June 9, 2002
4:46 AM Subscribe
Lewis knocks out Tyson: "The ultimate dismantling of Mike Tyson was satisfying in only the way watching a man get what is coming to him can be."
forget the lean-mean grilling machine; the marketing gods need to get tyson's endorsment on a blender, maybe a wood chopper.
and when lamenting last night's loss, just think: at least "iron mike" didn't lose to "little mac" like he did in the 80's.
posted by ronv at 5:20 AM on June 9, 2002
and when lamenting last night's loss, just think: at least "iron mike" didn't lose to "little mac" like he did in the 80's.
posted by ronv at 5:20 AM on June 9, 2002
ronv - Was it even possible to beat Tyson in "Punch-Out"? I recall working through the others with few problems, but never got past the 8 second mark with Tyson.
posted by RavinDave at 5:41 AM on June 9, 2002
posted by RavinDave at 5:41 AM on June 9, 2002
I very much enjoyed the slightly more opinionated article at ESPN.com.
Some of my favorite sections :
- Tyson winced as his cornermen applied pressure to his wounds before the eighth and looked as if he might not get up off the stool. But when the bell rang, he climbed heavily to his feet and walked forward, like a grunt heading into machine gun fire.
- In fact, after a competitive first round, it turned out to be a mismatch, a good big man methodically working over a washed-up little man.
- And after it was mercifully over, Tyson theTerrible had been more than humanized. He had been humbled.
- He was never what he should have been, and often a lot less than he and his followers believed him to be. But in defeat, Mike Tyson was something he had never been in victory.
posted by aaronchristy at 6:17 AM on June 9, 2002
Some of my favorite sections :
- Tyson winced as his cornermen applied pressure to his wounds before the eighth and looked as if he might not get up off the stool. But when the bell rang, he climbed heavily to his feet and walked forward, like a grunt heading into machine gun fire.
- In fact, after a competitive first round, it turned out to be a mismatch, a good big man methodically working over a washed-up little man.
- And after it was mercifully over, Tyson theTerrible had been more than humanized. He had been humbled.
- He was never what he should have been, and often a lot less than he and his followers believed him to be. But in defeat, Mike Tyson was something he had never been in victory.
posted by aaronchristy at 6:17 AM on June 9, 2002
How do you humble a man who has no humility in him to start with?
posted by alumshubby at 6:34 AM on June 9, 2002
posted by alumshubby at 6:34 AM on June 9, 2002
How do you humble a man who has no humility in him to start with?
Fire! And lots of it...
posted by Dark Messiah at 6:46 AM on June 9, 2002
Fire! And lots of it...
posted by Dark Messiah at 6:46 AM on June 9, 2002
he writer who said this:
He was never what he should have been, and often a lot less than he and his followers believed him to be. But in defeat, Mike Tyson was something he had never been in victory
could well apply it to himself.
posted by Postroad at 7:00 AM on June 9, 2002
He was never what he should have been, and often a lot less than he and his followers believed him to be. But in defeat, Mike Tyson was something he had never been in victory
could well apply it to himself.
posted by Postroad at 7:00 AM on June 9, 2002
this rules. i read an interview with lennox lewis a couple months ago -- and he's actually a pretty sharp guy.
i will say, though, it's a shame what tyson has become. i can remember when he first hit the heavyweight scene, he was unstoppable. just beat the living shit out of anyone he fought in literally seconds. he seriously had the potential to be the greatest ever. and then he got too caught up in the hype (thanks to don king) and blew it.
posted by aenemated at 7:11 AM on June 9, 2002
i will say, though, it's a shame what tyson has become. i can remember when he first hit the heavyweight scene, he was unstoppable. just beat the living shit out of anyone he fought in literally seconds. he seriously had the potential to be the greatest ever. and then he got too caught up in the hype (thanks to don king) and blew it.
posted by aenemated at 7:11 AM on June 9, 2002
The article was pretty good until the last line. I guess my own definition of nobility stops somewhere before 'convicted rapist.'
posted by troybob at 7:24 AM on June 9, 2002
posted by troybob at 7:24 AM on June 9, 2002
Tyson humiliating himself begging for a rematch while the blood was still dripping down his face was more painful than watching him get knocked out. The guy's got multiple personalities -- the post-fight Tyson was spooky: lots of quiet, glum talk about gratitude and begging for understanding. It was like watching his life unravel in rewind. The sociopathic heavyweight regressed before our eyes to the frightened kid that he was back in reform school.
I have zero sympathy for Iron Mike, convicted rapist and all-around thug, but I must admit that seeing him go out like that was painful.
"I'll just go fly my pigeons and disappear into oblivion," he said sadly to a reporter after the fight. It seemed like he meant it.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:20 AM on June 9, 2002
I have zero sympathy for Iron Mike, convicted rapist and all-around thug, but I must admit that seeing him go out like that was painful.
"I'll just go fly my pigeons and disappear into oblivion," he said sadly to a reporter after the fight. It seemed like he meant it.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:20 AM on June 9, 2002
From what I've read Lewis seems like an intellegent guy, apparently he plays chess in his spare time. I read an editorial before the fight that said Lewis has the box office appeal of a G-rated movie, which I think is nonsense, it's just that he's not American and has a British accent (possibly fake since he grew up in Canada) that he's givin a hard time by the media.
I watched the fight, Tyson was ten years past his prime, Lewis was only five years past. Plus, Tyson was calm and composed after the fight, maybe he should have eased up on the Zoloft™ and he would have fought better.
posted by bobo123 at 9:29 AM on June 9, 2002
I watched the fight, Tyson was ten years past his prime, Lewis was only five years past. Plus, Tyson was calm and composed after the fight, maybe he should have eased up on the Zoloft™ and he would have fought better.
posted by bobo123 at 9:29 AM on June 9, 2002
maybe he should have eased up on the Zoloft™ and he would have fought better.
your ignorance is showing, kiddo.
posted by pikachulolita at 9:37 AM on June 9, 2002
your ignorance is showing, kiddo.
posted by pikachulolita at 9:37 AM on June 9, 2002
From what I've read Lewis seems like an intellegent guy
From what i've read, apparently you're not. you ignorant fuck.
posted by jpoulos at 9:38 AM on June 9, 2002
From what i've read, apparently you're not. you ignorant fuck.
posted by jpoulos at 9:38 AM on June 9, 2002
hardly. i just don't like people who consider themselves intelligent, but can't appreciate the complexities of human psychology, and the tragedy of mental illness.
i think tyson is probably the biggest asshole in the history of sports. but he's a very sick man, and for his handlers to parade him out there every 10 or 14 months, so we can all call him an animal, is disgusting.
posted by jpoulos at 10:01 AM on June 9, 2002
i think tyson is probably the biggest asshole in the history of sports. but he's a very sick man, and for his handlers to parade him out there every 10 or 14 months, so we can all call him an animal, is disgusting.
posted by jpoulos at 10:01 AM on June 9, 2002
Tyson has said that taking antidepressants has diminished his urge to fight, and he has been known to go off his medication before fights (he stopped taking Zoloft before the fight with Botha). I was just restating a common speculation on antidepressants effecting his boxing performance, see: Will Tyson be on his meds when he steps in the ring?
posted by bobo123 at 10:07 AM on June 9, 2002
posted by bobo123 at 10:07 AM on June 9, 2002
"you ignorant fuck."
ouch. someone's boyfriend didn't cuddle after the act last night huh?
posted by jcterminal at 10:13 AM on June 9, 2002
ouch. someone's boyfriend didn't cuddle after the act last night huh?
posted by jcterminal at 10:13 AM on June 9, 2002
Did this Lennox guy beat Holyfield? I don't keep up on boxing, but I'd be curious to know. The article said he's the best fighter since ali..... I'm skeptical
posted by banished at 10:34 AM on June 9, 2002
posted by banished at 10:34 AM on June 9, 2002
Was it even possible to beat Tyson in "Punch-Out"?
yes, it was. It's been a long time since I did it, but I think the trick was you had to watch how his eyes blinked. It let you know what kind of punches he was going to throw...
posted by stifford at 11:08 AM on June 9, 2002
yes, it was. It's been a long time since I did it, but I think the trick was you had to watch how his eyes blinked. It let you know what kind of punches he was going to throw...
posted by stifford at 11:08 AM on June 9, 2002
I've always thought that Lenox sounds like a pompous asshole and far from intelligent. His confidence and frat-boy cockiness try to project intelligence, however.
None-the-less, he is a very good boxer.
posted by Espoo2 at 11:18 AM on June 9, 2002
None-the-less, he is a very good boxer.
posted by Espoo2 at 11:18 AM on June 9, 2002
I watched the fight last night. It wasn't very entertaining.
Far better were all his early fichts they replayed on the ESPN Classic channel.
If you want to see how far he has slid into his mental illness, the difference is stark when you see post-fight interviews from the mid 1980s. One commentator stated that his diagnosis id Borderline Personality Disorder. BPD is one bitch of an illness to treat.
As for his handlers parading him around, that's kind of an over simplification of his circumstances. He's deep in debt, and what else does (did) he know how to do with himself? He's hardly a pawn in all of this. And the whole sport of boxing is sordid and disgusting, so how exactly does he stand apart from that with his issues?
posted by BentPenguin at 11:18 AM on June 9, 2002
Far better were all his early fichts they replayed on the ESPN Classic channel.
If you want to see how far he has slid into his mental illness, the difference is stark when you see post-fight interviews from the mid 1980s. One commentator stated that his diagnosis id Borderline Personality Disorder. BPD is one bitch of an illness to treat.
As for his handlers parading him around, that's kind of an over simplification of his circumstances. He's deep in debt, and what else does (did) he know how to do with himself? He's hardly a pawn in all of this. And the whole sport of boxing is sordid and disgusting, so how exactly does he stand apart from that with his issues?
posted by BentPenguin at 11:18 AM on June 9, 2002
Lewis beat Holyfield twice, I believe. Actually, I think he won the first fight outright, and lost the second in a narrow decision that most everyone agreed should have gone to him. Or something like that.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:21 AM on June 9, 2002
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:21 AM on June 9, 2002
"I'll just go fly my pigeons and disappear into oblivion," he said sadly to a reporter after the fight.
...er, with what's left of the hundreds of millions of dollars you suckers have given me...
posted by rushmc at 11:30 AM on June 9, 2002
...er, with what's left of the hundreds of millions of dollars you suckers have given me...
posted by rushmc at 11:30 AM on June 9, 2002
banished -- there were 2 lewis/holyfield fights. the first was a draw and was a huge controversy and lewis barely won the second by decision -- it was judged rather poorly, though -- i think everyone that saw it except for, um, the judge who's name escapes me, gave it to lewis by a longshot. the biggest grounds for saying lewis is the best since ali is based on his 6-1 title fight record, which is better than ali's. holyfield is a dirty fighter and there's been quite a bit of talk about it. he's notorious for head-butting. in his most recent fight (last week), he 'accidentally' knocked the shit out of hasim rahman's forehead and raised this enormous lump above his eye. i mean, the thing was literally the size of a fucking grapefruit. it was so huge, it was effecting his eyesite and the ref called the fight.
of course, i don't think lewis has gone up against the level of fighter that existed in ali's prime. there are really no more great heavyweights these days -- the few that are good, lewis has beaten. but, still -- his record is impressive and he handed tyson his ass pretty easily.
posted by aenemated at 11:31 AM on June 9, 2002
of course, i don't think lewis has gone up against the level of fighter that existed in ali's prime. there are really no more great heavyweights these days -- the few that are good, lewis has beaten. but, still -- his record is impressive and he handed tyson his ass pretty easily.
posted by aenemated at 11:31 AM on June 9, 2002
banished -- there were 2 lewis/holyfield fights. the first was a draw and was a huge controversy and lewis barely won the second by decision -- it was judged rather poorly, though -- i think everyone that saw it except for, um, the judge who's name escapes me, gave it to lewis by a longshot. the biggest grounds for saying lewis is the best since ali is based on his 6-1 title fight record, which is better than ali's. holyfield is a dirty fighter and there's been quite a bit of talk about it. he's notorious for head-butting. in his most recent fight (last week), he 'accidentally' knocked the shit out of hasim rahman's forehead and raised this enormous lump above his eye. i mean, the thing was literally the size of a fucking grapefruit. it was so huge, it was effecting his eyesite and the ref called the fight.
of course, i don't think lewis has gone up against the level of fighter that existed in ali's prime. there are really no more great heavyweights these days -- the few that are good, lewis has beaten. but, still -- his record is impressive and he handed tyson his ass pretty easily.
posted by aenemated at 11:35 AM on June 9, 2002
of course, i don't think lewis has gone up against the level of fighter that existed in ali's prime. there are really no more great heavyweights these days -- the few that are good, lewis has beaten. but, still -- his record is impressive and he handed tyson his ass pretty easily.
posted by aenemated at 11:35 AM on June 9, 2002
bobo123 -- thanks for clearing that up. sorry i jumped to conclusions, but people so often make comments like that (about antidepressants) with little to nothing to back them up. good on ya for not being one of those commenters.
posted by pikachulolita at 11:39 AM on June 9, 2002
posted by pikachulolita at 11:39 AM on June 9, 2002
"I'll just go fly my pigeons and disappear into oblivion"
Actually, I heard that interview, and Tyson said he was going to disappear into "bolivian", which is near Belize and whose major export is sugar.
He laid it on the line in that interview when he said he'd look for a rematch "if I can get another payday." That's all he cares about. He also thanked Lewis for "Not killing me."
Overall it was odd to see him afterward, seemed like the only time I had seen him happy in a long time. The beating gave him the punishment he seems to feel he deserves.
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:12 PM on June 9, 2002
Actually, I heard that interview, and Tyson said he was going to disappear into "bolivian", which is near Belize and whose major export is sugar.
He laid it on the line in that interview when he said he'd look for a rematch "if I can get another payday." That's all he cares about. He also thanked Lewis for "Not killing me."
Overall it was odd to see him afterward, seemed like the only time I had seen him happy in a long time. The beating gave him the punishment he seems to feel he deserves.
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:12 PM on June 9, 2002
Indeed, Bobo, if you were really speaking clinically about the effects of Zoloft on fighters' performance, I took it wrong, and I apologize.
posted by jpoulos at 12:19 PM on June 9, 2002
posted by jpoulos at 12:19 PM on June 9, 2002
Huh, I wonder under what conditions would they determined that someone is unfit to box for psychological reasons.
posted by yonderboy at 12:48 PM on June 9, 2002
posted by yonderboy at 12:48 PM on June 9, 2002
Well, yonderboy, not being willing to kill people seems to be the line.
posted by dong_resin at 1:24 PM on June 9, 2002
posted by dong_resin at 1:24 PM on June 9, 2002
I don't think Lewis is that intelligent. I think he's a dollar merchant and it saddens me slightly when he dedicates his victory to the Jubilee and 'Britain's' (sic) team at the World Cup. He's a great boxer, but dumb as a puppy and has no personality. His attempt to do a rhyming Ali imitation in a press conference recently was ludicrous.
posted by boneybaloney at 1:42 PM on June 9, 2002
posted by boneybaloney at 1:42 PM on June 9, 2002
Borderline Personality Disorder. BPD is one bitch of an illness to treat.
BPD is the new Schizophrenia*. Don't put much stock in BPD diagonsis as it really amounts to a clinical diagnosis of 'fucked up'. It is probably the most vague disorder in the DSM.
* before anyone goes all jpoulos on me I mean this in the sense that schizophrenia was used as a diagnostic catch all back when schizophrenia was the new Consumption.
posted by srboisvert at 2:00 PM on June 9, 2002
BPD is the new Schizophrenia*. Don't put much stock in BPD diagonsis as it really amounts to a clinical diagnosis of 'fucked up'. It is probably the most vague disorder in the DSM.
* before anyone goes all jpoulos on me I mean this in the sense that schizophrenia was used as a diagnostic catch all back when schizophrenia was the new Consumption.
posted by srboisvert at 2:00 PM on June 9, 2002
It was an easy match to call in advance, actually. Lewis had a 6 inch height advantage and a staggering 13 inch reach advantage -- more than a foot! -- which meant that Tyson could hardly manage to land a punch to Lewis's head.
Yes, Tyson has demolished his opponents since his comeback from the Big House, but frankly those matches have chiefly been against second-tier fighters carefully screened by the Don of boxing to showcase Tyson's strengths. Lewis had both the physique and the brains to win the big match, and he did.
posted by clevershark at 3:08 PM on June 9, 2002
Yes, Tyson has demolished his opponents since his comeback from the Big House, but frankly those matches have chiefly been against second-tier fighters carefully screened by the Don of boxing to showcase Tyson's strengths. Lewis had both the physique and the brains to win the big match, and he did.
posted by clevershark at 3:08 PM on June 9, 2002
Would "bordeline personality disorder" in the U.S translate as "untreatable personality disorder" in Britain; or maybe "untreatable personality disorder of the aggressive type"? Both of which I have seen diagnosed by consultant psychiatrists.
I have always taken it to mean, "this guy is a seriously fucked up and scary individual, keep him away from me".
Which would seem to fit Tyson.
I still feel sorry for him. The guy has nothing, has only ever had very little, and the little he had has now gone.
posted by Fat Buddha at 3:14 PM on June 9, 2002
I have always taken it to mean, "this guy is a seriously fucked up and scary individual, keep him away from me".
Which would seem to fit Tyson.
I still feel sorry for him. The guy has nothing, has only ever had very little, and the little he had has now gone.
posted by Fat Buddha at 3:14 PM on June 9, 2002
Kafkaesque -- Bolivia is actually in south america, and nowhere near Belize (an island off Honduras).
posted by clevershark at 4:32 PM on June 9, 2002
posted by clevershark at 4:32 PM on June 9, 2002
I would disagree to a certain extent with the statement that there are no fighters of the caliber of the opponents Ali faced in his day. If you look at old footage of, say, Foreman-Liston and other such fights, one thing you notice is that prior to Ali fights used to be all offense and no D, which is pretty much Tyson's style.
It's not to say that Tyson exhibits the same level-headedness as those two, but the style and approach seem to be relatively the same; there's little that a guy can do against an opponent whose reach advantage is greater than 1 foot, combined with a 6-inch height advantage, and that situation's not really come up before at that level.
It'll be interesting to see who lines up to fight Lewis next, whether or not the champion takes the challenge. I don't think it'll be Holyfield, who's getting a little long in the tooth, and whose up-close fighting style -- which is the reason he tends to knock heads with his opponents -- would be completely and easily defeated by Lewis's height and reach.
Lewis fought an intelligent, unhurried fight yesterday, and that's what made the difference.
posted by clevershark at 4:44 PM on June 9, 2002
It's not to say that Tyson exhibits the same level-headedness as those two, but the style and approach seem to be relatively the same; there's little that a guy can do against an opponent whose reach advantage is greater than 1 foot, combined with a 6-inch height advantage, and that situation's not really come up before at that level.
It'll be interesting to see who lines up to fight Lewis next, whether or not the champion takes the challenge. I don't think it'll be Holyfield, who's getting a little long in the tooth, and whose up-close fighting style -- which is the reason he tends to knock heads with his opponents -- would be completely and easily defeated by Lewis's height and reach.
Lewis fought an intelligent, unhurried fight yesterday, and that's what made the difference.
posted by clevershark at 4:44 PM on June 9, 2002
clevershark: Bolivia is actually in south america, and nowhere near Belize (an island off Honduras).
Not so clever, shark. Having been to Belize, I'm sure the people of Belize- or Caye Caulker- would be surprised to hear you call the nation an island. It has many islands, and world-class coral reefs, but the nation as a whole is solidly connected to the horn of Mexico.
As for the fight itself, and Lennox and Tyson's place in the boxing history books: why is there this prevalent notion across all sports- except, maybe, track and field type competitions- that the athletes today aren't ever quite as good as in the past? Whether it's that absolute moron Joe Morgan or some other figure arguing that "today's players have it easy", there seems to be this idea that the golden age is never now. We know that today, the best athletes run faster and farther, they are stronger and better conditioned, have access to incredible scientific nutrition and medical resources to extend their careers and keep their bodies in top shape, as well as immense computerized video and data-mining information to get the strategic edge on their opponents. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that not just one or two outliers, but the majority of fighters from 30 years ago were "better", or that hitters hit the ball farther, pitchers threw harder, basketball players were more skilled, etc. etc. etc.- just so the egos of old players can be protected from the awful truth of life moving forward without them.
My personal feeling is that, barring outstanding evidence, we should always assume the best of today is the best of all time- so far. Or in other words, Babe Ruth wasn't fit to hold Alex Rodriguez's jock strap.
posted by hincandenza at 5:16 PM on June 9, 2002
Not so clever, shark. Having been to Belize, I'm sure the people of Belize- or Caye Caulker- would be surprised to hear you call the nation an island. It has many islands, and world-class coral reefs, but the nation as a whole is solidly connected to the horn of Mexico.
As for the fight itself, and Lennox and Tyson's place in the boxing history books: why is there this prevalent notion across all sports- except, maybe, track and field type competitions- that the athletes today aren't ever quite as good as in the past? Whether it's that absolute moron Joe Morgan or some other figure arguing that "today's players have it easy", there seems to be this idea that the golden age is never now. We know that today, the best athletes run faster and farther, they are stronger and better conditioned, have access to incredible scientific nutrition and medical resources to extend their careers and keep their bodies in top shape, as well as immense computerized video and data-mining information to get the strategic edge on their opponents. Yet somehow we're supposed to believe that not just one or two outliers, but the majority of fighters from 30 years ago were "better", or that hitters hit the ball farther, pitchers threw harder, basketball players were more skilled, etc. etc. etc.- just so the egos of old players can be protected from the awful truth of life moving forward without them.
My personal feeling is that, barring outstanding evidence, we should always assume the best of today is the best of all time- so far. Or in other words, Babe Ruth wasn't fit to hold Alex Rodriguez's jock strap.
posted by hincandenza at 5:16 PM on June 9, 2002
a real dissapointment. now if lewis had chewed off some appendages while forcibly raping tyson in center ring...
posted by quonsar at 6:14 PM on June 9, 2002
posted by quonsar at 6:14 PM on June 9, 2002
Or in other words, Babe Ruth wasn't fit to hold Alex Rodriguez's jock strap.
You had me 'til there. I can't stand that mentality either, but it's understandable. It's human nature to deem the era you grew up in as the best. Who wants to admit to living in a shitty time? Personally, I feel that you're making as big a mistake as you accuse Joe Morgan of-- why is it impossible that baseball was better in the past? I don't think it was, but you seem to be making the same type of generalization.
A. Other than the "today's players have it easy" line, Joe Morgan is the second-best commentator on baseball. I've learned a great deal about the game from him. And I don't think there's been a better second baseman since.
B. Babe Ruth was the best lefthander in baseball for a few years. When A-Rod becomes a dominating pitcher (and throws 20 consecutive scoreless innings in the World Series), you can try making that claim again. It still won't hold up. You went from interesting poster to absolute crank in one sentence.
posted by yerfatma at 6:20 PM on June 9, 2002
You had me 'til there. I can't stand that mentality either, but it's understandable. It's human nature to deem the era you grew up in as the best. Who wants to admit to living in a shitty time? Personally, I feel that you're making as big a mistake as you accuse Joe Morgan of-- why is it impossible that baseball was better in the past? I don't think it was, but you seem to be making the same type of generalization.
A. Other than the "today's players have it easy" line, Joe Morgan is the second-best commentator on baseball. I've learned a great deal about the game from him. And I don't think there's been a better second baseman since.
B. Babe Ruth was the best lefthander in baseball for a few years. When A-Rod becomes a dominating pitcher (and throws 20 consecutive scoreless innings in the World Series), you can try making that claim again. It still won't hold up. You went from interesting poster to absolute crank in one sentence.
posted by yerfatma at 6:20 PM on June 9, 2002
Am I the only one on the board that was fairly happy to see Iron Mike take a beating? He's always been a formidable boxer, but he's not the sort of athelete you can really root for. He's just too dispicable a person (the rape conviction, the street fights, turning canibalistic in the ring). In any other sport, Tyson would have been banned for life.
If Tyson does suffer from borderline personality disorder that, perhaps, explains some of his behavior. But explaining doesn't exuse it. And Zoloft (by itself, anyway) isn't much of a stay against it (of course, BPD is hard as hell to treat), especially if you don't take it regularly. I don't know. I just don't have any sympathy in my heart for the man. All this talk about him being victorious in his defeat is just copy to sell newspapers.
posted by wheat at 6:33 PM on June 9, 2002
If Tyson does suffer from borderline personality disorder that, perhaps, explains some of his behavior. But explaining doesn't exuse it. And Zoloft (by itself, anyway) isn't much of a stay against it (of course, BPD is hard as hell to treat), especially if you don't take it regularly. I don't know. I just don't have any sympathy in my heart for the man. All this talk about him being victorious in his defeat is just copy to sell newspapers.
posted by wheat at 6:33 PM on June 9, 2002
Hey wheat,
I for one, was jumping out of my chair happy as hell that Tyson got what was coming to him. Before the fight, I figured that Lennox could take him as easy as he did, but with Tyson, you never really know. Lennox is a great boxer, but has a bad chin... one good punch from Tyson, and he could have been flat on his back, like Rahman did to him.
Until the knockout, I was on the edge of my seat with a look of amazement with how Lennox was practically schooling Tyson, but yet hoping for the knockout to avoid the one punch Tyson needed. I thought the fight delivered. 8 rounds, and no crazy ending.
I thought the security in the ring was little out of hand!
And most shocking of the night was Tyson's behavior afterwards. I still don't know what to think of it, expecially Tyson wiping the blood off of Lennox's cheek and then kissing his mom... weird.
posted by punkrockrat at 7:18 PM on June 9, 2002
I for one, was jumping out of my chair happy as hell that Tyson got what was coming to him. Before the fight, I figured that Lennox could take him as easy as he did, but with Tyson, you never really know. Lennox is a great boxer, but has a bad chin... one good punch from Tyson, and he could have been flat on his back, like Rahman did to him.
Until the knockout, I was on the edge of my seat with a look of amazement with how Lennox was practically schooling Tyson, but yet hoping for the knockout to avoid the one punch Tyson needed. I thought the fight delivered. 8 rounds, and no crazy ending.
I thought the security in the ring was little out of hand!
And most shocking of the night was Tyson's behavior afterwards. I still don't know what to think of it, expecially Tyson wiping the blood off of Lennox's cheek and then kissing his mom... weird.
posted by punkrockrat at 7:18 PM on June 9, 2002
By the way, anyone thinking that Lewis is one of the best heavyweights of all time is just fooling themselves. Great heavyweights don't lose title fights (during their prime) to no-name boxers. Tyson lost to Buster Douglas, Lewis lost to Rahman AND McCall. Greats don't lose to guys like that. Holyfield lost too many times to too many people (Bowe, Moore, Lewis) to really be considered a great one.
It's been a long time since there has been a true dominant great heavyweight of the Marciano/Louis/Ali level.
posted by Grum at 7:54 PM on June 9, 2002
It's been a long time since there has been a true dominant great heavyweight of the Marciano/Louis/Ali level.
posted by Grum at 7:54 PM on June 9, 2002
Oops... I stand corrected, but Belize is still nowhere near Bolivia...
posted by clevershark at 8:08 PM on June 9, 2002
posted by clevershark at 8:08 PM on June 9, 2002
Did I say Belize? I meant umm... Newfoundland.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:44 PM on June 9, 2002
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:44 PM on June 9, 2002
yerfatma: why is it impossible that baseball was better in the past? I don't think it was, but you seem to be making the same type of generalization.
I gave the reasons: better diet, exercise, medicine, educational tools, and the fact that in the objective sports where one competes against numeric records of pure physical achievement (sprinting, marathoning, high jump, long jump, etc.) the records have been repeatedly obliterated in the past 5 decades, suggesting that the peak of human athletic achievement is steadily increasing. I contend that, because of those physical tools to fully develop the human body as well as the sports mind, it's safe to assume that today's players are equal to if not greater than players before. It's not a "everyone's right" situation; I listed several good reasons why we know that players are getting athletically better at the very least- I'd say the burden of proof is on Morgan and others to demonstrate why the average player was better when he was playing. Don't play the relativistic game...
yerfatma: Babe Ruth was the best lefthander in baseball for a few years.
Mark McGwire had a 90 mph fastball in college, yet never pitched in the majors (hell, half of the non-pitchers in baseball can hit at or close to 90 on the radar gun, like shortstops and third basemen and right fielders). I doubt Ruth had a 90mph fastball; even the "fast" pitchers of the day like Walter Johnson are believed by physiologists who study old film footage to have not thrown more than low 80's in speed- yet every major league team has most if not all pitchers on the roster who can hit 90+ with ease. Of course, when all you need is to throw reasonably well against a bunch of poorly scouted white country hicks who have a diet of beer and bacon to be declared a "great" pitcher, then maybe McGwire should make a comeback. So long as McGwire only has to face AA talent, he might put up some near-Ruthian pitching numbers. Ruth probably wasn't that great a hurler, but he didn't have to compete against much so he looked pretty good by comparison.
yerfatma: You went from interesting poster to absolute crank in one sentence
Crank, only because you've bought the Paul Bunyan myth machine about the Ruths and Cobbs. Were these players great? Sure! I bet if they'd been born into the modern era, with their inherent talent they'd be major leaguers, perhaps even stars. But they put up great numbers against piss poor competition. They were statistical outliers among mediocrities. A handful of genuine talents made it through; the rest of the players were filler, triple-A talent at best (alas, no AAA clubs in those days- no farm system!). Lot easier to hit .340 against lousy pitchers with rag arms and competing hitters with blurred vision from delirium tremens when you're one of the few good players on the field. Imagine Barry Bonds playing his next season in AAA, and you'll see what I mean- the numbers would be obscene!
Flash forward to today's game. Instead of a small league with no farm-system, negro players, or international scouting, the talent is drawn from a much larger pool: Dominican Republic players (Sammy, Pedro), Japan (Ichiro and Ishii), Cuba, Puerto Rico, Canada, Australia, etc. The point isn't that no great players existed in 1920; the point is those players that were great did not face nearly as many similar talents to challenge them. Sure, Ruth faced Walter Johnson or Christy Mathewson, but mostly he faced guys that wouldn't even get a cup of coffee in today's game. Without effective scouting (when scouting consisted of driving through the country side and looking for brawny farm boys), without negro league players (some amazing talents that never got to play), without international scouting (to increase the number of human beings to look for the extremes of ability) the talent level on a whole in 1920 was poor. Some great talents did happen to end up in baseball, but how great they were is debatable: they put up amazing numbers against other players who shouldn't have been there, leading us to discount the quality of play considerably.
With the sheer numbers of players to choose from, and money to lure in some truly phenomenal talent, with minor league systems to properly evaluate and train talent and distinguish the wheat from the chaff before committing them to a roster spot in the bigs, with buff, Nautilus and protein powder shortstops blasting 40+ HR: with all these things, today's game is truly played by baseball titans. There are fewer and fewer roster spots that aren't inhabited by the best players much of the free world can possibly produce. And it will get better: common sense tells us in the sheer billions of people in Russia or China or India are potential superstars who've never touched a baseball, but some day their kids will- making the majors, however big it is at that point, even more competitive.
In today's game, Alex is hitting 50HR power with virtually no at-bats against anyone with a tired arm or less than 90mph+ with breaking stuff, while trying to lead the league in categories where his competition ranks among THE most capable physical athletes on the fucking planet. Ruth never had Sammy nipping at his heels, never had to take that 4th and 5th at bat against a fresh 27-year-old hitting near-triple digits on the radar gun instead of a tired pitcher on his 150th pitch.
My argument never was that Ruth sucked, but that he's monstrously overrated. Ruth was the big fish in the little pond, like the smartest kid in his high school class who then drops out instead of ever going to a place like MIT- where he'd be challenged, where EVERYONE was the smartest kid in their class- a place where maybe he doesn't look quite as amazing by comparison. Would Ruth be the best player today? Maybe. But at best, it'd be one of those debates like "best player of the 1990's" that can't be resolved. We'd surely not call him the greatest ever- whereas as things are going now, in 10 years I think it highly likely that A-Rod will be widely considered the best ever outside of Ruth, and only because people don't want to let go of the Ruth myth. When you lose those blinders, you'd see that the best of today are the best ever.
posted by hincandenza at 11:44 PM on June 9, 2002
I gave the reasons: better diet, exercise, medicine, educational tools, and the fact that in the objective sports where one competes against numeric records of pure physical achievement (sprinting, marathoning, high jump, long jump, etc.) the records have been repeatedly obliterated in the past 5 decades, suggesting that the peak of human athletic achievement is steadily increasing. I contend that, because of those physical tools to fully develop the human body as well as the sports mind, it's safe to assume that today's players are equal to if not greater than players before. It's not a "everyone's right" situation; I listed several good reasons why we know that players are getting athletically better at the very least- I'd say the burden of proof is on Morgan and others to demonstrate why the average player was better when he was playing. Don't play the relativistic game...
yerfatma: Babe Ruth was the best lefthander in baseball for a few years.
Mark McGwire had a 90 mph fastball in college, yet never pitched in the majors (hell, half of the non-pitchers in baseball can hit at or close to 90 on the radar gun, like shortstops and third basemen and right fielders). I doubt Ruth had a 90mph fastball; even the "fast" pitchers of the day like Walter Johnson are believed by physiologists who study old film footage to have not thrown more than low 80's in speed- yet every major league team has most if not all pitchers on the roster who can hit 90+ with ease. Of course, when all you need is to throw reasonably well against a bunch of poorly scouted white country hicks who have a diet of beer and bacon to be declared a "great" pitcher, then maybe McGwire should make a comeback. So long as McGwire only has to face AA talent, he might put up some near-Ruthian pitching numbers. Ruth probably wasn't that great a hurler, but he didn't have to compete against much so he looked pretty good by comparison.
yerfatma: You went from interesting poster to absolute crank in one sentence
Crank, only because you've bought the Paul Bunyan myth machine about the Ruths and Cobbs. Were these players great? Sure! I bet if they'd been born into the modern era, with their inherent talent they'd be major leaguers, perhaps even stars. But they put up great numbers against piss poor competition. They were statistical outliers among mediocrities. A handful of genuine talents made it through; the rest of the players were filler, triple-A talent at best (alas, no AAA clubs in those days- no farm system!). Lot easier to hit .340 against lousy pitchers with rag arms and competing hitters with blurred vision from delirium tremens when you're one of the few good players on the field. Imagine Barry Bonds playing his next season in AAA, and you'll see what I mean- the numbers would be obscene!
Flash forward to today's game. Instead of a small league with no farm-system, negro players, or international scouting, the talent is drawn from a much larger pool: Dominican Republic players (Sammy, Pedro), Japan (Ichiro and Ishii), Cuba, Puerto Rico, Canada, Australia, etc. The point isn't that no great players existed in 1920; the point is those players that were great did not face nearly as many similar talents to challenge them. Sure, Ruth faced Walter Johnson or Christy Mathewson, but mostly he faced guys that wouldn't even get a cup of coffee in today's game. Without effective scouting (when scouting consisted of driving through the country side and looking for brawny farm boys), without negro league players (some amazing talents that never got to play), without international scouting (to increase the number of human beings to look for the extremes of ability) the talent level on a whole in 1920 was poor. Some great talents did happen to end up in baseball, but how great they were is debatable: they put up amazing numbers against other players who shouldn't have been there, leading us to discount the quality of play considerably.
With the sheer numbers of players to choose from, and money to lure in some truly phenomenal talent, with minor league systems to properly evaluate and train talent and distinguish the wheat from the chaff before committing them to a roster spot in the bigs, with buff, Nautilus and protein powder shortstops blasting 40+ HR: with all these things, today's game is truly played by baseball titans. There are fewer and fewer roster spots that aren't inhabited by the best players much of the free world can possibly produce. And it will get better: common sense tells us in the sheer billions of people in Russia or China or India are potential superstars who've never touched a baseball, but some day their kids will- making the majors, however big it is at that point, even more competitive.
In today's game, Alex is hitting 50HR power with virtually no at-bats against anyone with a tired arm or less than 90mph+ with breaking stuff, while trying to lead the league in categories where his competition ranks among THE most capable physical athletes on the fucking planet. Ruth never had Sammy nipping at his heels, never had to take that 4th and 5th at bat against a fresh 27-year-old hitting near-triple digits on the radar gun instead of a tired pitcher on his 150th pitch.
My argument never was that Ruth sucked, but that he's monstrously overrated. Ruth was the big fish in the little pond, like the smartest kid in his high school class who then drops out instead of ever going to a place like MIT- where he'd be challenged, where EVERYONE was the smartest kid in their class- a place where maybe he doesn't look quite as amazing by comparison. Would Ruth be the best player today? Maybe. But at best, it'd be one of those debates like "best player of the 1990's" that can't be resolved. We'd surely not call him the greatest ever- whereas as things are going now, in 10 years I think it highly likely that A-Rod will be widely considered the best ever outside of Ruth, and only because people don't want to let go of the Ruth myth. When you lose those blinders, you'd see that the best of today are the best ever.
posted by hincandenza at 11:44 PM on June 9, 2002
Best player of the 1990's? That's easy.
Barry Bonds.
Next question.
posted by Grum at 5:01 AM on June 10, 2002
Barry Bonds.
Next question.
posted by Grum at 5:01 AM on June 10, 2002
I get all of your arguments. I even agree with them. My point is that comparing across generations is a waste of time and you wind up denegrating great players of one era or the other just to further your argument. Would A-Rod be better than Honus Wagner if they played in the same era? Especially if Wagner had access to not just all of the training but performance-enhancing drugs? How about the better bats, gloves, shoes, fields and not having to have a job during the off-season? Those are all things that make today's players better without any effort on their part.
I wear no blinders when it comes to the sport. I thoroughly enjoy every season (which isn't that easy as a Red Sox fan). I also enjoy the history of the game. I simply think diminishing any era is a waste of a fan's time. There are plenty of shitty things about MLB's past, notably the color barrier and the way players were treated. It doesn't mean the game wasn't great then too.
posted by yerfatma at 5:26 AM on June 10, 2002
I wear no blinders when it comes to the sport. I thoroughly enjoy every season (which isn't that easy as a Red Sox fan). I also enjoy the history of the game. I simply think diminishing any era is a waste of a fan's time. There are plenty of shitty things about MLB's past, notably the color barrier and the way players were treated. It doesn't mean the game wasn't great then too.
posted by yerfatma at 5:26 AM on June 10, 2002
Considering that "professional" boxing is the most consistently rigged sport ever, I can't believe that anyone actually cares about any of this nonsense.
At least with professional wrestling, you know it's fake!
posted by mark13 at 8:49 AM on June 10, 2002
At least with professional wrestling, you know it's fake!
posted by mark13 at 8:49 AM on June 10, 2002
« Older MI6 warned US of Al-Qaeda attacks | Sir Mick Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
And a shame to see him fighting so far from the peak of his career. Chances are he'll continue to do so, even though so clearly past it, for that 50th pro win at least.
Would you by a grill advertised by this man? How about dentures?
posted by kofisaffu at 5:04 AM on June 9, 2002