Can anyone take 88-89 Mike Tyson?

its all a dance mang.

Joe could do the head bang, but he couldnt lock it and move it side to side like tyson

 

:nod

 

Holyfield would not have destroyed any version of Mike, stop exaggerating. If you think he'd always have beaten him, then fine, but he certainly wouldn't have destroyed him.

You don't like it when anybody says that Mike wasn't prime against Douglas, yet you do the same thing with Wlad, noting that his prime was post 2004.

I give nothing but credit to Douglas. He was a very good fighter when he was motivated, and he'd just lost his mother prior to the fight. It was a great performance. And maybe if Mike had been physically and mentally at 100%, and fighting to his full capabilities, maybe the outcome would still have been the same. I don't know. But Mike wasn't the same guy in 1990 that he'd been in 86-88. His life was a mess. I've told you this before, they aren't excuses. He had a different outlook on life when Rooney, Cayton and Jacobs had gone. He no longer craved to be the greatest HW of all time. He no longer studied hours of old film footage in the attic. When Givens and King entered his life, and he ended up going through a messy divorce, he fought mainly for the money to massage his ego and to fund his crazy lifestyle. The signs were there in the Bruno fight. An 86 version of Mike would have destroyed Bruno in my opinion. Over the years, I've read a few things where people have given the opinion that he wasn't 100% focused in Tokyo, because he'd gone through the Givens divorce, and despite everything, he still loved her. I've also seen footage where he was dropped by Greg Page in sparring leading up to the fight.

At the end of the day, like everyone else, you're entitled to your opinion. But I think it would be silly to both dismiss everything I've wrote, and to scoff at the notion that Mike was only at his absolute best for just three years, while at the same time claiming that Wlad was at his best from 2006-2012. Wlad was knocked out by three guys who weren't as good as James Douglas, and they all happened when he was in his 20's. He also went life and death with the limited Peter in their first fight. Yet you'll seemingly sweep all of that under the carpet and claim that he's one of the greatest, like you've done in numerous other posts and threads. So don't tell me that Mike had to have been in his prime for Douglas, yet Wlad definitely wasn't when he lost to Brewster etc. It works both ways. You have to evaluate all of the circumstances involved, before giving an objective opinion.

 

I never cry about Wladimir loses. He lose fair and square. Its his problem if he was prime or not. But he learn from his defeats and become a lot better, something that Tyson not do, thats the reason why in my EYES Klitschko is better in ATG, of course other factors as well.
No one can know for sure what will happen when we put A fighter against B fighter. This is boxing and everything can happen.
And Wladimir was never Koed, hes lose are from TKO.
And we can argue all night who is better Douglas or Sanders. Both was heavy underdog, yet they beat Wlad and Tyson .... Such thing happen in boxing, like Lewis lose to Rahman and McCall and so on and so on.
The main thing is Wladimir come back stronger and that show how mentally strong he is.
Against Sanders i do think he take the fight lightly and was obliterated.
I do think he was close to 100% prime in physically aspect, but mentally he wasnt. He panic when was hit hard.
And i do think Steward change his mentality, start using his reach and height, as well as he become stronger in physicall condition and his cardio and movement improve a lot.

Thats my opinion, everyone have its a about everyone point of view.
Yet Klitschko was great fighter back then, but he have bad night, and lose badly, everyone have such night. This could be said about Tyson as well.
And lets be real here. Some fighter may look great against some boxer , but look terrible against other boxer.
For example:
Tyson could beat Bruno by KO in round 1, and Klitschko could lose to Bruno, but that dosnt mean that Tyson would beat Klitschko. Styles make fights.
And for me your prime become when you become complete fighter and start slipping from you when father time catch.
Otherwise its all your fault and that is the Tyson case.

 

its inarguable, the difference is vast.

- douglas was the bona fide next contender for tysons crown.
- sanders was a failed-to-contend retiree whom wlad manuevered into fighting his title in order for him to lose. and he still instantly destroyed wlad.

 

That's a great response, and I enjoyed reading it.

I agree with everything you've wrote.

With regards to Mike, in 1990, I don't think he was a complete fighter. He'd slipped. In my opinion, you can't be in your prime if you're not mentally and physically at 100% for whatever reason. You can say he was at a prime age, but to me, prime = when you're at your best, fighting to your full capabilities. Mike wasn't at his best for Douglas, just like how he wasn't at his best for Bruno. I believe that Mike was at his best between 1985-1988 when he was a student of the game and he was extremely focused and motivated.

 

Sanders would KTFO any version of Douglas

 

Outside of Wladmir, who did Sanders KTFO?

Ill help you. The answer is nobody of note.

A whole load of bums and his best win was Michael Sprott.

 

Douglas H2H and accomplishment wise, was above Sanders.

Outside of Wladmir, Sanders beat Mike Sprott, a eurobum.

Outside of Tyson, Douglas beat Trevor Berbick (Former world champ),
Oliver Mcall (future world champion)
and Greg Page (former world champion).

He beat Oliver Mcall, who went on to KO Lennox Lewis over 5 years later.

Oh and Douglas would have beat the **** out of Sanders.

Douglas was too well schooled for a one dimensional fighter like Sanders.

 

Fixed :good

 

88 Tyson is completely different from 89 Tyson.

In 1988, Tyson was trained by Kevin Rooney, who was able to kotivate Tyson to train well.

In 1989, Don King had fired Rooney and replaced him with Aaron Snowell, a guy that Tyson had no respect for. Mike stopped training seriously. Snowell even said Tyson was getting outboxed by inferior fighters in sparring, and couldn't withstand a full 12 rounds of fighting.

That said, 1988 Tyson who obliterated Michael Spinks would beat anyone in boxing history with the exception of Rocky Marciano.

Let's not buy into the myth that Foreman would have beaten Tyson. A lot of fans think that just because Foreman beat a fat, untrained version of Joe Frazier, he would also beat Tyson and Marciano. Tyson and Marciano beat guys who were tall and hit very hard, like Bonecrusher Smith, Frank Bruno, Joe Louis, etc. and they did it with great ease too. Those guys were actually faster and more skilled than Foreman.

 

:deal

 

Mike was in his prime years when he lost to Douglas, but not prime shape. The fact of the matter is, and no one ever wants to admit it is that Mike was a flash in the pants whose best years were 85-89, that's it. He was completely overrated, and really doesn't deserve to be mentioned alongside the great heavyweights. If you look at it he really beat no one of real note, and struggled (or was knocked out) everyone he was in with someone who didn't fear him, or that could actually box.

 

I'll go a long with that he was in his prime years, but not in prime shape. The signs of decline were there in the Bruno fight.

I don't believe he was overrated at all. He just had a very short peak like so many sportsman throughout the years, who for one reason or another, just couldn't sustain their form.

Of course he deserves to be mentioned alongside the greats of the past. How on earth can you say he beat nobody of note?

Berbick, Williams, Tucker, Thomas, Spinks, Holmes and Bruno etc, would all be top ten fighters today, without a doubt. If those wins don't impress you, then you must think that today's era is truly abysmal. Wlad K hasn't got wins as good as some of those on his resume.

 

Berbick was a paper champion, Spinks was a light-heavyweight and Holmes was like 90 years old. Try again. The only good thing Tyson did was become the youngest heavyweight champion. Even that was taken from a paper champion. Absolutely none of those fighters in the form that he fought them would be in the top ten today. Maybe, Bruno, and that's a big maybe.