What would Tyson's career look like if he had more discipline?

What's even more funny, the majority of boxing experts favoured Douglas to win again in a rematch....

 

1. Williams had already easily been destroyed by an aged Mike Weaver and was subjected to getting decked by left hooks his entire career. While it was a good win for Tyson, beating a tailor made opponent is hardly evidence of a man being at his best. The clifford Etienne fight is another example of such a performance involving a less than up to par Tyson.

2. Fair enough, but regardless he lost every time he stepped up against someone who was better than Arthel Lawhorne.

3. It was a good performance against a good opponent. But Tyson got hit a lot in there and wasn't using as much head movement or high volume punching as he did against earlier opponents.

4. The corner work was only one component, but still a big one.. And bare in mind these men weren't just the guys who worked his corner but also the ones who had been training him for the better part of a year and a half. That's a long time to be working with a team that's ill suited to an athlete's needs. Aron Snowel was a good boxing trainer in all fairness as he had worked with other champions before. But sometimes its all about chemistry. And these things say nothing about what Tyson was doing on his own accord or the other issues going on in his life.

 

Yeah well when a guy gets his butt kicked he's generally not favored in the rematch.

 

I never got the "surrounded by the right people" argument ... is it the people around him who are responsible for his actions and choices, or Tyson?

And who chose those people? He wanted trainers who couldn't push him because he didn't want to be pushed. He wanted hoodlums and rah-rah types who told him he was great rather than people who might tell him off when he's slacking ... because he wanted to slack.

Those around him have no responsibility for his actions and choices. He choose them just like he choose to live an erratic lifestyle.

 

Talk to fans of Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko who will steadfastly claim that their early defeats are defined by the absence of Manny Steward. I'm pretty sure you'll get the argument then.

 

Well this guy is the invincible Mike Tyson isn't it??

 

Like Bokaj mentioned earlier, I'm guessing the majority of Champions get a little lax with their training and preparations, it's nothing out of the ordinary. It's just that the Tyson nuthuggers go on and on about it like a broken record. The greats find a way to win in these situations, sadly Tyson couldn't.

 

How many guys have you favored in a rematch who lost the first time around?

 

Not many, tell that to your fellow Tyson fanatics. Douglas beats Tyson again if they ever had a rematch, you agree?

 

I'm not a Tyson fantatic. And weather or not he wins in a rematch depends greatly on how he shows up, chooses to fight and who he has backing him.. Douglas certainly never did anything noteworthy again after that first fight.

 

Yeah you're right, it all depends on how Douglas shows up. If he is in shape again he steamrolls Tyson yet again. :good

 

At that point you're probably right. He was never the same fighter again after the late 80's.

 

To put it simply: if not for the Douglas loss would there be any talk of decline?

Williams KO1, Bruno K5, Tillman and Stewart KO1, Ruddock KO6? and D12 (shut out more or less I think). These could all easily have been challengers for the title (Tillman being a filler). Would people look at this string of dominating performances and say "this guy was definitely declined during this time"? I feel sure no one would.

But the Douglas fight leads to the circular logic "since he lost to Douglas he was in decline, because if he wasn't he'd never have lost to Douglas, which the decline is proof of".

You don't have to sell me on that Tyson and his corner was overconfident and insufficiently prepared for Douglas - since they, like every one else, thought it would be an easy nights work. But for example Ali was underprepared and overconfident for just about all his challengers during his second reign - plus far past his physical prime. But even though he probably should have lost at leas once there was never anything close to the blowout Tyson experienced. Louis and Holmes were probably underprepared and overconfident several times. Lewis was underprepared and overconfident for Vitaly - but still won. Bowe was for his rematch with Holyfield, but still made it razor close.

Tyson was outclassed by Douglas. He was beat up. Therefore I can never ever treat it as a given that Tyson would have won had he been better prepared. It's possible, but certainly not a given.

And I also can't accept that Tyson's string of dominant victories over mostly contenders post Spinks would make people talk about decline if not for the Douglas loss. It's all tied in to the unwillingness to believe that Douglas at his best quite possible would beat Tyson even at his very best.

 

All you'll get back now is how Tyson's style needed a fighter in top physical and mental condition to be at his best, as if this doesn't count for other fighters. Facts are Douglas gave Tyson such a comprehensive beating it's hard to imagine Tyson beating an in shape Douglas at any point in his career, the fanatics have nothing to cling to I'm afraid.

 

If you were around at the time there was actually concern about his performance against Frank Bruno. And plenty of people who foresaw his career heading south with a lot of the **** that was going on with him outside of the ring. And your statement " had it not been for the douglas loss," isn't the reality. Going from dominating an entire division to getting your butt handed to you by a fringe contender is generally an indication of something going drastically wrong. So from my standpoint, yes.. Stopping Carl Williams and Henry Tillman weren't indications that his career was still target.

What I said above kind of addresses this, as I don't feel that his other performances near the timing of that fight were indicative of his being 100%.. The last truly spectacular performance he had against a high quality opponent was Michael Spinks in the summer of 1988 and not coincidentally, the last fight where Rooney was training him and Cayton Managing him.. It was also before the divorce, the green debacle, his car accident and several issues.

Muhammad Ali is commonly referred to by most ( including myself ) as the greatest heavyweight of all time. I don't place Tyson within his company.. Only that I think he "might" have beaten James "Buster" Douglas had his career not lost direction, which I don't think is unreasonable.. And for the record, Ali trained hard for Foreman and even changed and adjusted his style not only for that fight, but most of his bigger fights in the 70's.. He had lost some of his speed and stamina and adopted accordingly, which I don't view as being "underprepared" but rather using good foresight and intuition to extend ones career. Tyson's lifestyle, decision making and surrounding team of professionals, was anything BUT well suited for longevity...

Weather Louis and Holmes were underprepared for some of their tougher nights is something I do not know.. But they both had consistent management their whole careers, steady relationships and weren't getting into "documented" trouble outside the ring.. I'll also wager that Buster Douglas was likely a better opponent than a good handful of the men that either Holmes or Louis faced - A 6'4", 230 lbs black fighter with a solid jab, decent power, hard uppercut, world class experience and still only 28 or 29 years of age.. Not many Holmes or Louis opponent I can think of with that complete description.. The Bowe holy rematch was between two opponents, one of which was out of shape while the other past his prime and interrupted by an unusual incident that stopped the action for some 15 minutes.. Still Bowe lost.

Its never a given.. It wasn't a given that Louis was going to win his rematch with Schmeling after taking what was quite possibly an even worse beating, but he did it, and did it in one round, by simply going into the rematch with a different mindset.

The only true contenders who weren't tailor made for him that he fought were Frank Bruno and Razor Ruddock who both gave him problems.. One of those came a full year prior to fighting douglas while another came a full year after... Carl Williams had already lost badly to Mike Weaver and hadn't done anything to earn a #1 rating except beat an old Berbick, plus had the right style for Mike to capitalize on.. Tillman and Stewart weren't TRUE contenders.

In either case we've debated this long enough.. No matter what either of us says to the other, our views are going to remain the same and i'm fine with that..