Tyson vs. Shamrock (quote, '95)

~~[MERIT]~~ · 10-17-2006, 09:47 AM

who would win in a fight? Mike Tyson in his prime ('88-'92) or Ken Shamrock ('93-'95)?

after thinking it over, id probably put my money on shamrock, even though tyson could take his head off with one punch, ken is a shoot fighter and could most likely take tyson down easily and submit him.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 10-17-2006, 10:20 PM

anyone else's thoughts?

Laces Out Dan! · 10-17-2006, 10:20 PM

Shamrock would take him down..submit him easilly.

nexthendrix10 · 10-18-2006, 02:54 AM

i think tyson was more powerful during his prime physically...it would depend if they where fighting with traditional boxing or usf rules.

DontRunMeOver · 10-18-2006, 04:03 AM

How does the prize money and sponsorship compare between Boxing and UFC? Although UFC might be a more useful fighting style, the toughest cookies probably would have been attracted to where the biggest money was (so, at that time boxing). Who's to say that the top heavyweight boxers couldn't have learnt grappling and choking in a few weeks and overrun the UFC?

I would say that with the training they did have, Shamrock would win a no-rules fight, but that if Mike more varied training he might have taken him.

one_more_atrocity · 10-18-2006, 04:54 AM

i would put my money on shamrock, but it would be close.

Wild7Dustr · 10-18-2006, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

who would win in a fight? Mike Tyson in his prime ('88-'92) or Ken Shamrock ('93-'95)?

after thinking it over, id probably put my money on shamrock, even though tyson could take his head off with one punch, ken is a shoot fighter and could most likely take tyson down easily and submit him.

Take Tyson down easily?!?!Hell, he probally couldn't do much to Tyson even now.

In Tyson's prime he could and would "kill" everybody he came in contact with.Shamrock wouldn't stand a chance against him, period.If Shamrock, in some of your guys' opinions, could take down Tyson, why wasn't he ever able to even contend with him?Do you love Shamrock that much or are trying to promote a fight for him or something?Tyson beats Shamrock anyday!I'd put Big Money on that one.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 10-18-2006, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wild7Dustr

Take Tyson down easily?!?!Hell, he probally couldn't do much to Tyson even now.

In Tyson's prime he could and would "kill" everybody he came in contact with.Shamrock wouldn't stand a chance against him, period.If Shamrock, in some of your guys' opinions, could take down Tyson, why wasn't he ever able to even contend with him?Do you love Shamrock that much or are trying to promote a fight for him or something?Tyson beats Shamrock anyday!I'd put Big Money on that one.

theres a reason they called shamrock "the world's most dangerous man." and yes tyson did destroy anyone put infron of him, but thats because all he had to worry about his opponent doing was throwing punches. now if his opponent could shoot for a double-leg takedown, throw muy thai kicks to his head, do a little ground-and-pound, or put his ass in a rear naked choke, im fairly certain tyson would be quite defenseless.

DontRunMeOver · 10-18-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

theres a reason they called shamrock "the world's most dangerous man." and yes tyson did destroy anyone put infron of him, but thats because all he had to worry about his opponent doing was throwing punches. now if his opponent could shoot for a double-leg takedown, throw muy thai kicks to his head, do a little ground-and-pound, or put his ass in a rear naked choke, im fairly certain tyson would be quite defenseless.

Probably not if somebody taught him how to defend himself against them. Just because boxers are only allowed to use punches during a boxing match, that doesn't mean punches was all the fighter was ever capable of. I'd be surprised if arms the size of Tysons wouldn't be fairly useful in a grappling situation once somebody showed him the techniques.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 10-18-2006, 12:39 PM

No i`ve never really understood why people think boxers can only punch either.

Tyson would kill the guy , the guy is an animal.

10-17-2006, 09:47 AM	#1 (permalink)
~~[MERIT]~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Missouri, USA Posts: 4,814	Tyson vs. Shamrock who would win in a fight? Mike Tyson in his prime ('88-'92) or Ken Shamrock ('93-'95)? after thinking it over, id probably put my money on shamrock, even though tyson could take his head off with one punch, ken is a shoot fighter and could most likely take tyson down easily and submit him.

10-17-2006, 10:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
Laces Out Dan! I love Puck Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: British Columbia Posts: 4,614	Shamrock would take him down..submit him easilly. __________________ We are entirely smooth, We admit to the truth, We are the best at what we do.

10-18-2006, 04:54 AM	#6 (permalink)
one_more_atrocity lolocaust Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: birmingham, uk Posts: 354	i would put my money on shamrock, but it would be close. __________________ .::: I'd redecorate the walls with your inner thoughts, but im afraid it's the wrong shade of red :::.

10-18-2006, 12:39 PM	#10 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	No i`ve never really understood why people think boxers can only punch either. Tyson would kill the guy , the guy is an animal. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

10-17-2006, 10:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
~~[MERIT]~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Missouri, USA Posts: 4,814	anyone else's thoughts?

10-18-2006, 02:54 AM	#4 (permalink)
nexthendrix10 Groupie Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3	i think tyson was more powerful during his prime physically...it would depend if they where fighting with traditional boxing or usf rules.