# Archie Moore vs Mike Tyson



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

This was inspired by a dream I had where I was ringside for this one haha 

If anyone gets close to how this one goes and/or the result I'll let you know


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

I dreamed I was 187 lbs last night and a boxing prodigy.
Shame I'm a lanky ass bitch at 147 lbs.
But maybe I should just look if there's a gym in the Netherlands and start training and hope I got an iron chin.

Mike Tyson stops him in the first round.
Combination of speed, size, skills is too much for the smaller man.

Would have been different if Tyson was slow but he wasn't.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

is it a joke? yes, rocky splitnose.. it is a dream.... tyson would ko this glass chin lhw just looking him to the eyes


----------



## thistle1 (Jun 7, 2013)

dyna said:


> I dreamed I was 187 lbs last night and a boxing prodigy.
> Shame I'm a lanky ass bitch at 147 lbs.
> But maybe I should just look if there's a gym in the Netherlands and start training and hope I got an iron chin.
> 
> ...


Agree! but with luck Moore might get a couple of rounds out of it!


----------



## Phantom (May 17, 2013)

Not a good matchup for Archie at all.....but NO lightheavy would have lasted with Mike.


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

*XXX Advisory WARNING: The following post rant is long and digressive, therefore NOT suitable reading for attention challenged idiots. Otherwise, do not attempt to continue any further with this submission, except in the extremely unlikely event you are being chaperoned by somebody with a working brain.*

Tyson gets the stoppage, but how it unfolds might be pretty surprising.

First of all, I won't mindlessly scoff at this one with a lazy DeJohn-Powell type outcome one liner prediction, but offer a bit of analysis. This isn't Marvis Frazier Mike's being paired with, or a slow starting Michael Spinks. This might look a little different than most imagine.

Moore was in horrendous shape for Patterson, and admitted after his career that this was his most dreadful performance in a major bout. (He actually outweighed Floyd by five pounds.) However, if you chose to, and can somehow manage to overlook that poor preparedness (Arch was no doubt expecting the SD winner over Tommy Jackson, not an abrupt Easton Assassin type quantum leap from Arrington to Shavers I), here's what the peek-a-boo looks like against the cross-arm, as brilliantly narrated by ringside eyewitness and recent Mongoose conqueror Marciano:






Okay, so let's make Archie the best prepared he can possibly be (a radical variable during his LHW reign when above 175) against, say the left hook and body-shot oriented Tyson of the systematic Biggs breakdown (for my money, Mike's best and most intelligent performance in an extended match).

I don't see Moore stopping Tyson's hook to the body. The most inherent flaw of the cross armed guard from orthodox stance is the exposure of the liver region to body shots, and Mike's hand speed compares favorably to Patterson's. Floyd said the turning point for him came in the third round with a grunt inducing hook to the stomach. No version of Archie stops those from landing.

Straight at the outset, Moore wanted to draw Patterson inside, and Floyd wouldn't go for it. Despite Archie's reach advantage, Patterson immediately undertakes control of action with his much faster and shorter jab at mid range. Tyson certainly could and did use his jab effectively at times to manage opponents like Tucker, so doing this with Archie wouldn't be much of an issue. Mike was perfectly capable of the necessary footwork for proper positioning and evasion whenever the slower Moore did have punching room.

What could startle many is that this won't be an opening round steamroll for Tyson, and Mike wouldn't be attempting it. Physical logistics play a role in my speculation here.

Frazier candidly admitted he didn't like taking on opponents his own height or even shorter, although he successfully did this with some regularity. Scrap Iron, Bonavena, Ziggy and Stander were all shorter than himself. Keeping his punches from sailing over the heads of anybody below 6'1" could be a real nuisance for him, and Doug Jones, Machen, Chuvalo, Terry Daniels and JQ were at 6'0 even. It was only with the astute Futch's clear minded re-frame for JQ II that Joe finally came in planning to box tall with the jab and surprise face tearing right which made Jerry turn away and quit, that Smoke really showed he could win with those punching skills against opponents of comparable stature, a new experience which remained much in evidence for his comeback finale with Cummings. (Replace Durham with Futch as lead strategist for Bonavena I, and Joe could well have taken a clear ten round UD, instead of a controversial SD.)

Like Frazier, Tyson was really geared for significantly taller targets, but unlike Joe, had virtually nothing in the way of a significant resume against them. Smoke wouldn't have liked it very much, but he proved repeatedly that he could live with top heavyweights the smaller size of Marciano's day. Archie would be in much more of a comfort zone so far as experience is concerned with world class opponents of similar stature to his own. (Keep in mind that Patterson didn't have this problem with Moore, having come up from MW, while Mike, like Marciano and Frazier, was always a HW accustomed to often being the shorter guy in competition. The one time Rocky was the taller man against a noted pro, he had a tepid three round feeling out process with the slow starting Freddie Beshore after icing Rex Layne, as his shots kept going over the bobbing and weaving USN vet's head. Watch Marciano-Layne, then Louis-Beshore. Would you have honestly expected Freddie to then take Rocky into the fourth round at that particular stage of their careers? Marciano admitted not liking how Charles took away his punching room with crowding when narrating the outset of his first match with Ezz. The tough but cut prone and severely limited Beshore didn't just crowd Rocky, he was uniquely getting underneath Marciano, which had to be a weird experience for the Rock.)

Now, what happens when Mike takes on another ATG his own height for a change? Read on.

25 years ago TODAY, I sat at home hypnotically viewing Orlin Norris's masterful 12 round domination of a 220 pound Greg Page (who was still only 30 years old at that point). I was convinced in and there a quarter century ago that Orlin would be the guy to dethrone Tyson, for precisely the same reasons suggested by Wallace Matthews the following August:

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-06/sports/sp-151_1_orlin-norris

Buster Douglas was somebody I considered a quitter after Mike White and Tony Tucker, so I was enraged with frustration when Douglas got the shot at Tyson in Tokyo over the MUCH hotter reigning NABF HW titleholder, relegated to second choice for that title challenge, primarily because of Orlin's association with Bob Arum and Top Rank. You do the math. Orlin Norris had won 20 straight when Buster pulled off that upset, and had successfully defended that NABF championship half a dozen times over the 12 round distance after winning it from Larry Alexander. He had never been stopped. Zero question who the better qualified challenger for Tyson was in February 1990. Douglas also proved there was little question Orlin would have decisioned a derailing Mike in Japan (who was decked in sparring there by the aforementioned Page).

Yes, Orlin Norris was ducked by Tyson in February 1990 for another expected cheap and easy knockout win from a seventh ranked contender who only got the shot after King wormed an advance three fight promotion deal out of him, just in case of the wild improbability which became stunning reality. Foreman signed to fight Orlin as early as September 1987, and George actually backed out of later NABF HW title challenge offers by Orlin later, at least three times in all. Holyfield withdrew from an NABF HW challenge of Orlin after the Page schooling. (Yes, Orlin would have taken the UD over the defensively flawed Evander as well in 1989.) Very smart avoidance by both Foreman and Holyfield, considering the payoff they later cashed in on. Not so smart a duck by Tyson, as he'd at least have never been hurt, dropped or stopped by Orlin, even in a lopsided UD title loss, spurring return match viability. The image of Mike senselessly putting in his mouthpiece backwards while counted out was much harder to shake.

Only six days after Douglas-Tyson, a bitterly disappointed Orlin defended his NABF HW Title in Edmonton against the wildly erratic Smokin' Bert Cooper. Halfway into round eight, Orlin throws a right, and a tendon in his right knee snaps, costing him his first stoppage defeat in a freak accident, and putting him out of commission for a then career long six full months at a critical moment. The absurdity of this reminded me of the circus on ESPN's Top Rank Boxing eight years earlier, when Orlin's future rival Tony Tucker banged knees with Danny Sutton in their first meeting, resulting in a third round NC, and TNT being shelved for 15 months. (At the close of that broadcast, Tony seemed to have recovered, appeared to be walking around in the ring normally, and was protesting in the post fight interview that he was ready to resume action. It sometimes takes a little while for the long term severity of a knee injury to act up and become fully apparent after the initial shock has worn off. Remember that a few paragraphs down, with respect to Orlin's completely accurate honesty on camera eight years later, when being interviewed by the most stupid and ignorantly arrogant quack physician ever involved in boxing.)

Personally, the most bitterly disappointing fight of Mike Tyson's career was not Holyfield II, McBride, Douglas, or Bonecrusher Smith. No, it was when he finally did square off with Orlin Norris TEN YEARS TOO LATE. Still, aside from the freak right knee tendon snap against Bert Cooper, Orlin had only otherwise been stopped when dethroned of the WBA World CW Title he'd slimmed down to win after losing his regained NABF HW Title in an SD to Tucker, because after five years and 15 fights at 190, he was finally weakened with weight drain against Philadelphia challenger Nate Miller in London. (Orlin would get even with Miller in Louisville three years later when back at full strength at SCW via clear 12 round UD. I will note here that Orlin won his few career rematches, but Tucker II and Miller II were his only opportunities to avenge prior defeats. Also noteworthy that his SD loss and SD wins over TNT were the bookends to his successful career at 190. Orlin weighed 213 for Tony in '91, and 215 in '96, while Tucker's weight also remained fairly consistent at 235 then 242 respectively.) Nobody ever legitimately punched out a full strength Night Train, unless his 2005 career call at 39 was on the level. 
Concerning that flagrant dive on Vitali, boxing richly deserved Orlin's :handofbogo:happy:clap: after the way the sport and :lucius blatantly screwed him for over a decade out of ever receiving a shot at the world heavyweight title through courtroom maneuverings and other manipulative bullshit. For me as a permanent former fan of boxing, what Night Train did in Munich was the best shit dumped on that town since the allied bombing raids, but I'd have been happy with him dropping that turd anywhere that promotion took place.

Just three complete minutes of legal action between Orlin Norris and Mike Tyson, but nothing to suggest that the fast starting Tyson had the power to legitimately take Orlin out. Ten years too late, but it was still obvious that this was vary strange territory to Mike, looking face to face with a world class opponent who could make him miss by going under. Tyson's going to key his jab and body shots for a decision win against a shorter distance oriented stylist like that. Really? He did land some good head shots on Night Train between the bells, but nothing which bothered Orlin in any way.

Regarding that final punch, no, Orlin's head wasn't buzzed by it, he got sucker punched after stopping at the bell and preparing to turn to his right when Mike's hook spun his head to the left, as Night Train had his right heel planted on the mat, from which the impact folds him down onto his right knee, popping out his kneecap. Did Richard Steele blow the call in not disqualifying Tyson? There's no question about it. With 19 seconds remaining, Iron Bite locks his right around Orlin's left. He keeps it clamped on when Steele first orders them to punch out of it, then orders a break with 16 seconds left as he moves in, barking directly into Tyson's right ear to, "Break! Step back for me! Step back! Break!" as Mike holds and hits Orlin in blatant defiance. (It wasn't illegal for Night Train to self-protectively bang into Tyson with his free right hand during that clinch, as he wasn't the one doing the holding. In fact, he boxed cleanly for those three minutes, never butting, never hitting while holding, and only clinched briefly for defensive purposes after missing.).

Dirty deed number one which concluded after Iron Bite drew a warning from Steele for a left to the head which may well have been an elbow, THREE SECONDS after Steele moved in to separate them. Why didn't referee Steele deduct a point then and there? I believe he would have if he'd fully seen what Mike's body shielded him from on the opposite side with that stray left. Following that warning, Tyson ducks a right as the bell rings. Orlin immediately snaps back upright, but halts the momentum of his follow-up hook in reaction to hearing the bell. Mike's right uppercut counter attempt to Orlin's right cross follow-through simultaneously misses as the bell rings, but it is a legal punch attempt. That knockdown sucker punch not only lands TWO FULL SECONDS after the bell rings, but in the slow motion replay, you can actually see Tyson pull back his left to fire it off, AFTER STEELE MAKES PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH HIS RIGHT SIDE TO STOP THE ACTION!!! Again, if the right side of Iron Bite's body had not been shielding the referee from his left hand (further concealed by the fact that at that instant, Tyson had turned so that Steele had to come from behind Iron Bite's right side) Mike definitely would have been disqualified. Fortunately for him, there are no instant replays in boxing, but there's no question that Dirty deed number two (bad pun intended) was no kind of accidental foul.

Fuckhead Ferdie the Retard Quack continues asking stupid questions like "How could a punch hurt his knee?," and Doctor Moron somehow manages to remain completely stupid after seeing the slow motion replay showing exactly how it could happen. Asshat Fuctard, M.D. also says, "I've been in boxing 40 years and never heard of anything like this!" Really, asshole? You had no clue about Tucker-Sutton I, Benitez getting his ankle shattered when knocked down by Bronx Davey Moore, going way back into some famous history, the way Bill Brennan's legs locked up resulting in fight ending fracture the final time Dempsey decked KO Bill in their first meeting, or, oh, I dunno, how about some very well documented history from eight years earlier involving THE VERY SAME VICTIM HAVING THE EXACT SAME KNEE WRAPPED UP AGAIN BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES? "His knee looks okay to me!" Yeah, that's what Tucker said after Sutton I. Did Orlin sound like Starling after Molinares? HE WAS CERTAINLY CLEAR HEADED ENOUGH TO TELL DOCTOR SHITFORBRAINS THE GODDAMNED TRUTH ABOUT HAVING HIS FUCKING KNEE INJURED AND OPERATED ON EIGHT YEARS EARLIER!

Why was Nate Miller previously able to knock out Night Train in London. For the exact same reason Billy Conn was able to stun Louis in their first match. Anybody who knows anything at all about boxing knows how weight drain and dehydration can diminish the fluid cushioning protecting the human brain for punch resistance. Again, no problem with Miller when rematched at a higher weight. Tyson did not have the power to hurt this former cruiserweight, not when they met ten years too late, and not in 1989 or February 1990.

So here we go with Iron Bite-Mongoose. Archie didn't have THAT good a chin, but it wasn't easy to nail it through his guard and low positioning. Patterson didn't have much success on Moore with his right uppercut, either having it swing up wild and short as Arch leaned back, or had it blocked when closer by the Mongoose cross arm. Tyson's right uppercut will not key his win here. Moore will be under Mike's crosses to the head. Where Tyson would need to win this is with his left, by virtue of a much shorter and faster diversionary jab at longer range, and the hook to the body when Archie tries to draw him in closer.

Mike wasn't the type to bring pressure like a Marciano or Frazier. He was a mid range guy, and the slower more reactive Moore would suit him in that respect. Hand speed, positioning, jabs and hooks to the body set Archie up for a mid rounds stoppage once Tyson does get to that chin. Like Patterson, he could evade much of Moore's power, and had the necessary physical template to stand up under any singular blasts Archie gets in with. But his best self is not instantly squashing the best version of Moore like a bug simply by being the naturally heavier man, as a past prime recent CW Orlin Norris showed. He'd still have issues targeting Archie's low profile before solving it, probably more so than a Patterson more experienced with shorter opponents at lighter weights.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

ii will say it in few words.. every person who try to insinuate that moore would last more than a single round is a complete troll


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> ii will say it in few words.. every person who try to insinuate that moore would last more than a single round is a complete troll


Appreciate the complement.

Leonard Morrow caught him cold ONCE, but the closest anybody else ever came was when the underestimated Durelle surprised him, but couldn't finish the job. He beat Hatchetman over the distance 2X, trashed Satterfield, and obviously wasn't blown out by Marciano. The 5'11" Mongoose did have some trouble with MR opponents his own height or less (5'10-1/2" Marciano, 5'10" Lloyd Marshall, 5'9-1/2" Durelle, 5'9" Booker, 5'9" Burley, 5'9" Bivins, 5'8" Shorty Hogue, 5'5-1/2" Wade) who could get under him, but he also mastered a number of those shorter guys.

As for Tyson, there is NOTHING in those three minutes with Orlin Norris to suggest Mike would try going for an opening round kill on Archie. He was jabbing at Night Train from an upright stance, feeling his way through the strange experience of boxing a world class opponent his own height. (Even the 6'0" Patterson ducked under Moore at times.) Tyson's damaging rights to the head usually came over the top or were uppercuts, not the sort of straight right from a wide base Durelle used. Of course Archie's not going to underestimate Mike like he did Morrow, Patterson or Durelle. Moore was stopped seven times in 23 defeats, but only Charles III saw him get taken out by a single knockdown.

Tyson would definitely need more than three minutes to end this. Moore's chin tuck, cross arm and low profile back-footed base would take longer than that for Mike to figure out before those hooks to the body solve matters for him. Tyson was a guy who went for first round knockouts whenever it was reasonable and realistic to try. Orlin Norris was clearly not a situation where he was looking to do that, and neither would he be attempting this with the Mongoose. For Mike, taking on a short opponent like this was as odd as southpaw Mildenberger was for Ali and Machen. Tyson would need to get his bearings first. As with Orlin Norris, round one with Archie Moore would be a feeling out round for Mike. This isn't the sleepy starting Michael Spinks he's in there with.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Duo said:


> Appreciate the complement.
> 
> Leonard Morrow caught him cold ONCE, but the closest anybody else ever came was when the underestimated Durelle surprised him, but couldn't finish the job. He beat Hatchetman over the distance 2X, trashed Satterfield, and obviously wasn't blown out by Marciano. The 5'11" Mongoose did have some trouble with MR opponents his own height or less (5'10-1/2" Marciano, 5'10" Lloyd Marshall, 5'9-1/2" Durelle, 5'9" Booker, 5'9" Burley, 5'9" Bivins, 5'8" Shorty Hogue, 5'5-1/2" Wade) who could get under him, but he also mastered a number of those shorter guys.
> 
> ...


when exactly did orlin norris face a prime tyson?.... please... tyson would demolish archie moore in 30 seconds, in 30 fucking seconds, moore had fragile chin even against 190 pounders, michael spinks was more elusive than moore, he was bigger ,longer, he had a much better chin than moore and he had faster feet than moore and tyson destroyed him in seconds.. moore is not surviving to the first round, nice history.. but i doubt that you can convince anyone.. tyson by brutal ko in seconds..


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> when exactly did orlin norris face a prime tyson?....


Neither was prime, of course. Again, this one came off ten years too late. However, Tyson started off in a very different way with Night Train than he ever had before, standing upright and jabbing against another short opponent. Whether they squared off in 1989, 1999, or sometime in between, it starts off the same way, with Tyson using his jab as he figures out how to deal with somebody who can get under him.


> please... tyson would demolish archie moore in 30 seconds, in 30 fucking seconds, moore had fragile chin even against 190 pounders,


It certainly wasn't granite, as I pointed out already, but one had to reach it first, and he could recover well when he was hurt. He did win a few fights after taking multiple knockdowns. (When fights were scored on a rounds basis instead of points, knockdowns didn't count as much. That's the reason Louis got out of the first match with JJW still holding the title.)


> michael spinks was more elusive than moore, he was bigger, longer, he had a much better chin than moore and he had faster feet than moore and tyson destroyed him in seconds..


Michael was a MUCH slower starter than Moore usually was and like fellow heavy punchers Carlos Palomino, Danny Lopez and Ron Lyle, he NEVER produced a first round knockout against world class competition. (In fact, Michael only did this in his fifth and ninth fights, Lyle NEVER did it, and Palomino never did it until his 1997 comeback, when Rene Arredondo may have taken a dive.)

Because Michael was longer, and boxed tall, he was an easier target for Tyson to shoot up at. He may well have had a better chin than Archie, but the first punch he was knocked down with was a right to his slender body, not the head. Nobody questions that Michael Spinks had faster feet, but Moore had a naturally thicker frame, and thick muscular arms which protected his head well. He leaned forward in a way which made his body a more difficult target, and he could be very good countering off the ropes from a low crouch, where Tyson caught Michael standing upright.


> moore is not surviving to the first round, nice history.. but i doubt that you can convince anyone.. tyson by brutal ko in seconds..


Tyson was a fast starter who did exactly what he should have done to a notorious slow starter like Michael Spinks, who was as tall as the other guys Tyson was used to wiping out. However, a well prepared Mongoose could also start fast enough to stop opponents like that. (Archie did this around 16 times in his career, and one of them over big Embrell Davidson is on youtube as Joe Louis comments.) At his best prepared, Moore was not an easily intimidated guy like Michael Spinks was for Tyson. (Hell, Archie rematched a bunch of his toughest opponents, and knocked out six of the guys who beat him in return bouts.) The Mongoose was more likely to get beat if overconfident and out of shape, which wouldn't be the case here.

30 seconds? You're comparing the best and most experienced of Archie Moore to Marvis Frazier? Get real!


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

duo said:


> neither was prime, of course. Again, this one came off ten years too late. However, tyson started off in a very different way with night train than he ever had before, standing upright and jabbing against another short opponent. Whether they squared off in 1989, 1999, or sometime in between, it starts off the same way, with tyson using his jab as he figures out how to deal with somebody who can get under him. It certainly wasn't granite, as i pointed out already, but one had to reach it first, and he could recover well when he was hurt. He did win a few fights after taking multiple knockdowns. (when fights were scored on a rounds basis instead of points, knockdowns didn't count as much. That's the reason louis got out of the first match with jjw still holding the title.)michael was a much slower starter than moore usually was and like fellow heavy punchers carlos palomino, danny lopez and ron lyle, he never produced a first round knockout against world class competition. (in fact, michael only did this in his fifth and ninth fights, lyle never did it, and palomino never did it until his 1997 comeback, when rene arredondo may have taken a dive.)
> 
> because michael was longer, and boxed tall, he was an easier target for tyson to shoot up at. He may well have had a better chin than archie, but the first punch he was knocked down with was a right to his slender body, not the head. Nobody questions that michael spinks had faster feet, but moore had a naturally thicker frame, and thick muscular arms which protected his head well. He leaned forward in a way which made his body a more difficult target, and he could be very good countering off the ropes from a low crouch, where tyson caught michael standing upright.
> 
> ...


marvis frazier was a natural 195 pounder, moore was a natural 175 pounder, he fought even at mw, there are weight classes for obvious motives, ovsiously pfp moore was a much better fighter but in a fantasy match h2h, it is a different history, i don´t care how much great was archie moore, he would get smashed in seconds like an insect by tyson


----------



## Duo (Jun 14, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> marvis frazier was a natural 195 pounder, moore was a natural 175 pounder, he fought even at mw, there are weight classes for obvious motives, obviously pfp moore was a much better fighter but in a fantasy match h2h, it is a different history, i don´t care how much great was archie moore, he would get smashed in seconds like an insect by tyson


It's not as if Moore's going to be standing upright, blindfolded and tied with his hands behind his back to a firing squad post smoking his last cigarette. Tyson not only has to aim low enough for his punches not to go over Archie completely, but they have to be scoring blows, not on those thick muscular arms (which held up under a lot more pounding from Marciano than LaStarza's arms did). As Moore went into the later rounds of the first Durelle fight, Yvon unloaded with a pounding combination which looked good, sounded good, and brought a cheer from the partisan crowd in Montreal, but Jack Drees immediately made it clear to the American audience at home that, "Every one of those punches was blocked." Get reckless and too wild with punches from either side, and one could fracture a hand on the point of one of those elbows.

Just now, I reviewed the opening round of Marciano-Moore, then Tyson-Spinks. No way Archie goes inside three minutes against Tyson. Right away, the Mongoose started out relaxed and focused with Rocky, crouching low, clinching, blocking and backing away cautiously. He was looking to counter. Tepid and close three minutes. Off the footage, I'd have given it to Archie on the jab, generalship and making Marciano miss, but that's very different from being there, so I'll go along with those present who scored it for Rocky. Despite their official weights being the same, Moore did have a noticeably larger upper body, and significantly longer arms (which would give him a reach of over four inches on Tyson).

Do you realize why that cross armed guard worked so well for him? This photograph offers a clue:










With those thick broad shoulders, 75.5 inch long arms, and 16.5 inch biceps (larger than Tyson's if correct) wrapped around his tucked head when he crouches low, it's like trying to get to the chin of a turtle. Tyson's own arms would not be long enough to employ the cross armed guard. (Burley and Bivins were a couple inches shorter than Moore, but could match Archie in reach, part of the issues he had with them.)

Marciano had a lot of his punches roll off those thick arms and shoulders of Archie. The Mongoose would not try to stand up to Tyson like Michael Spinks attempted to do. He'd wrap himself up into that low shell, jab when Tyson was too far away to land, and use his long arms for some timely clinches like he did with Rocky (literally as the sound of the opening bell finished fading). Tyson actually had an inch in reach on Orlin Norris, and opted to jab with him from an upright posture. He might try it with Archie as well, and Mike had a very fine jab, but still closer in reach to Marciano than Moore. Archie was not quickly chased down by the physically powerful Rock, nor would Tyson get reckless in attempting this.

A critical difference between Marvis Frazier and papa Joe is that while Smoke sometimes used the cross arm with his bob and weave, Marvis held his arms upright like Michael Spinks. In both situations, Tyson was able to split that guard and get between their arms. He wrecked Marvis with that right uppercut, got inside Michael's right with the left hook setting up the first body-shot knockdown, then finished matters off by countering with another right inside and up from under a foolishly charging Jinx. Moore is not going to be doing any of these things. Even after flooring Marciano, he was looking to bait, trap and counter with bombs, not recklessly swarming while leaving himself open.

Like Patterson, Tyson would need to get it done with punches from the side, specifically hooks to the body, and that would take more than a single round with both primed and well prepared. Moore would be neither intimidated or stupid.

Yet again, I did some further research, looking at how Tyson performed in the first round against Tillis. He split Quick's guard a few times in a way which can't be done to a cross-armed defense. I also saw something else I'd forgotten. When the bell rang ending round one, Iron Bite pulled a bitch move, deliberately charging at a retreating James and clobbering him with a left-right-left in the next two seconds. Joe Cortez fucked up by not penalizing him that opening round as a result. I can now say with absolute confidence that Quick Tillis was robbed of the decision win over Mike Tyson in May 1986, just as Orlin Norris was robbed of a DQ win in October 1999. Some things never change. Maybe Moore doesn't have to go past three minutes to win. Maybe Iron Bite blows his cool yet again and fucks up.


----------



## heavyweightcp (Jun 11, 2013)

Duo said:


> It's not as if Moore's going to be standing upright, blindfolded and tied with his hands behind his back to a firing squad post smoking his last cigarette. Tyson not only has to aim low enough for his punches not to go over Archie completely, but they have to be scoring blows, not on those thick muscular arms (which held up under a lot more pounding from Marciano than LaStarza's arms did). As Moore went into the later rounds of the first Durelle fight, Yvon unloaded with a pounding combination which looked good, sounded good, and brought a cheer from the partisan crowd in Montreal, but Jack Drees immediately made it clear to the American audience at home that, "Every one of those punches was blocked." Get reckless and too wild with punches from either side, and one could fracture a hand on the point of one of those elbows.
> 
> Just now, I reviewed the opening round of Marciano-Moore, then Tyson-Spinks. No way Archie goes inside three minutes against Tyson. Right away, the Mongoose started out relaxed and focused with Rocky, crouching low, clinching, blocking and backing away cautiously. He was looking to counter. Tepid and close three minutes. Off the footage, I'd have given it to Archie on the jab, generalship and making Marciano miss, but that's very different from being there, so I'll go along with those present who scored it for Rocky. Despite their official weights being the same, Moore did have a noticeably larger upper body, and significantly longer arms (which would give him a reach of over four inches on Tyson).
> 
> ...


Tyson was crazy washed up by 99 him beat tillis in 86

Archie moore was a great fighter but tyson was a big guy he was only 5 11 by he was very thick

archie moore has never seen anything like tyson a combination of speed, power and great head movement archie would not survive long with tyson 2-4 rounds


----------



## johnmaff36 (Aug 3, 2012)

I cant see Archie hearing the bell for the 4th. It may take a round or 2 max for Tyson to catch him clean but when he does, and he will, its goodnight for the mongoose


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Spinks was a notoriously slow starter.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

archie moore bigger biceps than tyson? :cmon no natural 175 pounder is lasting 2 rounds with tyson...stop debating bullshit guys


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm probably one of Tyson's biggest critics but he'd beat Moore very early


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> archie moore bigger biceps than tyson? :cmon no natural 175 pounder is lasting 2 rounds with tyson...stop debating bullshit guys


Whatever you think about the outcome I'm afraid you're just gunna have to accept certain facts - Archie Moore biceps measurement was 16 1/2 inches - a whole half inch bigger than Tyson's 16inch biceps :smile. With 5inches extra reach aswell - I have a pic of Moore not long before his death when he visited a Tyson training camp - you may have seen it Tyson is in his 'Naughty By Nature' t-shirt and Moore even as an elderly man still looks quite a bit broader than Tyson which was surprising and a good 3 inches taller even when he leaning over slightly to talk to Tyson - my mate who met Tyson reckons he's about 5'8" in reality and a photo he had with him bares this out also


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Whatever you think about the outcome I'm afraid you're just gunna have to accept certain facts - Archie Moore biceps measurement was 16 1/2 inches - a whole half inch bigger than Tyson's 16inch biceps :smile. With 5inches extra reach aswell - I have a pic of Moore not long before his death when he visited a Tyson training camp - you may have seen it Tyson is in his 'Naughty By Nature' t-shirt and Moore even as an elderly man still looks quite a bit broader than Tyson which was surprising and a good 3 inches taller even when he leaning over slightly to talk to Tyson - my mate who met Tyson reckons he's about 5'8" in reality and a photo he had with him bares this out also


 so if tyson was 5´8( actually i think that he was 5´3) and he was 220 pounds, and archie moore was 3 inches taller and he weighed 175 pounds how could have him bigger biceps? was moore like popeye? all the body weight in his arms?








:lol:. also.. was archie moore in his prime weight or out of shape,overweight and older when he met tyson?

























yes archie moore had clearly bigger biceps lmao

:hi:


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> so if tyson was 5´8( actually i think that he was 5´3) and he was 220 pounds, and archie moore was 3 inches taller and he weighed 175 pounds how could have him bigger biceps? was moore like popeye? all the body weight in his arms?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look I can post pics too :yep

You seem to have this idea that Archie was a tiny little guy?? Or that Tyson was bigger than he was


















































































Here's some shots of Tyson


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Look I can post pics too :yep
> 
> You seem to have this idea that Archie was a tiny little guy?? Or that Tyson was bigger than he was
> 
> ...


sorry my old friend, my your picks are pure trash, and like i said you posted picks when archie was a pork old man , of course he was heavier and thicker than he was in his prime when he was 175 pounds, then i can use also the tyson who fought lewis at 230 pounds and he had bigger biceps than moore could ever dream... prime vs prime tyson had much bogger arms overall.. biceps or any part of the arm.. past prime vs past prime tyson was bigger and ticker than moore, it is why tyson was a compact hw (even shorter than moore despite archie was a natural 175 pounder who fought even at mw), simply you can´t admit that you are wrong tha´t s all. my picks proved that tyson had much bigger arms(biceps and everything) despite this tale of the tape(tons of times it is not accurate and this one is one of the cases clearly) . you was trying to get the pick where archiie looked with thicker biceps but could not find anything good simply because it is nor truth... tyson was the thicker bigger man with much stronger arms. and the mos funny part of your post is "I HAVE THE IDEA OF THAT TYSON WAS BIGGER THAN MOORE" LMAO tyson WAS!! BIGGER,THICKER,WIDER THAN MOORE IT IS WHY HE WAS IN HIS PRIME A NATURAL 218 POUNDER AND MOORE A 175 POUNDER, YOU ARE USING PICKS OF AN OLD MAN TRYING TO SAY THAT HE WAS BIGGER THAN TYSON BECAUSE HE HAD A LOT OF FAT AND OVERWEIGHT N HIS FRAME HAHA, it is like saying that foreman was as big as primo carnera because he weighed as much vs steve souzky or he weighed 270 out of the ring in his 50s, or larry holmes is much bigger than tyson because he is like a diplodicus dinosaur today hahah huge fat body and small head, THE FRAME MY DEAR FRIEND is the key factor, tyson was a much bigger animal than moore, and you can´t change that with 4 crappy picks with zoom angles of old fat moore...

prime vs prime


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> sorry my old friend, my your picks are pure trash, and like i said you posted picks when archie was a pork old man , of course he was heavier and thicker than he was in his prime when he was 175 pounds, then i can use also the tyson who fought lewis at 230 pounds and he had bigger biceps than moore could ever dream... prime vs prime tyson had much bogger arms overall.. biceps or any part of the arm.. past prime vs past prime tyson was bigger and ticker than moore, it is why tyson was a compact hw (even shorter than moore despite archie was a natural 175 pounder who fought even at mw), simply you can´t admit that you are wrong tha´t s all. my picks proved that tyson had much bigger arms(biceps and everything) despite this tale of the tape(tons of times it is not accurate and this one is one of the cases clearly) . you was trying to get the pick where archiie looked with thicker biceps but could not find anything good simply because it is nor truth... tyson was the thicker bigger man with much stronger arms. and the mos funny part of your post is "I HAVE THE IDEA OF THAT TYSON WAS BIGGER THAN MOORE" LMAO tyson WAS!! BIGGER,THICKER,WIDER THAN MOORE IT IS WHY HE WAS IN HIS PRIME A NATURAL 218 POUNDER AND MOORE A 175 POUNDER, YOU ARE USING PICKS OF AN OLD MAN TRYING TO SAY THAT HE WAS BIGGER THAN TYSON BECAUSE HE HAD A LOT OF FAT AND OVERWEIGHT N HIS FRAME HAHA, it is like saying that foreman was as big as primo carnera because he weighed as much vs steve souzky or he weighed 270 out of the ring in his 50s, or larry holmes is much bigger than tyson because he is like a diplodicus dinosaur today hahah huge fat body and small head, THE FRAME MY DEAR FRIEND is the key factor, tyson was a much bigger animal than moore, and you can´t change that with 4 crappy picks with zoom angles of old fat moore...
> 
> prime vs prime


Yeah Archie was clearly smaller than Tyson obviously it must be my eyes???


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> Yeah Archie was clearly smaller than Tyson obviously it must be my eyes???


nice cheat effect of angles and zoom of the camera.. so sugar ray robinson was as wide as tyson









just admit that you are wrong


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Tyson was 215-220 lbs in his prime.
Archie Moore was probably at his best a little below 190. But in his prime a lhw.

I think it's pretty much a given that Tyson is bigger, Moore might be taller but that doesn't mean shit otherwise you could argue that Hearns was bigger than both Tyson and Moore.
Because Hearns also looks big.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

dyna said:


> Tyson was 215-220 lbs in his prime.
> Archie Moore was probably at his best a little below 190. But in his prime a lhw.
> 
> I think it's pretty much a given that Tyson is bigger, Moore might be taller but that doesn't mean shit otherwise you could argue that Hearns was bigger than both Tyson and Moore.
> Because Hearns also looks big.


he knows that he is wrong.. simply he does not want to admit it


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

dyna said:


> Tyson was 215-220 lbs in his prime.
> Archie Moore was probably at his best a little below 190. But in his prime a lhw.
> 
> I think it's pretty much a given that Tyson is bigger, Moore might be taller but that doesn't mean shit otherwise you could argue that Hearns was bigger than both Tyson and Moore.
> Because Hearns also looks big.


But Hearns _was_ big though? Very tall and broad shouldered dominated Andries who was a genuine light heavy physically?? And Andries could hit like a heavyweight as well? Don't get your point? And PS I know Tyson was a 215pounder compared to a 188 Moore in his title challenge but fact is Moore looked a good deal bigger in the upper body than Marciano at exactly tithe same weight - and that because he was! my initial point (if you took your thumb out of your ass) was with heavy hands that Archie Moore had bigger biceps than Tyson (he was renowned for having ridiculously big biceps for his weight etc and generally had much bigger biceps than most around at the time and he cultivated then with crazy push up routines etc - the fact that heavy hands said that Tyson has MUCH bigger biceps is just laughable and that's like saying....well I don't know what it's like saying it's just flat out wrong and saying that Tyson was much bigger is ridiculous if you have eyes and take a moment to look at the picture I posted - and don't give me that bull about camera angles that's utter horse sh1t there standing right feckin next to each other so save your breath you think Tyson was so fckn big have you met the guy?? My guess is no because other wise you would know - I have two friends who have met him in person - one who wasn't really a boxing fan who said he was tiny and who had a pic with him and the guy is 6ft bang on himself and Tyson came up to below his nose at most so unless your telling me my mates head measures half an inch from below his nose to the top of his head then he ain't fckn 5'11" and 3 quarters!?

Ps you're so shocked that a light heavyweight could in any way be physically bigger looking than Tyson then check this out - light heavy Michael Moorer absolutely dwarfs heavyweight champ Tyson here go figure. Yes different physical types but fact is he bigger unless you insist that once again the camera angle makes Tyson look that small - look at the picture of Tyson with Foreman and then look at any pic of Moore with Foreman it's pretty obvious that Moore is not "much smaller" than Tyson at all - or better still just look at the pic of Moore with Tyson they're standing right next to each man what are you not seeing!!.? Moore is feckin bending down to have a word??


----------



## rockyssplitnose (Jun 7, 2012)

If you're still in fog regarding the concept of size here's another indication of the extent heavy_hands is kidding himself about Tyson being some huge beast - sorry but he simply was not - he may well have 'weighed' more than Archie but he was not a huge guy full stop and if he was hardly bigger than sugar Ray Leonard then he damn sure wasn't 'much bigger' than Archie Moore - trust me I met sugar ray not long back and I'd say I'm virtually the same size as ray - and I consider myself a fairly small guy really but I am pretty much the same height (5'8") and pretty much in the same weight range as Ray is now as well so I know for a fact that Tyson is absolutely definitely not 5'11" and 3 quarters there's just no way not even close - inches off it in fact probably 5'8" and half max by my estimation


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

I don't give a fuck how big anyone's biceps are, but since I love Archie I'm going to let it go for a round and a half before Tyson lowers the boom and stops him.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> If you're still in fog regarding the concept of size here's another indication of the extent heavy_hands is kidding himself about Tyson being some huge beast - sorry but he simply was not - he may well have 'weighed' more than Archie but he was not a huge guy full stop and if he was hardly bigger than sugar Ray Leonard then he damn sure wasn't 'much bigger' than Archie Moore - trust me I met sugar ray not long back and I'd say I'm virtually the same size as ray - and I consider myself a fairly small guy really but I am pretty much the same height (5'8") and pretty much in the same weight range as Ray is now as well so I know for a fact that Tyson is absolutely definitely not 5'11" and 3 quarters there's just no way not even close - inches off it in fact probably 5'8" and half max by my estimation











EXPLAIN ME THEN WHY IN THIS ANGLE OF CAMERA RAY ROBINSON IS EXACTLY AS WIDE AS MOORE... AND THEY ARE BOTH PERFECTLY IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA, EVERY PICK THAT YOU POSTED WAS WITH DIFFERENT ZOOM AND ANGLES FOR EVERY GUY IN THE PICK, YOU POSTED A PICK WHERE ALI LOOKED WIDER THAN TYSON AND IT IS A COMPLETE JOKE, EVERY PEOPLE AROUND HERE HAVE SEEN ALI AND TYSON TOGETHER AND TYSON WAS IN HIS PRIME AND ALI OVERWEIGHT AND STILL TYSON WAS WIDER, ALI WAS MUCH BIGGER THAN ARCHIE MOORE, TYSON WOULD MAKE MOORE LOOK A LITTLE PUSSY PRIME VS PRIME


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> EXPLAIN ME THEN WHY IN THIS ANGLE OF CAMERA RAY ROBINSON IS EXACTLY AS WIDE AS MOORE... AND THEY ARE BOTH PERFECTLY IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA, EVERY PICK THAT YOU POSTED WAS WITH DIFFERENT ZOOM AND ANGLES FOR EVERY GUY IN THE PICK, YOU POSTED A PICK WHERE ALI LOOKED WIDER THAN TYSON AND IT IS A COMPLETE JOKE, EVERY PEOPLE AROUND HERE HAVE SEEN ALI AND TYSON TOGETHER AND TYSON WAS IN HIS PRIME AND ALI OVERWEIGHT AND STILL TYSON WAS WIDER, ALI WAS MUCH BIGGER THAN ARCHIE MOORE, TYSON WOULD MAKE MOORE LOOK A LITTLE PUSSY PRIME VS PRIME


He's wearing a heavy robe :rofl


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

I WILL SHOW TO YOU AS IS EASY Y PLAY WITH THE ANGLES OF A PICK.. IN THIS ONE THAT YOU POSTED.. DONG KING LOOKED BIGGER THAN MIKE..









IN THIS ONE YOU CAN SEE  THE REAL SIZE OF TYSON NEXT TO HIM


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> I WILL SHOW TO YOU AS IS EASY Y PLAY WITH THE ANGLES OF A PICK.. IN THIS ONE THAT YOU POSTED.. DONG KING LOOKED BIGGER THAN MIKE..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don King is what, 6 foot 5???

And in the second he's leaning back against the hay.


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

flea man said:


> don king is what, 6 foot 5???
> 
> And in the second he's leaning back against the hay.


 i am not talking about height, of course everybody was taller than tyson, i am talking about who was wider, tyson was a huge guy despite his short height


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

HERE TYSON LOOKS NEARLY AS WIDE AS FOREMAN... ANGLES.. AND ZOOM...








COMPARE NOW RAY LEONARD WITH TYSON HERE..


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

AHO IS TALLER NOW? UH?


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

Flea Man said:


> He's wearing a heavy robe :rofl


retarded answer from a big retard.. even with the robe.. you can see that their frames are similar in size.. moore doesn´t look much bigger


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

rockyssplitnose said:


> But Hearns _was_ big though? Very tall and broad shouldered dominated Andries who was a genuine light heavy physically?? And Andries could hit like a heavyweight as well? Don't get your point? And PS I know Tyson was a 215pounder compared to a 188 Moore in his title challenge but fact is Moore looked a good deal bigger in the upper body than Marciano at exactly tithe same weight - and that because he was! my initial point (if you took your thumb out of your ass) was with heavy hands that Archie Moore had bigger biceps than Tyson (he was renowned for having ridiculously big biceps for his weight etc and generally had much bigger biceps than most around at the time and he cultivated then with crazy push up routines etc - the fact that heavy hands said that Tyson has MUCH bigger biceps is just laughable and that's like saying....well I don't know what it's like saying it's just flat out wrong and saying that Tyson was much bigger is ridiculous if you have eyes and take a moment to look at the picture I posted - and don't give me that bull about camera angles that's utter horse sh1t there standing right feckin next to each other so save your breath you think Tyson was so fckn big have you met the guy?? My guess is no because other wise you would know - I have two friends who have met him in person - one who wasn't really a boxing fan who said he was tiny and who had a pic with him and the guy is 6ft bang on himself and Tyson came up to below his nose at most so unless your telling me my mates head measures half an inch from below his nose to the top of his head then he ain't fckn 5'11" and 3 quarters!?
> 
> Ps you're so shocked that a light heavyweight could in any way be physically bigger looking than Tyson then check this out - light heavy Michael Moorer absolutely dwarfs heavyweight champ Tyson here go figure. Yes different physical types but fact is he bigger unless you insist that once again the camera angle makes Tyson look that small - look at the picture of Tyson with Foreman and then look at any pic of Moore with Foreman it's pretty obvious that Moore is not "much smaller" than Tyson at all - or better still just look at the pic of Moore with Tyson they're standing right next to each man what are you not seeing!!.? Moore is feckin bending down to have a word??


It doesn't really matter if fighter A looks bigger or has broader shoulders, if both fighters are in their best fighting condition and fighter a is 190 lbs and fighter b is 220 lbs, fighter b is bigger.
Regardless of his biceps size or the broadness of his shoulders or his length.

On a sidenote which fighter has p4p the biggest biceps?
I think it might be Dwight Qawi.

















That size makes Hagler look like a little boy









Also what boxer had p4p the thickest neck and expanded chest?
I think it's quite easily Barbados Joe Walcott who is said to have had a neck thicker than Liston's.
The National Police Gazette Oct 27, 1894, supports this view "His neck is 18 inches and his chest expanded is 41 inches, which is remarkable for a man of his weight" 
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/walcott.html

Liston had a 17.5 inch neck against Ali.
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/83/96283-004-7F5C8782.jpg


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

dyna said:


> It doesn't really matter if fighter A looks bigger or has broader shoulders, if both fighters are in their best fighting condition and fighter a is 190 lbs and fighter b is 220 lbs, fighter b is bigger.
> Regardless of his biceps size or the broadness of his shoulders or his length.
> 
> On a sidenote which fighter has p4p the biggest biceps?
> ...


archie moore weighed 175 pound sin his prime, he was an old man when he weighed 188 and you get heavier with the age, tyson was around 235 at the same age, prime vs prime it is not even a debate, tyson was bigger in every part of the body.. he was shorter and much heavier, and he was not fat, he was all muscle on a wide frame..


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

Tyson was naturally bigger than Moore having wide shoulders just means that you have long collarbones it doesn't say how big you are it's the same myth as big hands if we go by hand and wrist size Bradley and Pacquiao would be LHWs. Hearns had wider shoulders than many modern HWs it doesn't make him bigger even though he of course was big for his division but if we go by shoulder width and everything he would be a modern HW. Tyson is bigger than Moore that isn't arguable. But I think Tyson would need some rounds to find Moore's chin I also believe that Tyosn having to find someone that small and that skilled can make it uncomfortable for him at least in the first 2-3 rounds I doubt that it would be a one round blowout. I think Tyson stops Moore after like 4-6 rounds with body shots and uppercuts but I can't see Tyson repeating what he did to Spinks and frazier just because Moore was small


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

Tyson would discombobulate Archie


----------



## Foreman Hook (Jun 6, 2012)

Teeto said:


> Tyson would discombobulate Archie


*XPERT*-post m8!!! :thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

*BUT* what if we tinkered with this quote -

Reporter: "Do you think there's a chance that you'll lose to Bummy Douglas?" Tinkerbell: "Perhaps if I chop off my arms."

*AND* made it into -

Reporter: "Do you think there's a chance that you'll lose to Archie Moore?" Tinkerbell: "Perhaps if I chop off my arms."

:tyson


----------



## heavy_hands (Jun 6, 2013)

kally said:


> *xpert*-post m8!!! :thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup
> 
> *but* what if we tinkered with this quote -
> 
> ...


lmao!!! Foremannhook?


----------



## Teeto (May 31, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> lmao!!! Foremannhook?


Yep, that's him


----------



## Foreman Hook (Jun 6, 2012)

heavy_hands said:


> lmao!!! Foremannhook?


As Teets says, I was Hook, in all his sarcy glory... but some cunt mod here outed my matching IP when I stopped using a proxy! :cry


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Kally said:


> As Teets says, I was Hook, in all his sarcy glory... but some cunt mod here outed my matching IP when I stopped using a proxy! :cry


Cunt?


----------



## Foreman Hook (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> Cunt?


Was it you Flea? :lol: Man you gotta understand, Foreman Hook meant more to me, than me.


----------



## Flea Man (Jun 2, 2012)

Kally said:


> Was it you Flea? :lol: Man you gotta understand, Foreman Hook meant more to me, than me.


I wasn't the one who figured it out or nuttin.....I didn't grass you up, think I joked about it and someone picked up on it.

Sorry pal


----------



## Foreman Hook (Jun 6, 2012)

Flea Man said:


> I wasn't the one who figured it out or nuttin.....I didn't grass you up, think I joked about it and someone picked up on it.
> 
> Sorry pal


:lol: Ok sound.


----------

