Boxing Myths you just don't buy...

Teddy Atlas actually called that fight to a T. Claiming Tyson was gonna try an all-out effort to get Holyfield outta there and if he couldn't succeed, he was gonna intentionally foul out. ::
Looking at the 3rd round, Tyson TRIED to level Holyfield with everything he had but Holy wouldn't buckle. Hence the desperate action.
Funny thing is, Tyson's first bite didn't get him DQ'ed. He actually bit Holyfield a SECOND time and got DQ'ed. So Tyson purposely tried to get out of the fight.
He got the warning from Mills in the corner that if he bit again, he'd get DQ'ed. Tyson then went out and did it again. Therefore he's a quitting b*tch.

 

do you disagree that tyson beat the shit out of ruddock twice?

 

How come Holyfield wasn't 'ruined' after getting his ass kicked by Riddick Bowe in the first fight? :: All this "He was ruined" talk is just a whole lot of sh*t made up by fanboys.

 

he had the holy spirit in him

 

I actually haven't been able to watch any of the Olympics, other than a couple events.

I'm planning to tape the boxing finals when they come on, and watch the basketball finals, but the only two events I've actually watched were Bolt's 9.69 and Phelps winning by 1/100th of a second.

whenever I read about the Olympic boxing, someone is complaining about the scoring.

I don't know if I'm really missing anything much.

 

Another myth, Tito ruined everyone he beat. Vargas ALWAYS had a shitty chin and was the same damn guy after Tito. He just wasn't great to begin with. David Reid was never going far with his eye anyway, and Joppy was already on his way to shotness.

 

I'm not a fan of tyson, never was. holyfield is an unusually durable human.

 

Good call Reed. This is a myth that people take as fact and it really isn't correct. Agreed, this in no way justifies what Tyson did, but he bit Holy as a retaliation to the numerous headbutts he was dishing out. In Tyson's mind it was a reasonable reaction to bite him (twice) as a form of retaliation.

I agree with the "you must dominate the champion" being a myth as well - once the bell rings to start the match, the belt is up for grabs and whoever wins the fight wins the belt. the champ already has the advantage of being able to keep his title without winning.... that's all the advantage he should get.

 

:: what evidence was there about any decline in joppy? king had him on ice waiting for trinidad so he dominated most of his prior fights.

 

Didn't Tyson waive Holyfield on after Holy got pissed?

I agree with you, I didn't think he was doing it to get out of the fight. It was premediated, though...didn't he leave his corner w/out the piece?

 

Tyson did, he was like "come on" and waived Holyfield to come at him, after Holyfield jumped in the air mad, after the 2nd bite. Tyson also did his "arm-bend" that he also used against Botha, in the 2nd round. Holyfield kneed him when he was doing this.

Who knows what was going in his head really? Tyson's unbalanced to say the least. He was certainly in the wrong to bite him.

However, if Rahman had bitten Holyfield, I don't know if I would've blamed him.

 

he was, then he was resurrected

 

Thanks to Benny Hinn.:hammert::mj:

 

i dont think tyson was trying to get out of the fight, i dont even think he is smart enough or good enough actor to pull that off, tyson lost his mind and didnt care about the rules because he felt he was being cheated and going to loose, and also he had to go home to his kids. so he threw the rules to the wall and wanted to do what he had to inflict damage to holyfield since holy held so fuckin much he couldnt land a punch

 

He fought Tarver and Johnson and was knocked out. nothing else matters

 

he beat tito. that matters. ::

 

And dropped him with a jab.

Y'all musta forgab. :hammert:

 

... as well as the other side of the urban legend, that Trinidad undoubtedly swept the final four rounds.

 

Whitaker ever dominated Ramirez

Whitaker beat ODH

Quintana schooled Williams

Whitaker was robbed against Chavez (you need to exert offense on a consistent basis and land clean punches in order to dominate an opponent)

 

Did Ramirez win a round in the rematch?

 

Myth: Shane Mosley had trouble with Wilfredo Riveara's style.

False: I rewatched that fight and Shane was pretty dominate of Riverara just like everyone else had had fought up to then. What he seemed to be having trouble with was his stamina, I believe the move up in weight could have been the culprit or him trying to take Wil out early. Either way he fought in spurts, but when he did he was kicking the shit out of Riverara.

Myth: Shane was afraid to fight Floyd after the 2nd Vargas fight and cited his loose tooth as a way to avoid the question.

False: Shane had already stated even before the Vargas rematch that he planned on taking a break to spend time with his family after the rematch. It wasn't Floyd he was scared of facing, it was Jin.

Myth: Oscar fougth a dumb fight against Shane.

True: I watched this fight and Shane was actually lucky that Oscar was dumb enough to think he could just keep walking forward and that Shane would wilt. This was right after Oscar was criticized for his running in the Tito fight, when he promised 3 fights 3 KO's. Were it not for a dumb fight plan, and Oscar's usual penchant for fading late, Shane might have lost this fight.

 

Felix Trindad was a great fighter. I hope after his 4 humiliating losses people would have gotten the memo. A good fighter, yes. An all time great no way. There are some kids that stepped on landmines that had better balance than a "prime" Tito.

 

What about all the other myths that fighter's aren't great? Aren't you going to do Ali and Leonard?

 

Thats no myth. Tito was a great fighter. All time great? No. Roy, Hopkins, and Floyd are all time greats. Tito, Mosley, and Oscar are greats.

Good is selling Tito very short.

Carlos Quintana is a "good" fighter. Cotto is very good, but not great. Williams is very good, but not great. As is Margarita. Tito was great.

 

Here's another one :crafty: ,..

We didnt get a gol' medal coz all our featherweights, flyweights, bantamweights, welterweights are all persuing careers in basketball and football instedd.

 

U Say that as if Tito Lost to BUMS or Something...

Losses to Bernard, Winky & Roy DOESN'T Exactly DIMINISH Tito...


REED:hammert:

 

That today's fighters are better because of technology, nutrition, etc.

 

But Why WOULDN'T They B Better Because of what U've Mentioned???:dunno:...

N Practically Every Other Sport (Track & Field, Weightlifting, Swimming, Baseball, Football, Basketball, Soccer, etc.), Athletes R FASTER, STRONGER & BIGGER...They Also have the ADVANTAGE of Being Able to WATCH Athletes of Other Era's to Implement Some of their Techniques...

N Every Other Sport, it's ACCEPTED that Athletes R BETTER "Because of Technology, Nutrition, ect.", yet for Some Reason, Crotchitty, Old Boxing Guys R RELUCTANT To Admit what's Obvious...



REED:hammert:

 

Don't forget Oscar.

The way he lost certainly does diminsh Tito. He was a level beneath the so called moderate fighters like Winky and DLH. Tito didn't just lose. He was uncompetetive 4 times.

 

But how could they be if fighters used to fight at least 5-6 (in many cases more) times a year, whereas today they fight maybe twice a year?

The reason boxing is different than most other sports is $$$$$$. The majority of fighters today take the path to try and get that one or two huge paydays, then retire.

If fighters today have all these so-called advancements and are better, then where the hell are they?