be tied up and re-set (Ali, Lewis), etc. Sure the stamina would come to bear in a couple of those matchups, but the primary issue would be the mesh of styles and skills, not merely waiting until Tyson somehow gassed early, which never happened.

I know you want to get into the whole "Tyson apologist" thing, and that's fine if you want to ignore legitimate circumstances and the fact that fighters throughout history spanning every weight class have entered periods of their careers where they are no longer the same physical force they once were. This isn't adding a "million qualifiers" to protect a legacy. It's dealing in a critical analysis of facts and evidence from real film-study.

If we are to write the reality off that fighters do change stylistically and physically based upon natural aging, lifestyles, etc., we can say things like: Bernard Hopkins didn't or couldn't throw many punches (ignoring his tenure at 160 from the early 90s to 2001ish); Marvin Hagler didn't utilize much lateral movement and was more of a brawler (ignoring the Sibson, Antuofermo, Hamsho, etc. fights); Roy Jones could never take a shot (ignoring taking some hard shots from Hopkins, Toney, Ruiz, etc.); Roberto Duran was always befuddled by movement (ignoring the Leonard I, Ernesto Marcel, Bizzarro, Fernandez, Viruet fights). But we both know that isn't reality. Issues come about later in fighters' careers that aren't an issue during their better days. Often, these issues are NOT simply a product of facing better opposition, as they manifest even against opponents of lesser quality than they looked flawless against in the past. And if you are going to say Tyson gassed early and looked bad when he didn't stop guys early on, this would be to blatantly ignore a large body of evidence in the aforementioned fights that I mentioned.

Tyson, when in good physical form, never showed he would gas out early, both before and after Douglas. Even post-prison, he was able to hang in there despite losing the rounds to Holyfield. There can be ZERO dispute that Tyson was woefully under trained after leaving Kevin Rooney and being guided by yes-men like Aaron Snowell and Stacey McKinley. He was partying, doing drugs, drinking, and having training camps about a third of the length he should have been. If you want to see Tyson with legitimately below-average stamina, you'd need to flash forward to the Nielson/Botha chapter of his career, and everything following.

Tyson's discipline left a lot to be desired, but when he was in peak physical form, he was absolutely able to do 12 rounds while maintaining a solid workrate, his composite punching prowess, his power, and defensive reflexes. Did these attributes fade a bit after six? Sure, which is to be expected from a thick, muscled guy fighting a high-octane, high energy-expenditure style. Was he Frazier or Marciano in that department? No. But did his physical tools outright dissipate past round 3, or 6? No. Did he routinely gas out early? Absolutely not. That's comical.

And nowhere did I say LeBron wasn't the better athlete. On most standard metrics and measurements of athletic ability, LeBron obviously comes out well ahead. Doesn't change the fact that both were once in a generation physical marvels in their respective sports.


Do you think Mike Tyson has shown more feats of stamina and dominance late into games/competition in comparison to LeBron James? Especially when you consider the compounding nature of holding up stamina wise in long playoff series?
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
michaelm
Head Coach
Posts: 6,045
And1: 2,427
Joined: Apr 06, 2010
 

Re: Bigger freak athlete Lebron or Tysons 

Post#66 » by michaelm » Sun Aug 2, 2020 1:27 pm

NO-KG-AI wrote:
porcerel wrote:
NO-KG-AI wrote:
Oh yea, I forgot, we have to put a million qualifiers for "prime Tyson" to protect his legacy. Either way, even if you gave Tyson stamina, which is kind of crazy, given he isn't even special in that regard in his own sport(And LeBron is one of the most cardio tested players and load heavy players of all time), he's still not beating LeBron in almost any athletic competition outside of fighting.

Mike was a 6 round fighter, even his own trainers said that. Not a real knock, most fast twitch, ridiculous athletes can't put that kind of output forever, and 6 rounds is still a LONG time. But he's not a cardio wizard or anything special compared to others of his own sport. He's definitely not going to beat LeBRon in some other athletic competition outside of a fight because he simply outlasts him from a cardio standpoint.


As I expected, you were unable to refute the actual evidence I pointed to that Tyson could indeed maintain excellent stamina, punching power, and reflexes throughout the mid and late rounds. He showed this against Tony Tucker (a very solid heavyweight), Razor Ruddock, James Smith, several title defenses going into the mid rounds, and multiple pre-title fights (Green, Tillis, Ferguson, Ribalta). If he had poor stamina, Ruddock would have beaten him up in the mid to late rounds, and that did not happen. If Tyson completely gassed, he never would have been able to nearly stop Douglas late (you may point to the fact he was thoroughly beaten in this fight, but that was an issue of skill and Douglas' ability to control distance with the jab and movement working perfectly with Tyson's more static upper body movement and morphing into a more predictable slugger - a transition which began in the first Bruno fight). Again, never once did you provide actual evidence for your assertion that he had a penchant for gassing early when he was well-trained.

Let me go a bit further:

(1) Tony Tucker was an excellent heavyweight with real talent, who probably underachieved because of drug use. He was athletic, technically solid, and was avoided by Spinks in the late 1980s, who opted to fight Gerry Cooney instead. Over the first six rounds of the Tyson fight, he boxed exceptionally well and landed some really crisp uppercut and counter rights down the pipe. He arguably won two or three rounds. Tyson, however, took over the fight after the half-way point. He utilized his defensive maneuvers from the crouch to time the much-taller Tucker with counter jabs, jabbed his way in, showed more upper body movement, and displayed the advanced skills he possessed to carry him to a wide decision victory. You said Tyson looked bad late. This is a fight that directly contradicts that faulty assertion. Could this performance, which highlighted Tyson's elite integration of offense and defense, have been possible without good stamina? No.

(2) The second Razor Ruddock fight was a crystal clear example that Tyson could hold a steady workrate past the half-way mark. The first Ruddock fight saw Tyson a bit hurt by the famed Ruddock Smash left uppercut, but he continued to go to work, dug deep, and stopped Ruddock in the middle rounds. In both fights, he was primed and ready to go the distance and did so in the rematch in what was a grueling give and take affair. Again, directly refutes your assertion.

Tyson is at the tail-end of the top ten heavyweights ever. I don't consider him a completely unbeatable force at his best, and guys like Ali, Lewis, Foreman, Holmes, Liston, etc. would either be favorites or have very legitimate shots of defeating him. But in those instances, stamina would not be the deciding issue. Instead, there would be issues of styles (Foreman), his tendency to languish on the inside and allow himself to be tied up and re-set (Ali, Lewis), etc. Sure the stamina would come to bear in a couple of those matchups, but the primary issue would be the mesh of styles and skills, not merely waiting until Tyson somehow gassed early, which never happened.

I know you want to get into the whole "Tyson apologist" thing, and that's fine if you want to ignore legitimate circumstances and the fact that fighters throughout history spanning every weight class have entered periods of their careers where they are no longer the same physical force they once were. This isn't adding a "million qualifiers" to protect a legacy. It's dealing in a critical analysis of facts and evidence from real film-study.

If we are to write the reality off that fighters do change stylistically and physically based upon natural aging, lifestyles, etc., we can say things like: Bernard Hopkins didn't or couldn't throw many punches (ignoring his tenure at 160 from the early 90s to 2001ish); Marvin Hagler didn't utilize much lateral movement and was more of a brawler (ignoring the Sibson, Antuofermo, Hamsho, etc. fights); Roy Jones could never take a shot (ignoring taking some hard shots from Hopkins, Toney, Ruiz, etc.); Roberto Duran was always befuddled by movement (ignoring the Leonard I, Ernesto Marcel, Bizzarro, Fernandez, Viruet fights). But we both know that isn't reality. Issues come about later in fighters' careers that aren't an issue during their better days. Often, these issues are NOT simply a product of facing better opposition, as they manifest even against opponents of lesser quality than they looked flawless against in the past. And if you are going to say Tyson gassed early and looked bad when he didn't stop guys early on, this would be to blatantly ignore a large body of evidence in the aforementioned fights that I mentioned.

Tyson, when in good physical form, never showed he would gas out early, both before and after Douglas. Even post-prison, he was able to hang in there despite losing the rounds to Holyfield. There can be ZERO dispute that Tyson was woefully under trained after leaving Kevin Rooney and being guided by yes-men like Aaron Snowell and Stacey McKinley. He was partying, doing drugs, drinking, and having training camps about a third of the length he should have been. If you want to see Tyson with legitimately below-average stamina, you'd need to flash forward to the Nielson/Botha chapter of his career, and everything following.

Tyson's discipline left a lot to be desired, but when he was in peak physical form, he was absolutely able to do 12 rounds while maintaining a solid workrate, his composite punching prowess, his power, and defensive reflexes. Did these attributes fade a bit after six? Sure, which is to be expected from a thick, muscled guy fighting a high-octane, high energy-expenditure style. Was he Frazier or Marciano in that department? No. But did his physical tools outright dissipate past round 3, or 6? No. Did he routinely gas out early? Absolutely not. That's comical.

And nowhere did I say LeBron wasn't the better athlete. On most standard metrics and measurements of athletic ability, LeBron obviously comes out well ahead. Doesn't change the fact that both were once in a generation physical marvels in their respective sports.


Do you think Mike Tyson has shown more feats of stamina and dominance late into games/competition in comparison to LeBron James? Especially when you consider the compounding nature of holding up stamina wise in long playoff series?

Who knows ?. Hard to compare competitors separated by time in disparate sports. I don't think there is much doubt that 12 rounds as a heavyweight at the elite level (or probably any boxing weight class) is a sterner physical test than a basketball game though.
primecougar
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,940
And1: 858
Joined: May 27, 2011

Re: Bigger freak athlete Lebron or Tysons 

Post#67 » by primecougar » Sun Aug 2, 2020 4:03 pm

Running and jumping is a lot easier than fighting at heavyweight. 3 mins of light sparring with head gear and big gloves will have you exhausted compared to running up and down a basketball court with many breaks in between.

Top professional combat athletes have ridiculous gas tanks.
#1 pick wrote:MJ wasn't more skilled than Lebron. Quite the opposite to be honest.
porcerel
Junior
Posts: 414
And1: 701
Joined: Feb 11, 2012
   

Re: Bigger freak athlete Lebron or Tysons 

Post#68 » by porcerel » Sun Aug 2, 2020 7:41 pm

NO-KG-AI wrote:
porcerel wrote:
NO-KG-AI wrote:
Oh yea, I forgot, we have to put a million qualifiers for "prime Tyson" to protect his legacy. Either way, even if you gave Tyson stamina, which is kind of crazy, given he isn't even special in that regard in his own sport(And LeBron is one of the most cardio tested players and load heavy players of all time), he's still not beating LeBron in almost any athletic competition outside of fighting.

Mike was a 6 round fighter, even his own trainers said that. Not a real knock, most fast twitch, ridiculous athletes can't put that kind of output forever, and 6 rounds is still a LONG time. But he's not a cardio wizard or anything special compared to others of his own sport. He's definitely not going to beat LeBRon in some other athletic competition outside of a fight because he simply outlasts him from a cardio standpoint.


As I expected, you were unable to refute the actual evidence I pointed to that Tyson could indeed maintain excellent stamina, punching power, and reflexes throughout the mid and late rounds. He showed this against Tony Tucker (a very solid heavyweight), Razor Ruddock, James Smith, several title defenses going into the mid rounds, and multiple pre-title fights (Green, Tillis, Ferguson, Ribalta). If he had poor stamina, Ruddock would have beaten him up in the mid to late rounds, and that did not happen. If Tyson completely gassed, he never would have been able to nearly stop Douglas late (you may point to the fact he was thoroughly beaten in this fight, but that was an issue of skill and Douglas' ability to control distance with the jab and movement working perfectly with Tyson's more static upper body movement and morphing into a more predictable slugger - a transition which began in the first Bruno fight). Again, never once did you provide actual evidence for your assertion that he had a penchant for gassing early when he was well-trained.

Let me go a bit further:

(1) Tony Tucker was an excellent heavyweight with real talent, who probably underachieved because of drug use. He was athletic, technically solid, and was avoided by Spinks in the late 1980s, who opted to fight Gerry Cooney instead. Over the first six rounds of the Tyson fight, he boxed exceptionally well and landed some really crisp uppercut and counter rights down the pipe. He arguably won two or three rounds. Tyson, however, took over the fight after the half-way point. He utilized his defensive maneuvers from the crouch to time the much-taller Tucker with counter jabs, jabbed his way in, showed more upper body movement, and displayed the advanced skills he possessed to carry him to a wide decision victory. You said Tyson looked bad late. This is a fight that directly contradicts that faulty assertion. Could this performance, which highlighted Tyson's elite integration of offense and defense, have been possible without good stamina? No.

(2) The second Razor Ruddock fight was a crystal clear example that Tyson could hold a steady workrate past the half-way mark. The first Ruddock fight saw Tyson a bit hurt by the famed Ruddock Smash left uppercut, but he continued to go to work, dug deep, and stopped Ruddock in the middle rounds. In both fights, he was primed and ready to go the distance and did so in the rematch in what was a grueling give and take affair. Again, directly refutes your assertion.

Tyson is at the tail-end of the top ten heavyweights ever. I don't consider him a completely unbeatable force at his best, and guys like Ali, Lewis, Foreman, Holmes, Liston, etc. would either be favorites or have very legitimate shots of defeating him. But in those instances, stamina would not be the deciding issue. Instead, there would be issues of styles (Foreman), his tendency to languish on the inside and allow himself to be tied up and re-set (Ali, Lewis), etc. Sure the stamina would come to bear in a couple of those matchups, but the primary issue would be the mesh of styles and skills, not merely waiting until Tyson somehow gassed early, which never happened.

I know you want to get into the whole "Tyson apologist" thing, and that's fine if you want to ignore legitimate circumstances and the fact that fighters throughout history spanning every weight class have entered periods of their careers where they are no longer the same physical force they once were. This isn't adding a "million qualifiers" to protect a legacy. It's dealing in a critical analysis of facts and evidence from real film-study.

If we are to write the reality off that fighters do change stylistically and physically based upon natural aging, lifestyles, etc., we can say things like: Bernard Hopkins didn't or couldn't throw many punches (ignoring his tenure at 160 from the early 90s to 2001ish); Marvin Hagler didn't utilize much lateral movement and was more of a brawler (ignoring the Sibson, Antuofermo, Hamsho, etc. fights); Roy Jones could never take a shot (ignoring taking some hard shots from Hopkins, Toney, Ruiz, etc.); Roberto Duran was always befuddled by movement (ignoring the Leonard I, Ernesto Marcel, Bizzarro, Fernandez, Viruet fights). But we both know that isn't reality. Issues come about later in fighters' careers that aren't an issue during their better days. Often, these issues are NOT simply a product of facing better opposition, as they manifest even against opponents of lesser quality than they looked flawless against in the past. And if you are going to say Tyson gassed early and looked bad when he didn't stop guys early on, this would be to blatantly ignore a large body of evidence in the aforementioned fights that I mentioned.

Tyson, when in good physical form, never showed he would gas out early, both before and after Douglas. Even post-prison, he was able to hang in there despite losing the rounds to Holyfield. There can be ZERO dispute that Tyson was woefully under trained after leaving Kevin Rooney and being guided by yes-men like Aaron Snowell and Stacey McKinley. He was partying, doing drugs, drinking, and having training camps about a third of the length he should have been. If you want to see Tyson with legitimately below-average stamina, you'd need to flash forward to the Nielson/Botha chapter of his career, and everything following.

Tyson's discipline left a lot to be desired, but when he was in peak physical form, he was absolutely able to do 12 rounds while maintaining a solid workrate, his composite punching prowess, his power, and defensive reflexes. Did these attributes fade a bit after six? Sure, which is to be expected from a thick, muscled guy fighting a high-octane, high energy-expenditure style. Was he Frazier or Marciano in that department? No. But did his physical tools outright dissipate past round 3, or 6? No. Did he routinely gas out early? Absolutely not. That's comical.

And nowhere did I say LeBron wasn't the better athlete. On most standard metrics and measurements of athletic ability, LeBron obviously comes out well ahead. Doesn't change the fact that both were once in a generation physical marvels in their respective sports.


Do you think Mike Tyson has shown more feats of stamina and dominance late into games/competition in comparison to LeBron James? Especially when you consider the compounding nature of holding up stamina wise in long playoff series?
No, for his sport, LeBron has superior stamina. One of the GOAT motors. Whereas Tyson had solid stamina. Apples to oranges given the inherent differences in the sport, but you'd have to put LeBron ahead. He had my vote in the poll in any event.

Sent from my EVR-L29 using Tapatalk
Apz
Junior
Posts: 449
And1: 121
Joined: Jan 18, 2019
   

Re: Bigger freak athlete Lebron or Tysons 

Post#69 » by Apz » Sun Aug 2, 2020 8:55 pm

Serously, stamina in basketball? Compared to most other sports in the world its mostly rest. Which is kinda natural with those big guys

Return to The General Board