Once and for all: When was Tyson's "prime"? - Page 3

BigReg · 10-03-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by josak

Wrong. His prime was 86-88', this just can't be argued. During this time, he showed basically none of these flaws that you described. When Tyson lost, it was when he wasn't training properly, wasn't focused, or flat out didn't care about boxing anymore. It's just like Tyson himself said: his career ended in 1990. But his prime ended in 88' when he dropped Rooney and went with Don King. That's when it stopped being about boxing and started being about money alone.

So he was past his prime at 22, and his prime only lasted 3 years?

josak · 10-03-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigReg

So he was past his prime at 22, and his prime only lasted 3 years?

Well you could say his prime was 85-88 too, but yes, he peaked early, it happens. He was a very good fighter afterwards, but he was never the same. His absolute best was 86-88'.

BigReg · 10-03-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by josak

Well you could say his prime was 85-88 too, but yes, he peaked early, it happens. He was a very good fighter afterwards, but he was never the same. His absolute best was 86-88'.

How many fighters can you name that peaked at 22?

josak · 10-03-2007, 06:05 PM

But don't forget how much Tyson fought in those few years (34 fights between 85-88 )

BigReg · 10-03-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by josak

But don't forget how much Tyson fought in those few years (34 fights between 85-88 )

If he didn't fight so often, ho probably would've lost focus at an earlier age

Thread Stealer · 10-03-2007, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigReg

How many fighters can you name that peaked at 22?

Pipino Cuevas, Wilfred Benitez, Meldrick Taylor, Fernando Vargas.

Arguably Ruben Olivares who was 22-24 when he was probably in his peak. Same for Jeff Fenech.

BigReg · 10-03-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erratic Behavior

Pipino Cuevas, Wilfred Benitez, Meldrick Taylor, Fernando Vargas.

Arguably Ruben Olivares who was 22-24 when he was probably in his peak. Same for Jeff Fenech.

Vargas still looked good against DLH at age 25, Meldrick Taylor might have suffered some brain damage against Chavez, and I'm too young to have seen Cuevas and Benitez fight around that age(although Benitez did beat Duran at age 24)

Thread Stealer · 10-03-2007, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigReg

Vargas still looked good against DLH at age 25, Meldrick Taylor might have suffered some brain damage against Chavez, and I'm too young to have seen Cuevas and Benitez fight around that age(although Benitez did beat Duran at age 24)

Tyson still looked good at age 24 in the first Ruddock fight, and at 29 in the Bruno rematch, but he still peaked at 20-22 or so. Taylor had some decent wins such as Davis after Chavez, but he still peaked around 21-23.

Same with Vargas. His peak was 21-22 although he looked pretty good when he was roided up against DLH.

josak · 10-03-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moralman

Dear Sir
kind regards
This is a good question, but simple enough to answer.
Mike Tyson's prime was from 1985 to 1988.
Tyson was a polished machine untill about 1988 when he beat Spinks, this match cemented his legacy as an ATG, but he was never the same after this.
Renowned boxing author Burt Sugar says exactly the same thing and he is right.
Tyson lost Rooney as his trainer and his personal life spiralled out of control.
Tyson is quoted as saying that his career ended in 1990 after Douglas knocked him out.
yours thankfully
John

well said, good sir.

brisback · 10-03-2007, 07:37 PM

http://www.talkshoe.com/custom/image...4-MainIcon.jpg

LoBlow · 10-03-2007, 07:39 PM

Tyson's prime was between when he turned pro and before he first became champion

Dorfmeister · 10-03-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Ask Michael Spinks.

Michael Spinks wouldn't be able to tell you that cause Michael was stripped of the IBF Title unfairly ( which was disputed by Tony Tucker and James Buster Douglas himself) while he kayoed Gerry Cooney in 5 ... He was the linear heavyweight champ ( and Ring Mag Heavyweight Champ) and Tyson had to fight him anyway, no way Michael believed Tyson was superior to him back then... What happened was that Spinks was waiting and waiting for Mike's entrance and when he did, Iron Mike rushed inside a packed Trump Plaza under some horrible, deafening metallic drums, Michael may have gotten distracted and was caught cold as Mike started the fight elbowing him along the ropes, in close... The rest was history, great moment for Mike Tyson, unfortunate moment for all-time great, classy Michael Spinks... Tyson was caught too many times by Tucker and even by Bonecrusher before, he was already declining but in other circumstances, Michael Spinks would have done what Douglas did to him and Spinks did to Holmes!

Rollo · 10-03-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dorfmeister

Tyson was caught too many times by Tucker and even by Bonecrusher before, he was already declining but in other circumstances, Michael Spinks would have done what Douglas did to him and Spinks did to Holmes!

Those "circumstances" doesn´t exist in this world! Spinks had absolutely nothing that could hurt Tyson.

Dorfmeister · 10-03-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

Those "circumstances" doesn´t exist in this world! Spinks had absolutely nothing that could hurt Tyson.

Michael Spinks had a whole lot more than Tyson ever had. Boxing is not just about who knocks the other fella for the ten count, you know? Holyfield and Douglas and Lewis exposed Tyson for what he didn't have and what is that? Couldn't be short about that answer so go straight to state Tyson KO1 Spinks was simply as much unexpected as Michael Dokes KO1 Mike Weaver and James Bonecrusher Smith TKO1 Tim Witherspoon, those s**** simply happen! In other "circumstances" ( less pressure from Don King, Butch Lewis, Donald Trump, Ring Mag), it wouldn't happen - I remember it like it was yesterday.

Rollo · 10-03-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dorfmeister

Michael Spinks had a whole lot more than Tyson ever had. Boxing is not just about who knocks the other fella for the ten count, you know? Holyfield and Douglas and Lewis exposed Tyson for what he didn't have and what is that? Couldn't be short about that answer so go straight to state Tyson KO1 Spinks was simply as much unexpected as Michael Dokes KO1 Mike Weaver and James Bonecrusher Smith TKO1 Tim Witherspoon, those s**** simply happen! In other "circumstances" ( less pressure from Don King, Butch Lewis, Donald Trump, Ring Mag), it wouldn't happen - I remember it like it was yesterday.

I see we have a disagreement here. But I still believe that if they had 100 fights, Tyson would be; 100 wins(100 KO´s), against Spinks.

10-03-2007, 06:05 PM	#34
josak Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,562 vCash: 1000	Re: Once and for all: When was Tyson's "prime"? But don't forget how much Tyson fought in those few years (34 fights between 85-88 )
Top

10-03-2007, 07:37 PM	#40
brisback INFO-WARRIOR ESB Addict Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: www.infowars.com Posts: 4,838 vCash: 1300	Re: Once and for all: When was Tyson's "prime"? http://www.talkshoe.com/custom/image...4-MainIcon.jpg
Top

10-03-2007, 07:39 PM	#41
LoBlow No Title Needed! ESB Jr Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Cali Posts: 201 vCash: 1000	Re: Once and for all: When was Tyson's "prime"? Tyson's prime was between when he turned pro and before he first became champion
Top