Tyson / Berbick...

[apollack]

I am in L.A. for the National PAL, and the walls of my childhood room are covered with Tyson articles from the Los Angeles Times, so I am able to reference at a glance much of what was said back then. It supports what I have been saying. Feb 23, 1990:

Said Matt Baranski: "People don't realize it, but Mike has taken a lot of shots in the gym...I've heard he looked realy bad in sparring [training for Douglas]. I heard Trevor Berbick gave him a hard time in sparring...Trevor Berbick is as slow as molasses. He can't get out of his own way. If [Tyson] was having problems with Berbick over there, then Mike is really gone."

Tyson trained at Johnny Tocco's gym two weeks before leaving for Japan. Tyson had often trained at that gym. Tocco said, "It was the worst I"ve seen him. He was not in condition when he left here. He was having a rough time with Greg Page, he could do nothing with Trevor Berbick and even Oliver McCall gave him a bad time one day. Page hadn't looked that good against anyone in years.....It's not the same Tyson."

Said Bruce Trampler, the the famed and well respected Top Rank matchmaker: "Berbick called me from Tokyo. He told me everyone was beating [Tyson] up in the gym, even him. He said, 'This guy is in terrible shape - he's got no reflexes, no zip, no life.'"

Said Tyson: "I never took the fight seriously." Tyson said that he had fallen into sloppy training habits because of all his easy victories. He said he lost 25 pounds in 5 weeks of training in Japan [which translates to 5 pounds per week, which anyone knows is unsafe and draining to the human body, leaving him looking good, but destroyed inside. He would have been better off coming into the fight fat but without having ruined his constitution.]

[Fat Abbot]

Ali's skills were totally mediocre. Ali was successful because he was a giant heavyweight for his era with great athleticism. Of course he dominated the 60's, because he was so much bigger than most everyone he fought and the few fighters his size were much too slow.

Ali couldn't fight on the inside, at all. He didn't punch to the body, his hands were often below his waist, he didn't throw hooks and he had no uppercut to speak of. Ali's entire repertoire consisted of a jab and a straight right, followed up with a clinch.

Ppl compare Jones' lack of techincal skill and reliance on talent to Ali's. This is totally incorrect. Jones' was a great bodypuncher, he threw great hooks, had an uppercut, he threw every punch great, he didn't just have a 1 2. Jones was also a very good infighter and typically he kept his hands up above his shoulders.

Ppl say that Larry holmes was a poor mans Ali. Incorrect. Holmes had a great uppercut, he threw good hooks, he went to the body on ocasion and he fought extremely well on the inside.

Both of those men are so far ahead interms of skills than Ali that they're not even comparable.

Ali was a great athlete, but as far as skill goes he was probably the worst great HW champion in that reguard. From Dempsey to present.

Tyson was very well schooled, he threw every punch in the book with perfect technique, his hands were always held high, he fought well inside, out and from mid range, he was a great bodypuncher. And His lateral movement and defensive skills were fantastic.

Ali was smaller than Tyson, he wasn't faster and Tyson had a huge edge in both power and technique. Tyson would win that fight easily, he'd either pick Ali apart and KO him like Biggs, or Ali would hold and lose a lopsided decision like Smith.

Also Tyson still averaged about 40 punches a round in the tucker fight, I have the tape somewhere, when I find it I will post the numbers.

46% is considered a great landing % and against Tubbs who was bigger than Ali, just as fast, if not faster, much better schooled and a way better infighter 46% is incredble.

[10-8]

A 46% landing percentage is not an "incredible" landing percentage against a fat, undertrained target in a two round blow-out.

Tubbs was offered a $50,000 bonus clause in this fight if he would come in under 230 lbs. Apparently 50 grand wasn't enough of a motivating factor for Tubbs who entered the ring complete with spare tire at 237lbs.

Hasim Rachman for example had a 47 % landing percentage over 12 rounds with Oleg Maskaev. Woop-de-do.

Vitali Klitschko also has more impressive numbers than Tyson.

"The Compubox final punch stats read as follows: 519 total punches thrown by Klitschko connecting 296, compared to Williams who threw 193 and connected 44. In jabs thrown Klitschko threw 236 and landed 99 while Williams threw 96 landing only 6. Klitschko threw 283 power punches connecting 197..."

That gives Klitschko a 57% connect rate over 7 rounds against Danny Williams.

Klitschko also averaged over 74 punches thrown per round with 42 landing. A much higher workrate and landing % than a prime Tyson.

[Fat Abbot]

46% is a great 5 against anyone, at 237 Tubbs was was 7-9lbs lighter than he was for Witherspoon and 8lbs heavier than he was for Page and Tubbs went 15 rounds easily in both of those fights.

Untrained is definitely an interesting choice of words, I know a lot of ppl that are untrained and I know plenty of ppl who are well well trained, none of them could last 15 rounds in a pro boxing match.

Ali missed constantly against blown up middleweight Doug Jones who couldn't even win the LH title. Tony tubbs was faster than anyone Ali ever fought and was a better boxer, the only time ali fought anyone with comoparable speed and skills was Holmes and we all saw what happened there. If Ali can make Doug Jones look like Pernel whitaker, I doubt he'd make 26% let alone 46% against tubbs.

Vitali Klitschko landed at a high rate against Danny Williams, sorry if I'm not impressed. Then again it's worth a mention that Williams had a greater combination of size and talent than anyone Ali ever fought.

In Tysons fight with Ribalta he landed at 68%, since you're so fond of pulling out compubox stats, I darev you to find a better landing % by a heavyweight champion over a 10, 12 or 15 round fight.

as for workrate, Tyson consistently threw bombs, he didn't "pepper" guys with weak shots to set up big ones like Vitali, nor did he slap and jab like Ali. 40 punches a round of hard, stiff shots, most of which being bombs is a great number.

If you wish to believe that consistently landing nearly or over half of what you throw is an unimpressive number that's your choice, perhaps you also believe that Ali could beat Michael jordan in a game of basketball?

[10-8]

Most Impressive Abbott!!!

Firstly in regards to Tony Tubbs, I wrote UNDERtrained not UNtrained. Try reading the post. Not surprisingly, comprehension not to mention logic is not your strength.

And all this time I thought Jimmy Ellis and Floyd Patterson were faster than Tony Tubbs. How silly of me.

Now, back to Tyson.

It takes 10 rounds of Tyson landing 68% of his punches while "consistently throwing bombs" for Ribalta to finally be stopped while clear-eyed and on his feet protesting to the referee.

I guess Tyson's power kinda pales in comparison to the winless 0-1 188 lb Ricardo Richardson who was able to blast out Ribalta inside of 7 rounds.

[Fat Abbot]

Jimmy Ellis faster than Tony Tubbs? Very silly.

george Foreman went the distance with roberto davila in an 8 round fight, perhaps his power pales in comparison to 180lb wilfredo Avellez who knocked Davilla out in 3 rounds?

[10-8]

george Foreman went the distance with roberto davila in an 8 round fight, perhaps his power pales in comparison to 180lb wilfredo Avellez who knocked Davilla out in 3 rounds?

That all depends on whether or not Foreman was landing 68% of his punches while "consistantly throwing bombs" like Tyson allegedly did against Ribalta.

[10-8]

Also Tyson still averaged about 40 punches a round in the tucker fight, I have the tape somewhere, when I find it I will post the numbers.

Tyson threw less punches than Tucker, 412 to 452.

That averages out to 34 punches thrown per round from Tyson which is not quite "about 40". It is more in line with the numbers from the Biggs, Holmes and Tubbs fights.

[PeteLeo]

Vitali Klitschko landed at a high rate against Danny Williams, sorry if I'm not impressed. Then again it's worth a mention that Williams had a greater combination of size and talent than anyone Ali ever fought.

Ahem-cough-cough, um . . . George Foreman? Cough.

You're back with a vengeance, ain't you, kid? PeteLeo.

[Fat Abbot]

Ahem-cough-cough, um . . . George Foreman? Cough.

You're back with a vengeance, ain't you, kid? PeteLeo.

George foreman in his prime typically weighed 217-220lbs. He was no bigger than Monte Barret.

[PeteLeo]

So in your world "size" only equals "weight"?
Less than a month ago, some Pillsbury Doughboy up in NY won a fight in which he weighed something like 368lbs. Does this make Doughboy also better than anyone Ali ever fought?
Just asking. PeteLeo.

PS. I must admit, I believe yours is the very post in which I've read the word "talent" mentioned in relation to Danny Williams. Does this mean you'd pick the lardball who was destroyed by V. Klitschko to actually defeat the 210lb. (or thereabouts) Ali of the Liston bouts? I can't wait to hear the answer to this one. PL.

[Fat Abbot]

Williams at 260 in the tyson fight was all muscle.

Williams would lose to Ali, but he'd likely beat many of Ali's 60's opponents.

[Paulie W]

Williams at 260 in the tyson fight was all muscle.

Williams would lose to Ali, but he'd likely beat many of Ali's 60's opponents.

Now they are two of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. Williams weighed in the 230's in his early career and he was far from svelte then. But he managed to put on 2 1/2 stone of muscle? Must have had the same conditioning coach as Toney.

[thumper3852]

posted by you know who.............

Ali's skills were totally mediocre.

There's at least one of us that still want to hear about the "light hitting, journeyman" Ali, as in Muhammad Ali.

Please don't keep us waiting too long.

[Cojimar 1945]

Tyson was certainly formidable. All fighters deserve great respect and Tyson was a very good fighter but he does not rate as highly as men who proved themselves to be the best of their eras. Tyson was not the best in his own time.

[Elmer Ray]

Tyson was certainly formidable. All fighters deserve great respect and Tyson was a very good fighter but he does not rate as highly as men who proved themselves to be the best of their eras. Tyson was not the best in his own time.

tyson did prove himself the best of his era........the late 1980s. 1986-89 the late 1980s was tysons era. he proved himself without question THE BEST. he took out all the top contenders and all the alpha champs of the that era.

[Elmer Ray]

Tyson was certainly formidable. All fighters deserve great respect and Tyson was a very good fighter but he does not rate as highly as men who proved themselves to be the best of their eras. Tyson was not the best in his own time.

tyson did prove himself the best of his era........the late 1980s. 1986-89 the late 1980s was tysons era. he proved himself without question THE BEST. he took out most of the top contenders and all the alpha champs of the that era.

[Elmer Ray]

Tyson was certainly formidable. All fighters deserve great respect and Tyson was a very good fighter but he does not rate as highly as men who proved themselves to be the best of their eras. Tyson was not the best in his own time.

tyson did prove himself the best of his era........the late 1980s. 1986-89 the late 1980s was tysons era. he proved himself without question THE BEST. he took out most of the top contenders and all the alpha champs of the that era.

[Elmer Ray]

Tyson was certainly formidable. All fighters deserve great respect and Tyson was a very good fighter but he does not rate as highly as men who proved themselves to be the best of their eras. Tyson was not the best in his own time.

tyson did prove himself the best of his era........the late 1980s. 1986-89 the late 1980s was tysons era. he proved himself without question THE BEST. he took out most of the top contenders and all the alpha champs of the that era.