Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Boxing: The Sweet Science -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mr.mark who wrote (2064)	3/11/2001 2:07:54 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10489

i presume you're talking about lewis. but you might as well be talking about tyson. am i right? With regard to their performance against Holyfield, yes, although Tyson only had one fight with him - which he lost. He would have beaten him the second time, if Holyfield - perceiving a different Tyson - hadn't resorted to employing his forehead and elbows as he is known to when he's in trouble. Like he did versus Ruiz, et al. But Lewis, the heavyweight champion of the world, fought 24 rounds against the waning - shorter in both height and reach Holyfield - and never once put him in trouble. are you telling me that you think george foreman is clueless about "television, network deals, promotional contracts"? He sure sounds like it. To make it sound as if putting together what will likely be the fight of the decade, and probably the biggest fight since Ali-Frazier I...with both the largest payout in any professional sport to date...and probably the largest global viewing audience of any professional sporting event ever...not to mention the fact that the fighters are represented by two adversarial networks...is a matter of signing a name on a piece of paper, well...maybe he was just kidding around. Maybe it was sarcasm; Big George being facetious, perhaps. And, with regard to 1912, I wasn't suggesting that George was a journeyman back then or taking a dig at his age. Instead, I was suggesting that the simplicity with which he represented the fight could be made would have been accurate...30 years before he was born. you've often remarked about foreman's astute observations. Yup; and when he says something absurd, I'll remark about that as well. It's a two way street, and I'm inclined to believe that a weathered former champ like George wouldn't have it any other way ;-) he thinks your favorite fighter is ducking a fight and is going to lose if he does get it. that doesn't make sense. I agree, it makes no sense. At the end of last week, Lewis suddenly stated that talks pertaining to the fight were "off;" a joint press release saying that Lewis had rejoined Tyson/Finkel in working on making the fight happen came out on Monday or Tuesday; and yet on Saturday night, George Foreman says that Tyson "doesn't want the fight." no more than you calling mike tyson "a ring monster" makes him one He'd be one despite any comments endorsing or disputing such. Face it: there's only so much anyone can say about Evander Holyfield and Buster Douglas. Delahoya, Jones, and virtually every other highly regarded fighter have one or two losses on their records, and yet for some reason - perhaps because he destroys, rather than outpoints, most of the fighters he faces - Tyson is somehow faulted for having been beaten. Perhaps that's the price one pays for being a KO machine, but it betrays a certain awe: even his detractors expect him to be indestructable. There isn't a fighter in the sport who punches as powerfully, attacks as aggressively, and instills fear in his opponents the way Iron Mike does. Not all, but most, and no one else comes close. Ask Hector Mercedes, Michael Spinks, Riddick Bowe, Carl Williams, Frank Bruno, Andrew Golota, et al. LPS5