Honest Mike Tyson Question

Holmes was a statue by 1985. Could hardly move, nor let his hands go. Right place, right time, and Spinks' braintrust knew it and cashed in. They were right to do so and credit to all involved. None of that makes him a heavyweight.

 

If it was the right place right time how come he handled Cooney and Tangstad in a way only a good heavyweight could have? I’m not saying those two were that great, but he did what he did very efficiently, he scored good knockdowns too.

 

Under whose reign would people like that ever have gotten title shots? Other than him I mean.

 

Before fighting Tyson, Tucker stopped Buster Douglas. His lost to Tyson was his only lost in his first 50 fights . His second lost was also a decision lost, against Lennox and thats 6 years after he fought Mike and Tucker was already in his mid 30's and looked chubby.

To me, Biggs career never really took off as a pro. He was promising prospect as amateur (his achievement proof that) , but he already becoming an drug addict not long after he turned pro. The Tyson fight basically just a final nail to the coffin for his career.

 

Mike Tyson’s reign.

Larry Holmes was dug up from retirement having not won a fight in 3 years.

Tony Tubbs was given a title fight having not defeated a rated fighter for 3 years, had a trainer walk out on him for not being in condition to fight, then for an alibi, deliberately came in over weight to lose a cash bonus to get in shape.

Frank Bruno had not fought in a year. Bruno had not fought at championship level for 3 years.

 

There is probably nothing much between Biggs and Tucker.

When Tucker beat Douglas that was really the first competitive fight he had and Douglas more or less quit on him. Still, it’s a good win, but in relation to the division at that time it was among the worst pairings for a vacant title in history since nobody knew who they were. It was basically a USBA Level fight. An echelon below world championship level.

Douglas became a better fighter over the 27 competitive rounds he fought on 3 Tyson undercards in the run up to Tokyo. HE certainly wasn’t that good against Tucker.

 

Woahhhhhh hold on there chaps.

What about the comments Teddy Atlas made about Tyson being mentally weak and manipulative? He wasn't a real fighter because he couldnt get past the mental barrier of fear and over coming something. Thoughts? I used to think Teddy was bitter about the situation with his daughter, however It does make sense to an extent.

 

Are you comparing Steffen Tangstad to the likes of Frank Bruno or even an old Larry Holmes?

 

Well, I have to say what annoys me the most that these doubters think Tyson is never a good fighter until he meets a real good fighter and you'd find many of them praising Douglas for being underrated which is a nonsense.... if Mike won 10 championship bouts in 3 1/2 years being considered overrated, how's Douglas is underrated ?

Douglas has been fighting same opponents that Mike fought prior to their clash in Tokyo and the quality difference between them during those years was obvious. Mike destroyed Berbrick and Fergusson like walk through a park and unamiously beat Tucker, meanwhile Douglas was stopped by Tucker, lost by decision to Fergusson and only won on points against old Berbrick. Even before fighting Fergusson, Douglas has already been stopped twice in his career. Hell, Tyson in his last quarter of his career still had notable knockout wins despite being a part timer.

Even when pass their prime , Mike was still a better fighter... Douglas was beaten silly by Savarese and Tyson almost killed Savarese when they fought a year later. Tyson gave Ruddock immidiate rematch and Douglas avoided Mike rematch.

 

I don’t doubt Tyson. He is an ATG fighter. But I do recognise and understand how he was able to lose to Douglas. Tyson is a greater fighter than Douglas. full stop. I just understand how he, or anybody, like that is acceptably able to lose to him.

Tyson was the best fighter in the world. But like Joe Louis, he was also the best fighter in the world getting all the breaks. Every opponent was lined up for him in the order he needed them at just the right time. This meant he was achieving a very rare thing. He getting a no expense spared opportunity to look his full potential each and every time.

But he was also getting a path of least resistance. He was getting all the right fighters, he was getting them all when it suited him.

I have studied his career to come up with a realistic theory that fits much better than that “Tyson simply did not train against Douglas”. That is far too simplistic.

Under a certain set of circumstances, Douglas was always good enough to beat a champion like that ...even a champion in his best possible condition.

Fighting better fighters makes you better. A fighter improves only when he’s fighting men as good or better than he is. Douglas was getting fights against men as good or better than he was. None were as good as Tyson. But in beating them in more competitive and longer fights than Tyson was getting seasoned him up and raised his pedigree over a period of time while Tyson was fighting men that were not as good or better than he was. Tyson was getting opponents that were half beat just getting into the ring with him. Inactive, intimidated challengers and winning. Whilst Douglas getting men looking to beat him up and winning. So Douglas was toughening up and Tyson was softening up. And throw in the fact that Douglas had fought on all 3 of Tyson’s last cards and had worked out a gameplan to beat Tyson... I think this is the answer.

The matchmaking suited Douglas because he had been just as active. Providing Tyson did not have an answer to his gameplan the 27 rounds of competitive boxing Douglas had over Tyson’s 7 rounds during the same period would really come into play. And they did. Tyson did not have an answer and he did not have enough competitive rounds of experience to draw upon.

You can get the best fighter in the world beat under the right set of circumstances. Quality of opposition, ring activity and gameplan are crucial components to overcoming a better fighter.

I have come to believe Archie Moore might have beaten Rocky Marciano, Cooney might have beaten Larry Holmes, Foreman might have beaten Ali, Joe Bugner might have beaten Muhammad Ali, Frank Bruno might have beat Tim Witherspoon if you could control who they all fought before their fights happened.

It’s got nothing to do with off nights.

 

I watched a video of Holyfield against Stewart on youtube the other day , and there were many Holyfield fans that claimed Holyfield didnt knock him out because he changed his style and becoming a jabber. Well, Holyfield traded punch with him in first fight and never able to stop the guy. You could also see many people trying to defend Foreman performance against Stewart, claiming Stewart gloves were loaded with "something". When Lennox almost beaten by Mercer, Lennox fans would say "the ring was too small"... he's beaten by Mccall "it was a lucky punch" . When he lost to Rahman, Lennox claimed he didnt have much time to prepare himself cause he didnt arrive in Africa until 12 days before the fight.

This is what I mean that every fighters has their haters and their diehard fans and they will always come up with their excuses aswell.

In comparison, Tyson style clearly changed once he fired Rooney which can be seen by the time he fought Bruno. So if fans of other boxers could come up with excuses when their fav fighters lost, those excuse from Mike fans are equally valid, since Tyson was clearly abondened many of his original technique which he used in Rooney's days.

 

Yes, he was the man to finally topple Holmes, yet people had also been question Holmes's age for at least 2 years prior to that loss. I think the odds were closer than they should have been more on name recognition than realistic fighting ability. It happens from time to time. Holmes himself following the Tyson fight said Tyson would blast Spinks out. Spinks stopped Cooney, who in hindsight after their fight wasn't fit to be in the ring with any top fighter. He beat up Tangstad, who wasn't a real threat to the other top heavies at the time. Meanwhile Tyson blasted through a slew of men who few would dispute were top contenders....so basically Spinks beat an old Holmes (one of the wins being highly disputed), stopped a poor version of Cooney, and stopped Tangstad. Outside of being a big name who beat Holmes, nothing would suggest he was "the man" of the division compared to Tyson.

From memory, De La Hoya-Pacquiao odds were pretty even, despite Oscar being clearly done after the Forbes fight.

 

I dont remember the exact words being that the odds were 50/50 but thats the way some people saw and hyped it up at the time. They thought it would be one of the greatests fights of all time and some not only gave spinx a strong chance of winning, some even considered spinx the worthy champion.

“This is the biggest fight in history,” Finkel says.

"The fight was billed as "Once And For All." This was a fight between two undefeated fighters, each with a legitimate claim to the heavyweight championship of the world."

"Everything points to Tyson-Spinks generating more money by far than any fight in history -- about $70 million."

"Instead of defending his IBF title against top contender Tony Tucker, Spinks elected to take a more lucrative fight with former contender Gerry Cooney, who had fought three times in five years, in June 1987. The IBF responded by stripping Spinks of the title, but he was still in possession of the lineal and Ring titles and was considered by many to still be the rightful champion.[1][5][7][8]"

"the fight was highly anticipated and earned comparisons with the 1971 Fight of the Century between Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali, who were also undefeated heavyweight champions when they met to decide the undisputed title.[7][8][18] "

Ray Arcel thought Tyson would win on points.[31]

Muhammad Ali thought Spinks would win, as "he hits hard enough, he'll stick and move, he's fast on his feet, and he'll keep his distance."[28]Tony Zale and sportswriter Bert Sugar backed Spinks to out-box Tyson.[29][30][32] Dave Anderson of the New York Times wrote that Spinks would win, "probably in a 12-round decision. But possibly in a late-round knockout."[18] Reigning WBA welterweightchampion Marlon Starling, veteran announcer Don Dunphy and Tyson's former trainer Teddy Atlas also favoured Spinks.[29][30] Contender Meldrick Taylor felt Tyson would win if it ended in a knockout, but favoured Spinks if it went the distance.[28] 1940s middleweight champion Rocky Graziano predicted Spinks would "psych out Tyson, then knock the hell out of him."[33] Archie Moore gave Spinks "a wonderful chance" of winning.[28] Floyd Patterson, who like Tyson had been trained by Cus D'Amato, said "I originally picked him [Tyson], and I still do, but now I give Spinks a chance."[34]

You do not estimate that a fight will the most profitable in history, compare it it to the fight of the century, and have so many noteworthy boxing figures calling it even or believing spinx might win if everyone honestly thought Tyson would easily win if they didnt think it was close to being an even matchup. All this stuff about people writing spinx off as another highlight reel bum isn't just historically innacurate, its a lie and revisionist history.

 

I literally posted actual quotes from some of the biggest boxing figures at the time who thought spinx would win. Of course tyson was favored over all but clearly some thought it was more of a 50/50 or even thought tyson would definitely lose. It doesnt really matter what you think TODAY or even what you thought then, a lot of experts picked spinx to win. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to hype it up and promote or guarrantee 10 million+ to both fighters! People would not be estimating that it would gross more than any fight in history if "almost everyone" thought tyson would win easily (people would tune in but not in huge numbers). And writers certainly wouldn't have the audacity to compare it to Ali Frazier 1 if they thought spinx would be easily demolished early.

 

What was that

Well lets also check what Spinks himself thought:

This content is protected

Or the guy who fought both of them:

This content is protected