Was Mikey Tyson BETTER in 1996 Bruno 2 then in 1989 Bruno 1??

ive always thought tysons legs were gone by 96 he had to set himself to throw shots and he was flat footed against someone as ponderous as bruno he got away with it even in the ist round against holyfield he looked troubled by evanders movement in his prime tyson had no problems against good movers biggs tucker spinks etc .

 

3 years in prison does that to you :good

 

Tysons timing was what never returned. I think he missed more than he landed during his entire comeback.

 

Tyson was inactive for 4 years with his jail sentace, But Tyson was only 30 years old when he lost to 34 year old Holyfeild. Nowadays 30 years old is young for a modern Heavyweight - champions VitKlit And WladKlit are 40 And 35 years old. Adamek is 34, Haye And Peter And Arreola are 30, Povetkin And Chagaev are 32, Chambers And Dimitrenko are 29, Valuev is 38 years old.

 

The Klitschkos are outside boxers, Tyson was a mid-range fighter. Also, times have changed as far as nutrition,etc. so there will be boxers of an older age competiting at a higher level than what most other older fighters did in the past(JMM, Hopkins, Vitali).

Also, Tyson was very declined post-prison facing a scared Bruno in the rematch. He was past-prime in the first fight too looking sloppy in both not setting up his punches like he used to.

 

Hi there,Hook :hi: Tyson was in better shape for the first fight. What a bloody letdown the second fight was. Because of Tyson's lay off,I actually gave him a shot in the '96 return.

 

Tyson didn't train for Bruno in '89. He trained for him in '96.

 

Tyson had ripped body in 1989, But big ripped arms in 1996.

 

I see your Tyson fantasizing hasn't let up, aye MRBILL. :happy

 

:good
Exactly.