I say it was in many ways Tyson's BEST performance. Definitely wasn't a poor performance by Tyson's standards, or ANY standard. It was a good performance. But I also acknowledge he showed the same flaws and made the same mistakes that many people claim were virtually non-existent before 1989. Judging prime Tyson as a fighter and a champion he looks very good. Judging him against the mythical prime machine that his camp followers have since portrayed him as, he's a little lacking, yeah.
Fair point. Personally i was never one to think Tyson never showed flaws in his prime. In many ways he was an unfinished article. He was certainly showed a few things by Douglas he would have had problems with, in shape or not.
Absolutely agree. Tyson was considered an unfinished article at the time and was expected by many to improve and hit his true peak in his mid-20s, like Ali or Louis had.
If only he had the ability to keep it together, just that ingredient was missing, but then maybe a more level headed Tyson wouldn't have been so violent and explosive? Just shows that getting the perfect mix is a rarity in fighters, there is always something not quite there. I think Ali is the closest i can think of as a heavyweight, near had it all, especially mentally. If tyson had the spirit of someone like an Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, Frazier, the list goes on. He was a great on top fighter but if he had the same never die atttitude when put on the back foot he would have been something else. Tyson was missing that i think, when losing bad he didn't have the spirit to come back like those guys which is something i have to admit as a fan, its on tape. But to get him there wasn't easy, to beat an on form tyson always took something special.
Not Tyson's fault. He did what he had to do. Bottom line. It was a 10/10 performance. It was essentially perfect. It was absolutely peak Tyson. If Tyson's mystique allowed him to psychologically own Spinks, Tyson should get credit for that.
I agree that physical intimidation definitely is a part of a fighters arsenal, but Tyson himself views his fight against Holmes as his finest performances, since Holmes actually gave him some resistance.
Looks like you have been removed you foul mouthed lowlife bum.now get some help before u return here.im glad the grown ups can go back to some healthy debate...it sure smells nicer since the racist swine left the building.
I agree the Holmes fight was Tyson at his absolute best.This was a better Holmes than the Mercer/holyfield one...
it was not physical. With his size, he had to stay on his defense, and he got a little lazy and was hit more..
look at a guy like Marvin Hagler. Very disciplined guy. He kept on his workouts and always was in shape. Mike got lazy. That is the difference between Marvin and Mike. Marvin respected what it took to stay on top, Mike took it for granted.
Tyson was like the Marlon Brando of boxing. great when bursting on the scene, everyone telling them they were the best ever but then lost interest, abused it and ended up despising what made them great, sabotaged it almost. very self loathing despite the praise heaped on them. but they kept their aura because of the talent they had, people always seemed to believe they could come back and knock it out of the park again, decades after their prime. shows how powerful that kind of impact is.
Marlon Brando only made 3 good films and they were all in the 70s when he was old and fat.The Godfather, Apocalypse Now and Superman. The old black and white ones he was in were rubbish.
This content is protected WTF On the Waterfront - about boxing, no less, is a masterpiece. Brando in his absolute prime. "I coulda been someone. I coulda been a contender, not a bum, which is what I am." ...and former HW boxers Abe Simon and Tony Galento have roles. Superman? He is barely in it, just taking a huge salary on name only.
I always think of Marvin Hagler when I think of greatness. Because he worked so hard at it, and made himself a great when he was probably not as skilled physically as a Hearns or Leonard, but he made himself as good with smart thinking and tactics and never taking anything for granted. Mike on the other hand, let Don King into the picture, something Marvin would have never done. Marvin would have let him promote a fight, but not pull him into his grasp. And the Robin Givens thing. Marvin always said. no drinking, no woman. He knew what it took to keep focus and he was mad when someone tried to get him out of his focus and hurt his concentration. That is a great. You have to respect someone like Marvin, and see that is long reign had to do with doing it all right. Mike, thought he could relax on defense, and then he was hit by guys who were bigger than him. The time Marvin lost was after Hearns, he took a year off and lost a little motivation and then after Mugabi another year.. So even Marvin lost motivation after that great Hearns fight. But to me he was greater than Mike because he knew the whole game and didn't trust people.