Why Tyson Isnt An ATG

Past his best at 23 years of age? atsch Yeah whatever

 

Two points...

Tucker lost because he was just not good enough to beat Tyson. He lost convincingly and it wasn't close.
The broken hand...Tyson neautralised the right hand as the fight progressed. In the 1st, Tyson dipped straight down and that's why Tucker got him with the uppercut.
Later in the fight, Tyson was dipping to the left or right and Tucker's uppercut wasn't landing. He was also getting countered with the left hook, which made him gunshy.
Maybe his right hand was broken (more like fractured) but he was still throwing it. It just didn't have any effect bar for an instant in the first.

The second point is that in attempting to discredit Tyson, you also discredit Holyfield who was anything but a blown-up cruiser. He was a legitimate heavyweight and a great fighter himself.

 

Thanks for addressing that ( though I think you have better things to do with your time. ) Anyone who thinks Tyson vs Tucker was close is either a comedian or someone who clearly hasn't seen that fight. I gave Tony about three rounds in that fight tops. And the fact he even mentioned Lewis beating tucker years later as if it were the same opponent is equally laughable. Lastly, who in the hell refers to one of the very best heavyweights of all time as a "blown up cruiser?" this forum has some real gems.

 

Wilfredo Benitez, Pipino Cuevas and Terry McGovern were all finished by their mid-20s.

 

I do agree actually on the longevity point. For a short, squat fighter he was relevant and 'prime' for longer than most of hid kind. As you say, the tall rangy guys are always going to have naturally longer longevity and that's just life.
But from late '86 to his arrest in mid-1991 he was the main man in the division, if not always the champion. I think that had he not been in jail, he would have continued to be at the sharp end of the division until about '96 or '97 and then fallen off.
So for me that's 10-11 years at or near the top, which is not half bad for his style and build.

Longevity to me is not an issue. I was playing devil's advocate. For me, the only thing that one can legitimately hold against him is his inability to overcome serious adversity, which to me the hallmark of a truly great fighter. But that's about it.
And to be fair, he's not the only 'ATG' that that accusation could be leveled at.

On a lighter note, I blame Douglas for this. I really do. Had that gormless mother****er just not trained for that fight, like he didn't for just about every other fight he ever had, we could always hide behind the excuse that a prime Tyson was invincible, and that prison ruined him...thanks Buster, you fat tub of ****.

 

Losses can happen weather or not fighters are their prime. Tyson turned pro at 18 and had his first loss 5 years later, hardly a long career. I know careers and primes are individual but NO ONE passes their best at the age of 23 that's hardly past teen years FFS, Tyson was very much in his prime he just suffered a loss now maybe it was because he took Douglas lightly, cut corners in training or maybe he was just not as good as people thought.

 

Magoo, it annoys me when Holyfield is referred to as a blown-up cruiser. That 'blown-up cruiser' took the best punches of Tyson, Lewis, Foreman, Bowe, Mercer and many others and was only stopped once, when he was ill.
Great, great fighter. We could do with a prime Holyfield today.

 

He peaked early. Those familiar with the English Premier League will remember Michael Owen, who was a sensation at 17 and considered pretty much shot at 25 or 26.
That doesn't mean that he wasn't a tremendous striker in his pomp.

 

Agree on all accounts. And I'll ad that at 6'2", 190 lbs Evander at cruiser was as big or bigger than a lot of classic heavys.