Alright Planeteers, I've been arguing on message boards with people about this off and on for a couple years now and I want to get CP's input on it. The question is this: Who would win in a fight between Bruce Lee and Mike Tyson in his prime? Let's hear it! [Reply]
Not even in the top ten-but 2 fighters in Tyson's own generation are.
Tyson is an actor now- and he is still not the baddest man -even in the movies.
Who is the toughest actor these days? Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Carl Weathers, Tatum Channing, Jean Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, Dolph Lundrgren, Chuck Zito????? Oh wait, Jet Li? Jackie Chan??? [Reply]
This is embarrassing to be honest. So Lee would win because he was a great fighter in movies and his expertise of martian arts.I guess that beats Tyson's REAL LIFE fights and boxing expertise. Posted via Mobile Device [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Bruce Lee had the knowledge, strength, technique, speed, and power to not just be a good fighter, but an exceptional fighter. There are more than enough demos, exhibitions, and teachings that show that. Don't compare him to a pudgy guy like Charlie Weis. Ridiculous example. If the question is if his experience translated in a ring, that's more than fair. But we are basing that entire thing off of hypotheticals. Because he's not some ordinary guy walking into that ring. He'd have a lot of stuff to work with.
And Tyson is some regular guy? And WE KNOW what Tyson can do. Not kidding but he probably would make Lee fly off the ground with an uppercut. Posted via Mobile Device [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
And Tyson is some regular guy? And WE KNOW what Tyson can do. Not kidding but he probably would make Lee fly off the ground with an uppercut. Posted via Mobile Device
I never said Tyson was a regular guy. I said they were both excellent at their crafts. But few people are discrediting Tyson. Nobody's comparing Tyson to Stallone. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Halfcan: :-) 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.
wtf? i know you know there are weight classes in every point scoring contact sport. for a reason? right? [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Bruce Lee had the knowledge, strength, technique, speed, and power to not just be a good fighter, but an exceptional fighter. There are more than enough demos, exhibitions, and teachings that show that. Don't compare him to a pudgy guy like Charlie Weis. Ridiculous example. If the question is if his experience translated in a ring, that's more than fair. But we are basing that entire thing off of hypotheticals. Because he's not some ordinary guy walking into that ring. He'd have a lot of stuff to work with.
Lee above all would have the wisdom to not even show up. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
This is embarrassing to be honest. So Lee would win because he was a great fighter in movies and his expertise of martian arts.I guess that beats Tyson's REAL LIFE fights and boxing expertise. Posted via Mobile Device
We also have the unknown of how Tyson would do against kicks, grappling, and takedowns. Just as we have the unknown of whether Bruce Lee's expertise and skills/technique translated into a real fight. Because of that it's hard to give Bruce an edge. But people need to stop with the comparisons to actors who weren't nearly as skilled or had an ounce of the mastery as someone like Bruce Lee? Nobody's saying Jackie Chan or Chuck Norris could beat Tyson. They're saying IF Bruce's knowledge and skills did transfer to the ring, it would be a pretty intriguing fight. [Reply]
Originally Posted by redhed:
Dang, I musta checked out before the Holm fight.
Just a lot of "yeah, but ronda can shoot and clinch for the takedown" on Mayweather just days before she got her face caved in by an average striking talent. It's still pretty funny. [Reply]
