Mike Tysons resume was rubbish in a weak era.

This content is protected

 

He had plenty of time to prepare. I can remember reading an article about his preparation several months before the fight. So you're talking complete nonsense on that one.

As for him being 38, he was three years younger than Wlad when he fought Joshua. And he won plenty of fights after Tyson. Tyson was the only person who ever stopped him & he did so in devastating fashion.

Tyson lost focus & was no longer prime after the Spinks fight. So talking about fights like Bruno & those that came thereafter is irrelevant. He was beatable in all of those fights - we can agree on that.

Against Larry he was razor sharp. I don't think anyone would have beaten him that night.

 

Have boxing fan's lost the ability to see and understand talent these day's? Stop basing everything on resume.

 

I just don't understand why, in 2018, someone would log into a boxing forum and think 'I know what! I'll write a post about Mike Tyson's poor resume...'



*Points in the direction of 'Classic Boxing'*.

 

lol someones just came off of Hatmans newest video ahahahaha

 

One of the biggest myths in boxing for me that Tyson's era was incredibly weak. I think its based on being a transition periods between Holmes and Tyson. There wasn't,t a stand out fighter cause most of them we,re around the same level. At the same time tho the level of skill in them heavyweights was high and extremely high in comparison to the guys of today. People need to actually watch them fight....they could do it all back then. All had good jabs. All had good gas tanks. All could take shots. Could fight or box. Could fight on the move. Good footwork/movement. Good variety of shots. Good stamina. They we,re definitely more complete fighters than we see today. Its just that Tyson pretty much was a different breed. At least in them early days anyway. Hardly a surprise considering the training regime they had him on from young etc. I think its right that without Tyson...there probably wouldn't,t have been a number one out of them all...but for me anyway wasn,t to say they weren't very good. I think their miscried unfairly nowadays to try and discredit Tyson a bit. But if you watch them they we,re actually very good fighters...a lot of depth in the division at the time as well.

 

Joshuas best win was 42 year wlad up till the start of this year.

Tysons worst title win (possibly 38 year larry holmes) is light years ahead of that.

 

Also doesn't a great champ make an era appear weaker than it actually is because of his dominance? Tyson's peak was short but while at it, he was legit and a match for the best from any era...

 

Pinklon Thomas was not on heroin leading to the Tyson fight.

 

So, you say AJ would have not beaten a younger Wladimir?

 

you will have to tell me in what universe i wrote that.

or in what universe you are dumb enough to pretend that.

 

Most definitely. It happens in many sports too. I keep thinking back to Michael Jordan's reign. It's ironic when they named the 50 greatest players, and you look on that list of the guys from Jordan's time, none of them have rings with the exception of Hakeem. Jordan literally prevented anyone else from winning a championship and the only chance they had was when he retired for those two years (hakeem) lol. Its similar with Tyson.

 

I ain’t gonna lie I’ve thought about how unfortunate it was regarding mike’s conviction, he really missed a big part of his prime and in doing so lost out on some pretty big match ups that could have been defining fights for him. Who knows if he would have been in the right frame of mind but fights with bowe,foreman,lewis,Holyfield all would have been massive. Of course we got the Holyfield fight but the lewis fight win or lose would have been very different in the early 90’s. Also surprising he never fought moorer,Briggs,cooper. Definitely a what could have been topic here.