Bruce Lee 265 62.50%

Mike Tyson 159 37.50%

...and Bruce Lee is dead. Let's compare them at their primes, though. Tyson was the most dominant heavyweight in history. Bruce Lee was an actor who didn't actually fight.
[Reply]

Think Bruce could take down Rousey?
[Reply]

Yes. I'll give him that one.
[Reply]

:-) Tyson was not even the best fighter of his generation. His record is littered with guys off of bum row. And yes he was the Champ in his prime when Buster knocked the dogshit out of him. Lewis was better, Holyfield was better and a journeyman named Buster exposed the myth of Tyson.

Greatest of all time-that is laughable- so he could of beat Joe Lewis, Ali, Marciano, or how about Foreman in his prime? Not a chance.

Lee was not just an actor but the founder of Jeet Kune Do. He was also the Godfather of MMA according to Dana White and many others.

Obviously you are in love with Tyson's highlight reel of uppercuts to flabby and over the hill "fighters" and don't put much stock in martial arts. Tommy Morrison had a much better record and used to destroy the same kind of guys Tyson did. So by your measurement -Tommy the Duke would win against the "actor" and basically any heavyweight boxer-because of size advantage. You are right a smaller guy has Never beat a bigger guy-ever.

Over the years I have seen many smaller little guys that looked like nothing special- beat the shit out of guys twice their size. And these are just your run of the mill bar fights-not the greatest martial artist of all time.

In a controlled boxing match-I would give Tyson an edge -but a cage fight, anything goes, to the death- Lee would rip his eyes out in the first 1/2 second of the fight.
[Reply]

Hahahahahahahaha....rip his eyes out in the first half second of the fight.

That's gold.
[Reply]

It's scary that the U.S government allows some of you rubes to vote.
[Reply]

//thread
[Reply]

^^^^^
Voted that Rhonda Rousey would beat Floyd Mayweather
[Reply]

Lee's strikes were too quick to defend.
[Reply]

There's no such thing.
[Reply]

It's about as dumb as saying Bruce Lee was some guy who just kicked and punched guys on film. He was a huge student and relentlessly trained from some of the best. Also well documented that he was a powerful striker and had striking speed that was off the charts. Sure, some of his feats are exaggerated, but he was extremely well trained and had an outstanding skill set. That's not going to be easy to beat, I don't care what his debatable "real fight" experience is.

It's hard to say who'd win because they're two totally different fighters. But people here diminishing Lee to some Jet LI or Jackie Chan type movie star is just silly.
[Reply]

Or that Rhonda Rousey could take Floyd Mayweather.

At some point, mass wins. If you're a lumbering brute, that mass can be neutralized and even used against you. But when you have the quickness and explosion that Tyson had, not to mention the footwork he had when D'amato was still training him, he'd absolutely wreck Lee.

This isn't speed vs. power - it's speed vs. speed AND power. Tyson had 90 lbs and a major reach advantage on Lee. He was a technically skilled fighter as well. Lee was a powerful striker for a 135 lb man, but he was nothing compared to the guys that Tyson fought and shrugged off blows from.
[Reply]

Yeah, but Tyson was never blind a half second into those fights.
[Reply]

De-eyed by the striking tiger paw. That's the super secret martial arts name for plucking a dude's eyes out in under a second.
[Reply]

This doesn't even take into account the massive experience gap. Bruce Lee is like a guy who hit bombs in batting practice but never had a major league at bat, but people think he's a better hitter than Barry Bonds.
[Reply]