Lidell vs Tyson?

iceman · 08-24-2005, 03:42 PM

it's simple it's the iceman by ko

DrumzCT · 08-24-2005, 03:57 PM

Bull, you're not even gonna get into it?

TaddT189 · 08-24-2005, 06:48 PM

I think everyone in this forum has something mentally wrong with them saying Chuch "The ice cream cone eater" Liddell would KO Mike Tyson. Here is a question, who has better boxing skills Randy Couture or Mike Tyson? Tyson in a boxing match would KO Chuck in however long he wanted to whether it be 30 sec or 2min 30sec. Crashti and Grave should go have a check up because Chuck wouldn't have an iceman's chance in hell against Tyson in the squared circle. Tyson's stamina is out of the question, he is a boxer. To box for 12 rds you need more endurance to fight for at the most 25 minutes I know this because I have done both. People talk of Chuck like he is a marathon runner his endurance has been questioned many of times. I love MMA and the UFC but some of you need a reality check.

Goeth27 · 08-24-2005, 06:56 PM

Tyson is a expert hugger.

LastExit34 · 08-24-2005, 07:02 PM

I agree with Tadd in his opinion, just not with his wording. I'm not sure what purpose calling Chuck and "ice cream cone eater" serves other than to give your argument less credibility.

I do think however, that this thread is a tad (no pun intended) on the ridiculous side. MMA and Boxing are two different things, two VERY different things. Just because Chuck has good counter punching and power in MMA, does not mean it will translate in to the Boxing ring. Power with 4oz MMA gloves doesn't necissarily mean power with Boxing gloves. Saying that Chuck would beat Tyson in a boxing match makes about as much sense as saying Tyson would beat Chuck in a MMA match. You can't relate the two at all, they aren't interchangeable. It was interesting to read through people's opinion on this thread, as it gave me some good insight into certain poster's opinions.

Tripper · 08-24-2005, 07:02 PM

haha lidell would take mike tyson to the ground and pound him so hard he would have flash backs of his childhood

LastExit34 · 08-24-2005, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RebLMunkE

Ban anyone that voted for Tyson. - Thank you

TYSON by KO

SeikanJudanski · 08-24-2005, 07:08 PM

Last time I checked, Tyson gave up to a pathetic boxer. Here is a question for you all, would chuck knock out McBride. Whoever says no, is a fool. Whoever says yes, knows that Tyson is finished. He got knocked out by Danny Williams, and showed no heart, no stamina, no nothing against McBride.

Chuck would take out McBride and Williams. So how would Tyson do against Chuck? I am not going to argue with die hard Tyson fans about who would win this fight.

Tyson is NOT the Tyson of the 80´s.

SeikanJudanski · 08-24-2005, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LastExit34

I agree with Tadd in his opinion, just not with his wording. I'm not sure what purpose calling Chuck and "ice cream cone eater" serves other than to give your argument less credibility.

I do think however, that this thread is a tad (no pun intended) on the ridiculous side. MMA and Boxing are two different things, two VERY different things. Just because Chuck has good counter punching and power in MMA, does not mean it will translate in to the Boxing ring. Power with 4oz MMA gloves doesn't necissarily mean power with Boxing gloves. Saying that Chuck would beat Tyson in a boxing match makes about as much sense as saying Tyson would beat Chuck in a MMA match. You can't relate the two at all, they aren't interchangeable. It was interesting to read through people's opinion on this thread, as it gave me some good insight into certain poster's opinions.

No disrespect there Exit, but your not the Messiah. Kickboxers can very well Box, they also train to fight long fights. Any Hardcore kickbox gym, lets ther fighters spar for 30 minutes non-stop. Chuck is as good as any McBride or Danny Williams, I think it´s a bit over exaggerated to think that Chuck can´t box, infact it is ridiculous. And if he can box, then he has a chance against Tyson. Of course the thread is a bit to the ridiculous side, life is too short to try to make every single post serious. Let the boy have some fun, making Fantasy bouts..

LastExit34 · 08-24-2005, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeikanJudanski

No disrespect there Exit, but your not the Messiah. Have you considered that maybe you don´t know what you are talking about? Kickboxers can very well Box. Chuck is as good as any McBride of Danny Williams, i think it´s a bit over exaggerated to think that Chuck can´t box, infact it is ridiculous.

When in my post did I ever say anything about me being the messiah or anything of the like? And also, when did I say in my post that Chuck coudln't box? And you can think that I don't know what I'm talking about all you want. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

You are talking about a light heavyweight MMA fighter stepping in the ring with one of the most dominate Heavyweight boxers in the history of the sport. Does Chuck have good counter punching? Yes. Does Chuck hit hard? Yes. Does that mean he can step into the boxing ring and be a top level boxer? No. Chuck was out boxed both Randy and Rampage. What makes you think that he has the boxing skills to compete at that high a level?

SeikanJudanski · 08-24-2005, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LastExit34

When in my post did I ever say anything about me being the messiah or anything of the like? And also, when did I say in my post that Chuck coudln't box? And you can think that I don't know what I'm talking about all you want. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

You are talking about a light heavyweight MMA fighter stepping in the ring with one of the most dominate Heavyweight boxers in the history of the sport. Does Chuck have good counter punching? Yes. Does Chuck hit hard? Yes. Does that mean he can step into the boxing ring and be a top level boxer? No. Chuck was out boxed both Randy and Rampage. What makes you think that he has the boxing skills to compete at that high a level?

And what high level is that you are talking about? Danny Williams needed like 4 rounds with Tyson, McBride made him quit. This is a fantasy thread, give it up man. Chuck would probably really knock him out. And who said anything about Chuck going to be a Boxer, and boxing professionally. This is a thread about Tyson vs. Chuck. Not chuck making it to the top of the WBA.

If you think Tyson is still a Boxer at a high level, then maybe you should go watch his last fights. He is far from being one of the most dominant fighters in the world. He was, 16 years ago.

LastExit34 · 08-24-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeikanJudanski

And what high level is that you are talking about? Danny Williams needed like 4 rounds with Tyson, McBride made him quit. This is a fantasy thread, give it up man. Chuck would probably really knock him out. And how said anything about Chuck going to be a Boxer, and boxing professionally. This is a thread about Tyson vs. Chuck. Not chuck making it to the top of the WBA.

If you think Tyson is still a Boxer at a high level, then maybe you should go watch his last fights. He is far from being one of the most dominant fighters in the world. He was, 16 years ago.

Give it up? You attacked me and my post by saying that I am claiming to be the "messiah" and that "I don't have a clue what I'm talking about," and you're telling me to give it up? Give me a break. I'm not going to roll over and take that garbage from anyone.

SeikanJudanski · 08-24-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LastExit34

Give it up? You attacked me and my post by saying that I am claiming to be the "messiah" and that "I don't have a clue what I'm talking about," and you're telling me to give it up? Give me a break. I'm not going to roll over and take that garbage from anyone.

the messiah thing is an expression , that maybe you come back down from your throne, some people think they are right in every post they make. I didn´t start this thread, but hey, I am loose. I am not going to try to give a rocket science answer to a fantasy thread, and also try to critize the people who posted in this thread. That´s exactly what you did, when you said it was interesting to see how people post etc.. that just another lingo, for saying we all don´t know what we are talking about.

Anyway. I am not going to argue with you, next thing what´s going to happen is I am going to get banned. And I don´t want to get banned over a fantasy thread people take too serious.

LastExit34 · 08-24-2005, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeikanJudanski

the messiah thing is an expression , that maybe you come back down from your throne, some people think they are right in every post they make. I didn´t start this thread, but hey, I am loose. I am not going to try to give a rocket science answer to a fantasy thread, and also try to critize the people who posted in this thread. That´s exactly what you did, when you said it was interesting to see how people post etc.. that just another lingo, for saying we all don´t know what we are talking about.

Anyway. I am not going to argue with you, next thing what´s going to happen is I am going to get banned. And I don´t want to get banned over a fantasy thread people take too serious.

There is a gigantic difference between me saying that "posts gave me some interesting insights into poster's opinions" and you saying "Have you considered that maybe you don´t know what you are talking about?" (which I see you so cleverly edited out) If you took my statement as criticism, then that is you're perogative.

"I am not going to try to give a rocket science answer to a fantasy thread, and also try to critize the people who posted in this thread."

If you're not trying to criticize people who posted in this thread, then what are you doing to me?

SeikanJudanski · 08-24-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LastExit34

There is a gigantic difference between me saying that "posts gave me some interesting insights into poster's opinions" and you saying "Have you considered that maybe you don´t know what you are talking about?" (which I see you so cleverly edited out) If you took my statement as criticism, then that is you're perogative.

"I am not going to try to give a rocket science answer to a fantasy thread, and also try to critize the people who posted in this thread."

If you're not trying to criticize people who posted in this thread, then what are you doing to me?

Go back and look at all my posts.. do you see anything saying "Last edited ...etc..etc.." no it doesn´t. What does that tell you? It means I took it out second after posting it, before you replied, because if you would have replied after I posted it, it would show as edited. So what i did was I took out the "you don´t know what you are talking about", because I thought it wasn´t fair. You can go back and look, there is no editing under the posts, I took out that sentence and edited, while you were probably replying to it.

I am going to ignore your statement about me , "cleverly editing it".. You not important enough for me to go back and edit something to make myself look better.

Anyway, I´m not going to argue all day with you about this. If you think a shot Tyson, who didn´t have the ability to fight against a pathetic McBride, would not give Chuck a chance. Then that´s your choice. But I critisized you for making fun of those who do give chuck a chance.

LastExit34 · 08-24-2005, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeikanJudanski

Go back and look at all my posts.. do you see anything saying "Last edited ...etc..etc.." no it doesn´t. What does that tell you? It means I took it out second after posting it, before you replied, because if you would have replied after I posted it, it would show as edited. So what i did was I took out the "you don´t know what you are talking about", because I thought it wasn´t fair. You can go back and look, there is no editing under the posts, I took out that sentence and edited, while you were probably replying to it.

I am going to ignore your statement about me , "cleverly editing it".. You not important enough for me to go back and edit something to make myself look better.

Anyway, I´m not going to argue all day with you about this. If you think a shot Tyson, who didn´t have the ability to fight against a pathetic McBride, would not give Chuck a chance. Then that´s your choice. But I critisized you for making fun of those who do give chuck a chance.

First of all, I didn't make fun of anyone. Who did I make fun of!?!?!?1

Second of all, your last sentence in this post is interesting because one post ago you said: "I am not going to try to give a rocket science answer to a fantasy thread, and also try to critize the people who posted in this thread." But now you are giving me a reason as to why you criticized me.

Thrid of all, you are crtisizing me for not giving Chuck a chance, but what about the people who didn't give Tyson a chance? I didn't criticize any of them, I merely said it gave me some insight into their opinions. But even if I did criticize them, using your logic, it would be justified.

SeikanJudanski · 08-24-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LastExit34

First of all, I didn't make fun of anyone. Who did I make fun of!?!?!?1

Second of all, your last sentence in this post is interesting because one post ago you said: "I am not going to try to give a rocket science answer to a fantasy thread, and also try to critize the people who posted in this thread." But now you are giving me a reason as to why you criticized me.

Thrid of all, you are crtisizing me for not giving Chuck a chance, but what about the people who didn't give Tyson a chance? I didn't criticize any of them, I merely said it gave me some insight into their opinions. But even if I did criticize them, using your logic, it would be justified.

Is this going to be a debate? it´s 2.03 am here. maybe tomorrow.

LastExit34 · 08-24-2005, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeikanJudanski

Is this going to be a debate? it´s 2.03 am here. maybe tomorrow.

It doesn't have to be. I'm not the one who started it. I just didn't appreciate you trying to belittle me. I can understand if you don't agree with my opinion, but I don't think the way you responded and tried to put me down was needed. I think you are a quality poster on the board here and I value your opinion, so the manner in which you responded to my post surprised me a little. But like I said, I'm not going to roll over and take it. I don't think any less of you now and I was a little shocked to see that you think I would ban you over something as dumb as this. If you genuinely took my post as a personal shot, then I apologize, because it wasn't intended that way.

swayne20 · 08-24-2005, 08:13 PM

The difference is Chuck would not be able to withstand the power punches like Mcbride and Williams. Even for four rounds. Tyson would knock Chuck out. Chuck has not been hit with power similars to Tyson. Btw, Tyson is shot mentally. His power is not. His will is and this why he is not champion. Last thing to go from a boxer is power and Tyson has this. The last few guys he fought were not top contenders but they were huge guys and could withstand his power for 3-4 rounds. After this Tyson lost his will.

SeikanJudanski · 08-24-2005, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LastExit34

It doesn't have to be. I'm not the one who started it. I just didn't appreciate you trying to belittle me. I can understand if you don't agree with my opinion, but I don't think the way you responded and tried to put me down was needed. I think you are a quality poster on the board here and I value your opinion, so the manner in which you responded to my post surprised me a little. But like I said, I'm not going to roll over and take it. I don't think any less of you now and I was a little shocked to see that you think I would ban you over something as dumb as this. If you genuinely took my post as a personal shot, then I apologize, because it wasn't intended that way.

Listen Exit, it´s two in the morning, and maybe I got something wrong in the post. Sorry if you thought I was trying to belittle you, I was just being dry. I respect your posts and you have proved time and time again that you know what you are talking about. Reading your last statement, I think it´s a very honorable move of you to apologize, when there really isn´t a reason to. I respect that, and tip my hat of to you. I also apologize.