Mike Tyson

Well, I can agree with what you say about "primes" in general but Tyson's performances in the three-year window you prefer are not of uniform quality either.
I mean, the Smith-Thomas-Tucker sequence was lukewarm, following the impressive destruction of Berbick. People were pleased with Tyson at that point, but there were many holes pointed out in his game, and lots of "room for improvement", people spoke of his potential a lot. The Biggs-Holmes-Tubbs-Spinks run was far better, and was his "absolute prime" run IN HINDSIGHT, but then he started to deteriorate with the sloppy Bruno fight.
So, there are variations to be seen, from one performances to the next, and that's always partly due to the opponent as well as Tyson himself.

I'm sure there are dozens of mediocre fighters who can argue quite brilliant primes of one or two fights (eg. Douglas) if we elect to disregard any time they lacked "focus, training or the right trainer" or had "injuries". And it's the absolute greatest fighters who consistently manage to win against the ordinary contenders even when they have those problems on hand. The worst fighters tend to always let something disrupt them.
The spectrum of ideal-non-ideal conditions are circumstances applies to all fighters, not just Tyson.

On balance, of course Tyson is much closer to the greatest fighters than he is to the mediocre. But he seems to get all this attention paid for these excuses and factors for a clear LOSS at 23 years old for the world's championship, and it seems unneccessary. It seems to me, and always has done, that people are trying to explain away the brutal truth that he wasn't quite as good as we thought he might be.

I disagree.
Muhammad Ali, Liston and Dempsey had comparable 3-year periods, as did others.

 

His career should've been far greater than what it even was. By far the most irritating argument against him is his lack of title defenses. He was the best heavyweight in the world years before he became champion.

 

Well, he was the best heavyweight in the world from the time he beat Berbick, in November 1986.
So, about 3 years.

 

Talking Liston. :thumbsup

I bolded his name, but I quoted your entire post which is ultimately responsible for the mix-up.

 

:good

Yeah, Liston was the best heavyweight in the world for at least 2 or 3 years before he won the title. That is correct.

 

The Tyson story was well documented. His personal life was front page news during the times. It was right there in front of everyone how Tyson was pissing away his career. I dont think many other fighters were as documented as Tyson was, maybe Ali, but Tyson was that good, noone was beating the same guys like he was, and it was pretty obvious many things around him were heading south around the Spinks fight. The general public didnt know what to think because of the way Tyson was beating guys, but you heard plenty of fighters and boxing people speak out during the time that Tyson was headed for disaster.

 

Yes. And what does that prove ?
People were worried that he might not turn out to be as great as he "could/should" be. And they were right.

 

Yes, that he was wasting his talent, which he did, not that he was exposed by Douglas for not being that good, which is an agenda that many try to push on this site.

 

Well, he had an off-night and he got beaten up and KO'd. On that night he wasn't good enough. I'm not sure he seasoned enough technically or (more importantly) mentally to pull through and find the way to win the fight. Whatever the reasons, he lost.

It's all relative. "not that good" only makes sense if we both have the same definition of "that good".
I don't think he was as great at his best as you seem to. But that depends on what you really think can be learned from his impressive wins over Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs and Spinks.
For me, quick KOs are problematic is assessing a fighter at his prime. Ironically, it sometimes when a fighter has an off-night or is extended in a fight after some quick easy ones that we see him tested "in his prime".

 

I totally agree, Douglas would ALWAYS be tough for any Tyson.

Tysons toughest fight at his peak was one Tony Tucker, same Tony Tucker who Douglas was beating comfortably before he gassed.

Question is, would Douglas crumble under Tysons pressure? The version he fought in Tokyo was nowhere near intense

 

"Beating comfortably?" atsch Have even you watched Tucker-Douglas?

The official scores of 86-85, 86-86 & 85-86 were very representative of the razor-closeness of the contest.

Plus, how many rounds did you give Tucker against Tyson? I honestly think he only deserved 2 of 12!

 

Douglas was not beating Tucker comfortably, the fight was razor close. Its on youtube if you want to see it.

 

It wasnt just quick Ko's. He was extended in several fights, and although his opponents went into survival mode, or had a little success, it was impressive to see how he could handle good mobile boxers and break them down. The 80's were full of boxer movers, and those type of stylists always gave problems to brawlers.
I would have liked to have seen Tyson gut checked at his peak, similar to the Douglas fight. I think, like you, many people think that was a barometer of his courage when it went to the trenches, and that while he would remain in the fight and take a beating, he gave up trying to find a way to win. The same circumstances did happen in two fights, but I believe, that certain factors might have kept him from finding those ways to win. He had been frustrated and fought hard before, but his corner was the difference for keeping him in check.

 

Then proceeded to have one of the most execrable and shortest reigns as champion in the history of the division.

 

This content is protected