Henry Tillman vs. Mike Tyson I & II (amateurs)

Interesting trivia nugget for those who weren't aware - Holyfield isn't the only man to twice get over on Tyson in a boxing ring. :deal

Henry Tillman (an Emanuel Steward wet dream who used his length, quick springy legs, and rangy left jab remarkably well) was able to negate the inexperienced aggression of the young phenom, and stick and move his way to a unanimous decision over teenage "raw ore" Iron Mike - not once, but twice in less than a month! With the wins he earned passage to the Olympics and would there earn a gold medal.

Tillman vs. Tyson I, June 10th 1984
[yt]QJoAKPDtbKE[/yt]

Tillman vs. Tyson II, July 6th 1984
[yt]IoipFFbohFc[/yt]

Score for yourselves, but IMO Tillman deserved the nod both times by earning two shares out of three. That puts him up 4 rounds to 2 all told in their amateur rivalry.

In the first meeting, Tyson clearly won the 1st - but remember that in the amateurs there is no such thing as a 10-8 round scored for a knockdown. That's key. Tillman recovered and went on to win the 2nd and 3rd.

In the second meeting, it was the opposite. Tillman got 1 & 2 in the bank and then began to crumble upon feeling Mike's power toward the end. Again, 2 rounds to 1.

Tyson would get his revenge, however. :verysad Six years later, a fully grown Tyson at the height of his powers and seething with anger after his first professional defeat at the hands of Buster Douglas set his sights on the last man to "own him" as a victim of his comeback/statement-making performance. And boy, was that statement ever made with abundant clarity. One slam-bang round full of mauling and brawling made it clear - with a concussive exclamation point - that despite their previous sextet with headgear going Tillman's way in summation and on each night, in the pro game it was a huge mismatch in the other direction.

Tillman vs. Tyson "III" ("I" as professionals), June 16th, 1990:
[yt]CXvOW4y2BaQ[/yt]

Ouch. :!:



He'll always have 1984, though. :-D

Only he and an ATG can say they conquered the monster more than once.

 

So?

 

Ugh. :!: I was really hoping to avoid the usual knee-jerk Tyson bull****. That was the impetus behind re-posting this here after originally making it in the General Forum.

That thread actually didn't veer off track with too much of the bull****...once again disproving the myth that this section is so much classier and more sophisticated.

Look...I like Tyson. I don't have any sort of hidden anti-Tyson trolling agenda, in general or in posting this thread. This is just about Tillman's wins over him. They are reality. They exist. Bringing them up isn't meant as a slap in Mike's face. Unfortunately, there are many knee-jerkers who feel that the baddest man on the planet needs constant defending. (or the extremists on the other end who have to use whatever convoluted means to undermine him and tear his legacy down, and spout Atlasian platitudes about him...although of course they would be more apt show up in droves in a thread mentioning a positive accomplishment...threads like this - of harmless intent but potentially viewed as *gasp, negative!* - are the ones that bring more of the former than the latter out of the woodwork...)

"To the parapets! Man the battlements! Tyson is under attack!"

...except he isn't. At all. There is no need to defend him. He is no fair maiden in distress, and he isn't going to reward your zealots' fealty by ****ing you internet white knights until you love him. ***gots.

Take a deep breath, relax. It's OK to talk about his losses without making excuses. The universe won't implode upon itself.

Tillman was obviously pretty skilled. He obviously didn't cut it as a pro in spite of that (his best win was what, Bash Ali?). He obviously enjoyed the high marks of his entire boxing career in the amateurs, with the two wins over Tyson and then winning gold. He obviously earned both of those wins pretty clearly*...

Why isn't it possible to focus on those things - giving out some kudos to a man who didn't really have much else to celebrate after turning pro, and objectively discussing as conscientious historians/fight fans the mildly controversial scoring of these marginally important bouts (insofar as they impacted the Olympic annals...and perhaps also Tyson's later approach as a learning experience) - without going out of our way to diminish any credit for Tillman by making constant excuses?

Way to put the Class in Classic, guys.



*SportsLeader, I'd be very curious to hear your Rounds 1-3 breakdown for each to support why you had them the other way.

 

Yeah - nobody?

Nobody has anything constructive to add about the two meetings, their scoring, or the interesting dichotomy between these and Tillman's amateur successes in sum and his comparative professional failures?

(worth noting - the General Forum produced about a page more of all those things. Just sayin'...)

...you got nothing? Just excuses?



Yeah.


Thought so.








:sad2


You stay classy, Classic.