Hot Lunch
Master Black Belt
And he'd dare anyone to do something about it!Iāll tell you one thing, if this was twenty five years ago Iām pretty confident a thirty two year old Mike Tyson would have beaten a two year old Jake Paul.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And he'd dare anyone to do something about it!Iāll tell you one thing, if this was twenty five years ago Iām pretty confident a thirty two year old Mike Tyson would have beaten a two year old Jake Paul.
Yeah it was very clear he was holding backā¦.anyone upset about it post fight needs ti get in realityā¦.what did they think was going to happen Tyson is 58 with years of drug and alcohol abuse and spent years and years not training there was 0 chance he was knocking anyone out and Jake Paul isnāt going to go and try and kill an old man. Iām no fan of the guy but his antics are all for publicity. If people got scammed into paying for the fight thatās their faultI had a more altruistic view that jake chose not to murder Tyson in front of a million people.
Why would he try to intentionally hurt his business partner? Tyson was making one million, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars per minute. Paul exactly twice that.
Guaranteed money regardless of outcome.
They should have walked to the ring together.
The old Judy Collinās song should have been playing. We could have all been singing along.
āDonāt you love farce?
My fault I fear
I thought thatād you want what I want
Sorry, my dear!
But where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns
Donāt bother, theyāre here.
And yet, I fell for it again.
Jake Paul is a good boxer,getting better with every fight.I think the fight was exactly what people should have known it would be. A has-been facing a never-was. Lots of hype, not much substance.
Jake couldn't murder Tyson, he was barely breathing by the end of 8x2 minute rounds.I had a more altruistic view that jake chose not to murder Tyson in front of a million people.
Paul definitely said that he could. That's what he does, talk smack.That's fanboy talk.
Yes, we all know that Paul wouldn't have beaten a prime Tyson. Paul never said he could. But he was good enough to get those results with a 58 year old Tyson, when 99% of the rest of the world would've gotten slaughtered.
Please post a link to the quote.Paul definitely said that he could.
Yes, and none of the fighters seem to make any powerful attacks.. but there are different explanations, not sure which one it was?He stayed outside Tyson's reach almost the entire fight.
It was all Paul talked about for over a year. They were both trading jabs at each other.Please post a link to the quote.
In other words, Paul never said that. Got it.It was all Paul talked about for over a year. They were both trading jabs at each other.
Paul is a straight up smack talker with everyone he fights. He's a massive narcissist.
Yeah, and? The goal is to hit without getting hit. That's boxing. Damn.Jake couldn't murder Tyson, he was barely breathing by the end of 8x2 minute rounds.
He stayed outside Tyson's reach almost the entire fight.
He was too scared to stay in the clutch after round 1.
Nobody noticed the lack of clinching after the first 2 minutes? Paul wouldn't do that again he stayed at range. Talk about murder, Jake Paul would be a dead man if he'd stayed inside the swarm range.
Paul's new post fight interview line is that he held back and "didn't want to hurt" Mike.I watched the fight on netflix as it was over, so i fwd and skipped watching the other fights.
Yes, and none of the fighters seem to make any powerful attacks.. but there are different explanations, not sure which one it was?
1a) Paul has having respect for Tysons close range striks, and didn't want to take the risk of getting knocked while trying to attack? Beeing knocked out by an even old Tyson would probably have looked bad in his CV. So playing safe? After all Pauls guard was a bit all over. So had Tyson gotten close more often it may have been risky.
or
1b) Paul think he could have charged harder and knocked Tyson, but didn't want to damage him more than necessary, if his money was secured anyway?
I suppose both are in theory possible.
As for Tyson
2) Why Tyson didn't charge in as much, could perhaps be explained by age, and as i read he have a history of sciatica (similar to my issue), and given that some knee issue, then a more defensive (waiting for a chance to counter) may be more conservative on your resources than than charging attacks yourself on a younger opponent with presumably superior cardiofitness.
Compare to other boxing fights (but I don't watch alot of boxing) both was very defensive, and there was not as much energy in the fight. Perhaps that is also because their money was safe without need to win.
He did, and all sorts of other smack talk.In other words, Paul never said that. Got it.
Sarcasm, wow. Can we have an adult conversation?Yeah, and? The goal is to hit without getting hit. That's boxing. Damn.
Link or it didn't happen.He did, and all sorts of other smack talk.
We already are. Once again, the goal is to hit without getting hit. If Tyson was as good in that fight as he was in 1988, then the tactics that you're attributing to Paul (which doesn't break any rules, by the way) wouldn't have saved him.Sarcasm, wow. Can we have an adult conversation?
Do your own homework. There is hours of video and interview transcript out there for you.Link or it didn't happen.