Jack Johnson vs Mike Tyson

If your fighting to survive your afraid. Unless your way ahead on the cards and coast the last 3 or 4 rounds, and it probably was a little bit of both he definitely wouldn't have been as confident had Tyson beat Douglas. If you want to think other wise go ahead. I honestly do believe intimidation played a big part in Tyson's wins. No doubt his skills played a role but I just don't think he'd ever be as good against guys who wouldn't get psyched out. Do you think its a coincidence that after Douglas all of a sudden more guys started holding their own with Tyson and even beating him? I stand by my words and always will that Tyson beat all of guys afraid of him and when he couldn't get his way or a guy didn't start to back down and fight back hard he'd lose. Feel free to disagree all you want I have no more to say on the matter.

 

So Tyson's first 37 opponents, many of them big, experienced world champions and contenders, were all so afraid of a squeaky voiced 20 year old whom they towered over that they all folded in a few rounds. Until Buster Douglas came along and he beat Tyson because he wasn't afraid. Right. Between losing to Douglas and going to jail his record was 4-0, 3 KOs. Did they all forget Buster's lesson that all you had to do was not be afraid and you'd beat Tyson?

 

Thought I'd throw my hat in the ring on this one ��

Some things that need to be considered are certain fighters who managed to stifle a lot of Tysons work and control what he was doing did it by utilising some of the techniques I see Jack Johnson using against Tyson.

For instance James Tillis used head control and hand control and putting his arms front of him to get that distance - there'd be lots of head control and hand control from Johnson this one - and Larry Holmes barely used his famed jab at all, rather he just used an extended arm - holding his arm out like a wrestler and laying his glove on Tyson's nose at arms length kinda like Clay did with Liston at times and Holmes didn't use loads of movement and he stifled Tyson pretty much completely for 3 rounds but neither had the offensive abilities of Jack Johnson added to it nor the pin point accuracy and Johnsons strength in the clinches was legendary - Tyson was one for accepting clinches aswell? This requires a bit more thought...

 

You mean that 220 pound 20 year old that the media was hyping all over the place as the fiercest fighting machine ever? Yeah, really hard to see why people would be afraid of him. You also forgot some steps there guy. Don't be afraid and fight back when it gets tough. Besides two of those wins after Douglas were who again? Just two guys to build Mike back up be disappointing if he couldn't beat them at anytime of his career. Then fighting Ruddock and failing to stop him once is proves what exactly nothing.

Once he fought a good opponent after Douglas he still didn't look like that unbeatable machine anymore. Just look how Douglas, Lennox, and Holyfield beat Tyson. I don't care how far you think he was from his peak with any of those guys. The moment he realized he couldn't intimidate and have his way with the guy and getting hurt he folded. There's no way around that. He never beat anyone impressive coming up and those who were. Were beaten before they even stepped into the ring. But this is going no where lets keep it about Johnson vs Tyson not just Tyson and his opponents. I gave my decision on who I think wins and now I will leave it at this.

 

You're just moving the goalposts to suit your argument. First Ruddock was a scaredy cat then it was after Tyson lost to Douglas so he wasn't scared and now Tyson beating him proves nothing anyway. Any excuse to give Tyson no credit for a win. :roll:

You don't think all that hype had anything to do with a 20 year old knocking all those big, experienced champs and contenders senseless? All this stuff about Tyson's opponents all being scared and intimidated and him losing to anyone who wasn't is just clichéd nonsense. Watch the fights. Those guys came to fight. They only got "intimidated" after they'd been clobbered by him a few times and went into survival mode, as it was preferable to being knocked out.

 

I never said I didn't give him credit I just don't give him any where near the credit you seem to give him. I forgot Ruddock was after Douglas but it still doesn't change after e first fight he was scared. All he did was grab and hold fighting to survive in the second fight. Is that what you call being a brave and ready to fight? Because I most certainly do not. Also it's true people who weren't afraid and didn't get psyched in the ring beat him There are no two ways about it. Also at the time it was the start of everyone had a belt. So I don't take too much stock in them being world champs. When there was so many of them. Although props to Tyson for unifying the belts at that time. Also all fighters come out to fight but do they go out to win? From what I saw from the majority of Tyson's opponents no. Tyson's biggest weakest was psychological and like I've said everyone who put him into deep waters and kept him there won. However, you can think or believe what ever you want. Go ahead and defend Iron Mike all you want it won't change my opinion.

Also here's a quote from Monte D. Cox. I'' listen to his views over most anybody's any day of the week.

"Tyson’s weaknesses as a fighter were not physical but rather were psychological. If Iron Mike could not intimidate his opponent he tended to fade as the bout progressed. He had a front-runner mentality and became frustrated if he could not gain control of the bout in the early rounds. This was especially obvious in his defeats to Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield. He would freeze up when his opponent’s fought back aggressively. Tyson had fists of Iron enough to wreck many an opponent but if one could frustrate him he proved to have feet of clay and would begin to fall apart at the seams. Tyson’s lack of mental discipline and focus was his Achilles heel."

:hi:

 

Seems to me you just don't want to give him credit for any win since, apparently, all 50 of his wins were against scaredy cats who were beaten before the opening bell. What does it matter whether Ruddock was before or after Douglas? He clearly wasn't scared of Tyson. He stood his ground and got a beating for it. Was Larry Holmes beaten before he even stepped in the ring? Pinklon Thomas? Trevor Berbick? Tony Tucker? Adopting negative tactics is not the same as being scared, unless you include the fear of being beaten up and KO'd. The severe beating Ruddock got in the first fight likely influenced how he fought in the second rather than being "intimidated".

 

No offense, but it has become pretty obvious over the course of this thread that you either didn't really watch these fights or that you don't remember them. It doesn't even seem like you really followed the heavyweights of that era. That's all good but why do you feel the need to argue with people who actually remember the specifics of his fights and the careers and attributes of his opponents, with so many cliches and generalizations that simply aren't true?

 

No offense taken but I really did watch those fights and my eyes see the same thing majority of Tyson's opponent's were in it to win it. Either the were beaten before the stepped into the ring or allowed themselves to get intimated when they go there. Please, don't say I didn't see the fights when I've seen them. How do you think cliches and generalizations start. From people seeing and noting the same thing I saw. Even Monte Cox a respected historian saw Tyson's weakness when an opponent fought back hard. If Tyson didn't have this weakness I'd ranked him the best ever but he doesn't Its alright if you see different but don't say I didn't see the fights because I didn't come to the same conclusions as you. Its also my right to offer my opinion as well. I also wouldn't say I'm arguing just stating my opinion based on what I saw. Just as you and everyone else on the board does its what makes the forums fun. Seeing peoples different view points on the sport of boxing. Like the old saying goes two people can watch the same fight and see it in totally different ways.

 

lets factor in the truth that had many, most or some tried to fight back as you say, Tyson would of knocked them out as he was so quick with his power,,, maybe not all of them but maybe all of them, look at what happened even with Buster, Tyson didn't quit and took a beating for several rounds before being knocked down and he still got back up and nearly won that fight, my point is, saying that it was only his opponents fear is a extreme and closed minded way of looking at the reality that Tyson was.

 

Yes, but Tyson still lost that's a fact. In battles that truly tested his will and toughness he failed. However, I can see all your points and will look at the fights again this week and see if I change my mind.

 

well that's more than reasonable :good

 

The idea that Tyson, all 5 foot 9 of him, scared off seasoned veterans going back to the 70's amateur programs in Spinks, Tubbs, Thomas and Tucker- guys who had boxed hundreds of rounds at the top amateur and pro levels- is ludicrous.

 

It's okay that you feel Johnson beats Tyson Seamus, he does.

 

Does a decrepit, aged O'Brien last a full route of 6 rounds with a prime Tyson? Does he fight Tyson to a draw? Is Marvin Hart able to last a full 20 rounds with Mike? How long does Tommy Burns last with prime Mike? Does Tommy go down as one of Tyson's best opponents if they fight?