What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

\"I'll rape again\" - Mike Tyson

Blade

Juniors
Messages
2,325
BTW, the last one hasn't been updated because the list was compiled on Jan 23, 2002 (one day after the 'alleged' incident.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Blade said:
El Duque said:
Half those claims are bogus especially the last one which I see hasn't been updated.

Bogus in what sense?

Well if you read them they say they're bogus so what was the point of listing them?

The last three on the list were all bogus for starters.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Aug. 18, 2001 -- California prosecutors have decided not to press charges against boxer Mike Tyson in connection with an alleged sexual assault on Arlene Moorman near Big Bear Lake.

Here's one example of what I'm talking about.

What was the point of listing this?
 

Blade

Juniors
Messages
2,325
El Duque said:
Blade said:
El Duque said:
Half those claims are bogus especially the last one which I see hasn't been updated.

Bogus in what sense?

Well if you read them they say they're bogus so what was the point of listing them?

The last three on the list were all bogus for starters.

What are you on about ED? Where does it say they're bogus? The word "allegedly" does not mean the same thing as "bogus."

The term bogus means -- Counterfeit or fake; not genuine.

The term allegedly means -- Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved as yet.

Two completely differentiating terminologies. Bogus is basically BS. Allegedly is that an incident more likely than not took place, but is yet to be proven or authenticated. The two words are like chalk and cheese.

What's your point?
 

Blade

Juniors
Messages
2,325
El Duque said:
Aug. 18, 2001 -- California prosecutors have decided not to press charges against boxer Mike Tyson in connection with an alleged sexual assault on Arlene Moorman near Big Bear Lake.

Here's one example of what I'm talking about.

What was the point of listing this?

To prove to you, as you seem to be the only one defending his mental state and well-being, that a mentally sane person does not live a life of crime.

Geez. I thought in the context I posted it, it was pretty self-explainatory.

The fact is that, wheather you believe or not that he commited a rape or not, doesn't mean a thing. His crime spree clearly shows that, due to various other crimes or "allegations" prior to and after the D. Washington incident, Mike Tyson is a disturbed individual who is more than capable of commiting a violent crime like rape.

Or will you argue that point as well?
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Blade said:
El Duque said:
Blade said:
El Duque said:
Half those claims are bogus especially the last one which I see hasn't been updated.

Bogus in what sense?

Well if you read them they say they're bogus so what was the point of listing them?

The last three on the list were all bogus for starters.

What are you on about ED? Where does it say they're bogus? The word "allegedly" does not mean the same thing as "bogus."

The term bogus means -- Counterfeit or fake; not genuine.

The term allegedly means -- Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved as yet.

Two completely differentiating terminologies. Bogus is basically BS. Allegedly is that an incident more likely than not took place, but is yet to be proven or authenticated. The two words are like chalk and cheese.

What's your point?

My point was easy to understand.

After investigations by Police and the D.A. he was not charged for hitting the stripper, the assault at Big Bear or the rape at his home in Vegas.

He also was not charged for the assault on the ex-boxer that beat Butterbean.

Witnesses said they were all bogus allegations and he was never charged.

Why are you finding that hard to understand??
 

Blade

Juniors
Messages
2,325
El Duque said:
Blade said:
El Duque said:
Blade said:
El Duque said:
Half those claims are bogus especially the last one which I see hasn't been updated.

Bogus in what sense?

Well if you read them they say they're bogus so what was the point of listing them?

The last three on the list were all bogus for starters.

What are you on about ED? Where does it say they're bogus? The word "allegedly" does not mean the same thing as "bogus."

The term bogus means -- Counterfeit or fake; not genuine.

The term allegedly means -- Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved as yet.

Two completely differentiating terminologies. Bogus is basically BS. Allegedly is that an incident more likely than not took place, but is yet to be proven or authenticated. The two words are like chalk and cheese.

What's your point?

My point was easy to understand.

After investigations by Police and the D.A. he was not charged for hitting the stripper, the assault at Big Bear or the rape at his home in Vegas.

He also was not charged for the assault on the ex-boxer that beat Butterbean.

Witnesses said they were all bogus allegations and he was never charged.

Why are you finding that hard to understand??


You may know more about the incidents (and Mike Tyson in general) in question then I do, but I can only go on what I read and what I do not through media releases. Like I have here. The incidents I posted use the terminology "alleged" not "bogus." Yet you seem to go on your merrily way ignoring the obvious and linking the two words as if they're the same thing; that, clearly, differentiate to a great degree.

Your points have been anything but easy to understand in this thread ElDuque. Far from it actually. I'm not the first poster who's had trouble understanding the point you've tried to forward in this discussion. That's why I'm having trouble understanding...

Please show me in text form where Witnesses said they were all bogus allegations of the incidents you outlined?
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Blade said:
El Duque said:
Blade said:
El Duque said:
Blade said:
El Duque said:
Half those claims are bogus especially the last one which I see hasn't been updated.

Bogus in what sense?

Well if you read them they say they're bogus so what was the point of listing them?

The last three on the list were all bogus for starters.

What are you on about ED? Where does it say they're bogus? The word "allegedly" does not mean the same thing as "bogus."

The term bogus means -- Counterfeit or fake; not genuine.

The term allegedly means -- Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved as yet.

Two completely differentiating terminologies. Bogus is basically BS. Allegedly is that an incident more likely than not took place, but is yet to be proven or authenticated. The two words are like chalk and cheese.

What's your point?

My point was easy to understand.

After investigations by Police and the D.A. he was not charged for hitting the stripper, the assault at Big Bear or the rape at his home in Vegas.

He also was not charged for the assault on the ex-boxer that beat Butterbean.

Witnesses said they were all bogus allegations and he was never charged.

Why are you finding that hard to understand??


You may know more about the incidents (and Mike Tyson in general) in question then I do, but I can only go on what I read and what I do not through media releases. Like I have here. The incidents I posted use the terminology "alleged" not "bogus." Yet you seem to go on your merrily way ignoring the obvious and linking the two words as if they're the same thing; that, clearly, differentiate to a great degree.

Your points have been anything but easy to understand in this thread ElDuque. Far from it actually. I'm not the first poster who's had trouble understanding the point you've tried to forward in this discussion. That's why I'm having trouble understanding...

Please show me in text form where Witnesses said they were all bogus allegations of the incidents you outlined?

No offence, but next time look these up yourself. It's a tad boring doing it and half the stuff is that old it's not even on the net anymore.

This link is over the last rape allegation in Vegas

RAPE ALLEGATIONS: Tyson won't be charged

The stripper allegation speaks for itself. It says he wasn't charged. " Police were called to the scene, but after interviewing witnesses, including Tyson himself, they decided not to press charges."


Tyson was never charged for assaulting Rose. Can't find the reports, but it's true. If you doubt me find a report that says he was.

Also, the timeline says he wasn't charged for the so called assault on on the checkout chick at Big Bear. "Aug. 18, 2001 -- California prosecutors have decided not to press charges against boxer Mike Tyson in connection with an alleged sexual assault on Arlene Moorman near Big Bear Lake."

I really don't know how your finding it hard to understand me when it's wriiten in black and white :roll:
 

Anonymous

Juniors
Messages
46
El Duque said:
Willow said:
El Duque said:
Mundine is the bone head who used a entire countries name when giving his opinion.
No he didnt. The 'incredibly qualified' Richard Wilkins asked Mundine what he thought of the WTC crash. By entire country, do you mean Australia or the US? In either case, he wasnt speaking for everyone.

Yes he did. This is what he said.

"It's about fighting for God's laws, and America's brought it upon themselves [for] what they've done in the history of time."

You're only repeating what you want to hear.

That eminent investigative 'journalist', Richard Wilkins asked Mundine what he thought 'as a Muslim' about the WTC attacks.

Mundine replied with some stuff about Gods Law. He thought he was answering as a Muslim... although the Muslim community, who were already copping some backlash, were quick to distance themselves from the comments. Mundine shouldn't have thought of himself as a spokesman for the Muslim community because it wasn't appreciated.

But how are these comments from Mundine using an 'entire countries name' as you put it? Blind freddy could tell that he was talking about the history of US foreign policy. A lot of people actually agree with this.

The problem with Mundine was his mouth has terrible timing. Nevertheless, he was set-up imo. The interview was supposed to be about boxing but Wilkins put in a question of total irrelevance. But before Mundine could answer, there were technical problems and the line feed was disconnected... but channel 9 persisted. Even though the audio was awful for the interviewer and interviewee, they got Mundine back and forced the question again.... "as a Muslim, how do you feel about the attack on the WTC"... I mean what a dumb question for a pop music jock to be asking a boxer.
Mundine answered and I cringed because I knew every redneck within a million miles would take issue with it.

As soon as realised he had been insensitive, Mundine made a public apology.

Sportspeople stuff up all the time.... be they cricketers, football players, coaches or boxers. The sign of character is how they deal with the fallout after they stuffed up.

Tyson on the other hand doesnt give shit about who he offends. El Duque, has Tyson ever done anything wrong?
 

Collateral

Coach
Messages
13,792
Mike Tyson is one of those 2 face people. He is either an absolute maniac or he shows a bit of a soft side.

All in all he seems more bad then good to me and has been introuble with the law far too many times.

His boxing career is losing momentum. The thing he has going for him is that the other boxers are scared of him. But people like Lewis that get over the fear factor can get out there and can be too quick for all power Tyson.
Where will he go when it is finished? That is a mystery indeed.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
RedDragon said:
. The thing he has going for him is that the other boxers are scared of him. But people like Lewis that get over the fear factor can get out there and can be too quick for all power Tyson.
.

This is a myth.

Plenty of boxers fought him in his prime and were not scared but lost.

Also, I have never seen anyone describe Lewis as quick.

No way on Earth is he even in the top 10 current heavyweights in terms of handspeed.

Tyson has a style that relies on speed and movement, much like Joe Frazier. As these type of fighters get older their reflexes slow and they become much easier to hit.
 

Collateral

Coach
Messages
13,792
El Duque said:
RedDragon said:
. The thing he has going for him is that the other boxers are scared of him. But people like Lewis that get over the fear factor can get out there and can be too quick for all power Tyson.
.

This is a myth.

Plenty of boxers fought him in his prime and were not scared but lost.

Also, I have never seen anyone describe Lewis as quick.

No way on Earth is he even in the top 10 current heavyweights in terms of handspeed.

Tyson has a style that relies on speed and movement, much like Joe Frazier. As these type of fighters get older their reflexes slow and they become much easier to hit.

Sorry El D, but you misread my post a little bit and a little bit more explantation from me would be good. :oops:

I meant that now most Boxers lose to him because of fear...look at that Huge Russian bloke a couple of years ago that just refused to get back into the ring.

I wouldnt describe Lewis as fast either but I think he might be a bit quicker than Tyson.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
RedDragon said:
El Duque said:
RedDragon said:
. The thing he has going for him is that the other boxers are scared of him. But people like Lewis that get over the fear factor can get out there and can be too quick for all power Tyson.
.

This is a myth.

Plenty of boxers fought him in his prime and were not scared but lost.

Also, I have never seen anyone describe Lewis as quick.

No way on Earth is he even in the top 10 current heavyweights in terms of handspeed.

Tyson has a style that relies on speed and movement, much like Joe Frazier. As these type of fighters get older their reflexes slow and they become much easier to hit.

Sorry El D, but you misread my post a little bit and a little bit more explantation from me would be good. :oops:

I meant that now most Boxers lose to him because of fear...look at that Huge Russian bloke a couple of years ago that just refused to get back into the ring.

I wouldnt describe Lewis as fast either but I think he might be a bit quicker than Tyson.

I think you're thinking of the Foul Pole Andrew Golota. He wasn't scared, he's just a headcase.

Some ovious examples of fghters that were scared of Tyson are Bruno, Spinks, Seldon and McNeely.

I don't see Lewis anywhere near the speed of Tyson. He just utilised his good jab and big right hand. Nothing to do with speed.
 

Blade

Juniors
Messages
2,325
I agree with ElDuque here :shock: ... :roll:

I consider Lewis anything but quick. It's his reach of the jab to keep opponents at bay as well as his right hand that makes him a "good" boxer. I don't even consider him a "good" mover in the ring.

I also think that more fighters were scared of the late 80's Mike Tyson than of the new millennium Mike Tyson. He may still be feared outside of the ring these days, but he doesn't posses the fear that he instils into his opponents like he once could come ring time.

As for comparing the speeds (and movement to some degree) of Tyson and Lewis; no comparison. Tyson has always been quicker than Lewis. Always was-always will be. Lewis, I've always thought that Lewis was too tall and lanky to possess the speed and movement of a shorter fighter like Mike Tyson.

IMO
 

Blade

Juniors
Messages
2,325
I found this good article that I think is well written and suitable to the thread topic.

Tyson outburst means more big bucks

Special to www.ESPN.com


aa_tyson.jpg


Now let's get this straight: Mike Tyson still insists he didn't commit that rape 12 years ago. Yet, if given the chance today, he would like to commit two.

There's an Ernie Banks reference in there somewhere, but never mind that.

Somebody has awakened "The Baddest Man on the Planet" ... and he's cranky. Tyson had been quiet for a few months. He hadn't made us scratch our heads since he got that gnarly face tattoo before his 49-second obliteration of Clifford Etienne in February.

But Tyson was back in the headlines with maniacal bluster on Thursday.

Fox News legal expert Greta Van Susteren bravely sat down with mercurial Mike for a story that aired on "The Pulse" regarding his 1991 conviction for raping beauty pageant contestant Desiree Washington in Indianapolis. The piece suggested Tyson got a raw deal during the trial -- even though the former undisputed heavyweight champ did himself no favors during the interview.

"No, I didn't rape that slimy b----," Tyson said.

Van Susteren asked Tyson why Washington would railroad him.

"Just a lying, reptilian, monstrous, young lady," Tyson said, shaking his head in dismay. "I just hate her guts. She put me in that state where, I don't know, I really wish I did now. Now I really do want to rape her and her (expletive) mama."

It was a typical Tyson outburst, the sort that -- if Tyson's handlers were smart -- should be followed up with an announcement of his next fight. Why waste all this publicity? I wouldn't be surprised if Tyson's people agreed to the Fox News interview to help sell tickets down the road.

And I'll be damned if it wouldn't work.

It always does.

Whether it's orchestrated or not, whenever Tyson opens his mouth, people get rich.

Tyson stole the headlines on a day when heavyweight champ Lennox Lewis held his training camp media day for his June 21 title defense against Kirk Johnson. Tyson doesn't even have a fight scheduled, but there was his snarling mug in the middle of ESPN.com's boxing page, while Lewis is relegated to the right margin. Even in the United Kingdom, where Lewis calls home, Tyson was the pug du jour.

Lewis must be wondering what he has to do to receive the attention he deserves. He's one of the top few heavyweights of all time and a gentleman besides. He totally deconstructed Iron Mike a year ago, scoring a decisive eighth-round knockout.

"Tyson could spit on the sidewalk and get more press than Lewis will get for fighting Kirk Johnson in Los Angeles on June 21," boxing columnist Timothy Smith wrote in Friday's edition of the New York Daily News. "That's sad and it's wrong."

Nevertheless, Tyson remains the most fascinating figure of his sport.

You don't have to agree with him. You'd probably need shock therapy if you did. But there's no dispute this guy is mesmerizing.

"Anybody else having fun like that is just young boys having fun," Tyson reasoned with Van Susteren. "But with me I'm a big, black rapist. Big, strong, black, young kid wants some (expletive) and she says no because he's an ape. So he hits her with his club, drags her by her hair and rapes her and do as he wants. That's the stigma I'm left with. All that I've been in life -- I've been a lot of things -- but I will be left with the stigma of being a (expletive) rapist.''

Some might argue Tyson remains a captivating figure partly because of his rape conviction. Then there's the road-rage incident in Maryland, where he served time for kicking an old man in the groin and assaulting another. There's the time he gnawed off a hunk of Evander Holyfield's ear. There's the marriage to Robin Givens, etc., etc.

"Any case you can get your dignity back, but for rape? No dignity, buddy," Tyson said.

"Just think, man. This is always going to be hovering over my head, something I did not do. Anything I did, right? I hit that guy in (expletive) Maryland. Let me keep my felony for that because I'm wrong. I hit those people. But I didn't rape this woman."

Of all the infamous quotes Tyson has uttered -- and there have been some doozies -- proclaiming his desire to rape a woman and her mother might be the worst thing he has ever said.

He even blamed the conviction for ruining the rest of his life, for making him such a volatile person, for instilling him with hate. It was one more instance of Tyson allowing his rage to eclipse his sensitivity.

"It just sucks," he said. "I have this stuff hovering over my head. As long as you have that stuff, if you are a decent person, it will never come to the surface.

"Now -- I know you may not want to hear this when we talk about this case -- I'm (expletive) up. I got issues because of dealing with this for 3½ years (in prison). I got some issues, and I'm pretty violent."

So many sports figures have had their careers derailed or even truncated for spouting words half as controversial.

David Wells paid a $100,000 fine and was nearly traded by the New York Yankees for what he wrote in his tell-all autobiography. John Rocker's career has swirled around the toilet after making racial and homophobic slurs. Fuzzy Zoeller will forever be remembered as the buffoon who made racial jokes about Tiger Woods.

There's a long list of mental midgets who have paid the price for saying something derogatory.

Tyson is allowed to go unpunished because he flourishes in the untamed sport of boxing. He's not held accountable to anyone. No teammates. No head coach. No general manager. No owner. No league commissioner. No sponsors.

Tyson only answers to the general public, the same group of folks whose standards made Jerry Springer and Vince McMahon wealthy.

Tyson continues to make money head into fist, snatching a $5 million purse by mugging Etienne. He made about $20 million against Lewis.

Tyson recently passed up a reported $8 million to treat Oleg Maskaev like a gulag time clock on the undercard of the Lewis-Johnson fight. But Tyson wouldn't go along with the idea, and the event went from being a pay-per-view bonanza to a mildly interesting HBO show.

It's hard to argue why Tyson should agree to be the warmup act when so many fans would have been tuning in to see him decapitate someone -- either with his fists or perhaps a Samurai sword.

He will turn 37 on June 30, but he still has a few major paydays dotting his horizon.

He will eventually get a rematch with Lewis, and there's always a possibility Tyson and Holyfield could meet a third time. One prominent promoter recently predicted Tyson could earn as much as $40 million to fight WBA champ Roy Jones Jr.

And nothing Tyson said in that controversial interview with Van Susteren hurt his moneymaking capabilities one bit.

His words only further galvanized his roguish allure.

"They want me to be an animal," Tyson said before his fight with Andrew Golota nearly three years ago. "That's why I set pay-per-view records. There are nine million people who see me in the ring and hate my guts, most of them white. That's OK. Just spell my name right.

"I want your grandkids and great-grandkids to remember me and say, 'Wow, what a bizarre individual.' "

Don't worry. They will.
 

Green Eye

Juniors
Messages
896
I would just like to interject at this point and say that this has become my favourite thread... I piss myself at some of the half baked theories and comments that get raised here.


Let me settle this by saying two things.

1) Nobody knows what Mike Tyson is really like. You can say he's a loony, you can say he's been misrepresented BUT if anyone relies on the media as the source of their arguments then you need to re-assess your view point because you may very well be getting a biased opinion.

2) Anthony Mundine was 100% correct in saying that the US brought the terror attacks on themselves. I am not a mundine supporter... as a matter of fact I am completely indifferent to him BUT the US did bring that attack on themselves because they were the ones who supported terrorism (they backed many terrorist organisations in the cold war days to fight the USSR). Their actions warranted a reaction. I don't agree that killing is warranted but they had to expect something. Murder is murder and that will never be the correct action to take.
 
Messages
2,807
Where there's smoke there's fire. You can't look at that long list of brushes with the law and think, well they were all trumped up, not his fault, he's just misrepresented. He's a bad guy, end of story.
 

Latest posts

Top