Did Mike Tyson in his prime only beat bums and over the hill fighters?

I like to think that I'm the optimum fusion of "purrdey" style and solid substance. I detect a pinch of sarcasm there greenhorn. I'm not normally an ornery fella but fill your hands you sum b*tch.

Okay, enough frivolity. On a more serious note.

No, as it should be reasonably understood, a deemed prime is a deemed prime, notwithstanding what some may perceive as an understated or less than stellar performance within said prime. Louis might perhaps be considered to have been under par in his first fights v Godoy and Conn BUT still understood to be within his prime and I think you did deem that to be Joe's "status" as at the time of those fights in a previous post.

Sure, guys like Liston and Foreman benefited from the I-Factor also. Stating same does not detract from my point as I laid it out. The aforementioned also lost the advantage when facing opponents who weren't so psychologically afflicted. It's not a "real" thing in terms of a fighter's actual physical armory and it's arguable that perhaps Mike benefited most from it and he certainly talked and acted like he wanted to kill someone back in the day, so he was working it.

TBH, I don't think I've read anyone reach as far as back Mitch Green for the start of Tyson's prime, which obviously gives Mike more "prime time" than he is generally afforded. For Tillis, Mike wasn't green but I wouldn't say he was right on prime either but since we;re there, why draw the line at Green, precluding the Tillis fight? Ah, but I see in a previous post you did also include the Tillis fight in Mike's prime as you perceive it. Okay.

Tyson is generally credited with a prime from 87 to 90. More exactly, late 86 upon defeating Berbick and slightly post mid 89 when he iced Williams in 1. Depending on the agenda and sacrificing the outstanding, looking very prime, result v Williams in his following fight, some will have the wheels beginning to fall off as at Bruno because, god forbid, Mike was momentarily staggered and not necessarily as absolutely dominating as some would like, a small dent in his unrealistically perceived invincibility. Such self serving methodology has left some fans actually snap shotting Mike's peak to a mere 87-88, rounding him out nicely with progressively emphatic KOs over Holmes, Tubbs and Spinks. Nice cropping.

So an impossibly brief prime of say just over 2 1/2 years defaults into a min. requirement of 6 years at peak? LOL.. That's more than 2 x Tyson's generally framed prime. That's just hyperbole intended to suggest the highlighting of the perceived brevity of Mike's so called prime including its allegedly abrupt halt, is being over stated, which it is in fact not.

Even if Tyson was 85% to 90% of himself, given the prohibitive odds which reflected mainstream thinking, as he was perceived at the time (with a single shot first round stoppage of Williams no less just behind him), he should've still won, On the night, Douglas presented as Mike's best and most resistant opposition. As such, it stands to reason that Mike wasn't going to look as good as he had against previous opposition. His being sub par within himself is overstated let alone the belief that his prime had somehow, suddenly and conveniently came to an abrupt as at his first loss.

As a fighter and as per his career successes and in some measure, some of his defeats, there is of course enough to be getting on with to rank Mike as a great. However, where Mike failed and/or didn't live up to expectations, for mine, he's afforded far more excuses and "if onlys" than the average bear, talk often centering more on what he wasn't and why rather than what he was.



.

 

Greenhorn? I'm Pro'lly old enough to be your pappy! And given your distinctively loquacious, voluminous, circumlocutory style & my perhaps fever-dream of a stint as a ranch hand/Stud at the Playboy Ranch back around Tyson's incredibly flexible would-be Prime: I likely am!
Nice to meet you son!

Now I see what you meant-how Tyson's prime is absurdly circumscribed, not that it actually was so brief, OK cool 'n the gang.
People do confuse a "peak", like '87-'88 for him, with prime.
Although I do differ with you on where it falls for Tyson.

A "deemed prime is a deemed prime" is circular reasoning, begging the question of what is appropriate for the moniker.
I am saying it is a continuous period where a fighter is near his very best. I accept ~ 90%, & your point about Conn & Godoy is sound-concerning Joe Louis. Because he was no worse after those fights.

But Tyson unlike Louis did not have a one fight dip in quiality, nor a weaker fight here & there.
While his training habits declined after Berbick/gaining the WBC title, he was very nearly as good or better through Williams/until Tokyo.
There I say it is FAIR to end his prime.
Both because he had visibly declined in movement & results, *and* it was not all a result of Douglas fighting great.
People saw him looking off, movement very compromised-& he had a heretofore unprecedented level of drugging, whoring around, & even getting dropped in sparring.

So since although he had very good results & no losses after than & until prison when he years later had to rebuild himself...
It is a case where his ability & desire declined enough that although he wa sin his physical prime re: potential, he was only near prime after Tokyo.
Sorta like Ali. The exile robbed him of perhaps an even greater prime.
After he returned & was warmed up, he had a *near* 2nd prime that most would start FOTC, '72-'74.
Then he was still great, but sitting down on punches & showing a superb chin & wiles never made him as great a fighter as when he had the legs/speed/workrate of 15 rounds of dancing in the 1960's.

I do not recall listing Tillis as him prime, feel free to show me that.
If so, I will recant! The worse than expected results against a fighter that was good, but no Tokyo Douglas, how he looked there, that "Quick" lost 4 of his last 5 & his previous 3 fights before Tyson...
Means I start it at Green.
While he did not look great there, it was really not his deficiency: he dominated the fight, but when a huge world-class fighter is willing to make it a hug-a-thon, I would not expect a KO from anyone. Ditto with Bonecrusher.

So I am also saying that not being prime is no *excuse* when you are physically prime. And All Time Ratings must take this into account.
But if your sequence of fisticuff brilliance noticeably declines after a certain fight-1990 for Mike-you were no longer Prime Beef.
Which is properly defined by performances & skills, not just physical attributes.

 

Yes, whilst I criticise the transitional landscape of late 1980s heavyweight boxing, none of this was really any of the fighters fault.

Tyson beat all of the key players..and each of them were comparatively decent enough. Tyson did what he had to do and he did it very well. On their own, each challenger was very talented.

 

I wish I had typed this.

 

Green was world class?

 

23? Wow, according to some that means Walcott had a 15years prime and Moore a 17 years one!
It also means Frazier was prime when he fought the likes of Jones and Chuvalo, which was pre Bonavena.
That Joshua was in his prime whilst still an amateur.
That Monzon was prime 27 fights before he beat Benvenuti for the title.
Gene Tunney was prime in1920 , 6 years before he beat Dempsey.
That Larry Holmes was prime in his 7th fight ,when 2-0-0 Kevin Isaacs dropped him.
Well what do you know!

 

This is admittedly debatable, but he was 16-1-1 when he fought Tyson.
He was very talented, & before his focus & mental health seemed to deteriorate after Tyson he was an excellent fighter.

 

Not that deep bro, calm down.

 

Compared to who ? Tucker had defeated James Broad and Buster Douglas and was 33 - 0 .. he was in his physical prime. He was as qualified as many who fought for a title such as Bowe, Fury, Ali ( Doug Jones and Henry Cooper ?) and many others .. Tyson's opponents when he fought them were much bigger and better than the men Dempsey , Louis, Marciano and Johnson fought .. I'd say they were at least as good or better than who Ali defended against in either reign .. the only guy that fought as many top guys was Lewis .. For two years Tyson was exceptional and in Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Briggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Williams and Bruno he fought a hell of a group of big, strong, prime or near prime ( excluding Holmes ) heavyweight fighters .. what you think about the crooked boxing organizations is another matter but in that window , 86 - 88, who did he not fight who you feel beats him regardless of the alphabet soup ?

 

I was completely calm, you are pretending you have been decent after wasting my time by in a bunch of posts repeatedly ignoring the copious details I provided or addressing any arguments lol!
You will never salvage your reputation here or get respect doing this: & when I try yet again & call you on some illogical or absurd statements, I am *fine* if you disagree or remain irrational:
NOT if you add insult to injuryby writing "I am not gonna read all that".

Because you seem to embarrassed to deal with certain points.
SO tell you what: DO NOT reply to me here about this issue, nor reply *in any way* to this post.

If you violate my request-likely with another snarky, content-free futile attempt to look decent...
I will start a thread about the issues in question which you jerked me around about but never could face.
I will link this thread & refer to the conversation, you then can decide if you dare treat everyone telling you that you were wrong badly.

Just cut your losses. IF you wanna engage me in the future, even without the gumption & self-insight to apologize, fine if you act normal.
But do not reply here or about this issue. At all. Done.

 

Is that really you Pappy (tears welling)? Why did you done leave us all those years ago? I hope you at least got the wacky tobaccy you said were “only” ducking out for.

So you took the verbose scenic route to call me long winded? Well blow me down. Meanwhile I’m being hit by a tautological tornado, quite possibly causing lesser men to nervously reach for their Websters. Ah, but there was a self deprecating punchline, invoking a genetic connection, highlighting that the proverbial apple does not fall far from the tree. Haha, I get it.

Cool. Next time I’ll streamline it and just say you’re plumb wrong, that should suffice.

I did have pardner reserved for you but you doggone went and used it already. I’ll trade up to Foghorn. Don’t you remember Pappy, “That is a joke son….don’t you get it?”? No Pappy, I never did get your jokes save for the one above, the old genes are apparently starting to kick in.

Dallas like Dream sequence fades out and biting reality pulls into sharp focus, Sue Ellen, dead drunk on the floor again!. Now that’s a Real Purrdey, sight, ain’t it?

Shifting stance for a few quick jabs and sizzling right cross.

Re Tills falling within Tyson’s prime. It’s there several posts ago, no biggie and if you’re commencing with Green when Mike wasn’t (green, that is) so be it.

The chronological exactitudes for the start and finish of Mike’s prime can be inappropriately malleable depending on certain slanted agendas. At the least I would say it was conveniently and incorrectly deemed substantively finished as at Tokyo. As you said Mike posted some very good performances thereafter which, at the least, reflected that he wasn’t anywhere near the cliff drop decline claimed for Tokyo to excuse his defeat and maintain the preferred status quo: his assumed prime invincibility, an unrealistic label for any HW even in his prime really, no matter where you have them at their best and on the ATG ladder.

Without the overcompensations, which seem to be the order of the day for Mike, he simply had his bubble burst, the explanation for which was far more about what Buster brought to the table than what Mike didn’t.

We may not agree on quite a few points and that’s cool but I do appreciate and enjoy the discussion. My step Pappy taught me to always respect my elders notwithstanding their own truculence. That there’s a joke I say, see, I am a chip of the ol’ block alright.

 

Compared to who? Compared to every challenger who had to beat real contenders in order to contest for a heavyweight title. That’s who.

Real heavyweight title fights are not on the undercard. If you beat a fringe contender you get a ranking. It’s not supposed to award anyone something called the “heavyweight championship of the world”.

Douglas vs Tucker would not have sold if it had not been added to the undercard of a real title fight. It was just a fight between two fringe guys. The public did not know who either man was.

Having said all that I believe Tucker was a very good unbeaten fighter. I just feel, because of the era he fought in, his record was entirely manufactured and without real substance until he met Douglas. And this must be pointed out.

All this business of 32-0 should be forgotten. Tucker had not been matched competitively at all.

when Tyson beat Tucker he beat a prospect. He did not beat a champion or realistically even that much of a logical contender that night.

 

Alright son, I guess I done owe you an explanatory story...It was actually the new-fangled "wacky-packs" I grew obsessed with-& addicted to the gum. I was too embarrassed to tell you so I gave you a neo-neologism since I did not want you nor your 17 siblings nor 104 1/2 Sisters & 126 1/2 brothers from 87 Mothers any addiction by proxy to those fiendish collector's items.

I crossed the nation & traded relentlessly until I constructed a Full Set for each of you-they are in my will & in Fort Knox locked boxes, but I figure that I'll deliver them all to you personally next year for all of your respective Birthdaaaze!
Your inheritance will set you up for a long spell-life, & you need never suffer a that terrible "Completist" compulsion far stronger than anything you might smoke.

But don't you gimme no shadow-boxin' punchlinin' [sic(k), very].
I'll see your Foghorn & raise you-as I raised you up, (with) one Leghorn.
I done brought you inna this world, & I can, I would, shoulda, could..Ah me forgets, but remember I did not even have you until I was 98, so cut me some slack OK?

Now where wuz or where am, or is the frequency of Pi or I ?
Oh yeah, that then young fella who was well-smashinatin' everyone around the time of my inexplicable self-exiled decades in the (be)wilderness...

Tyson was still fairly great for several years, but if there is a continuous linear trend of being notably less than your best, I think it is fair to call that Not Prime.
Just like Ali was superb in the early '70's-Manilla, but both not as good as in the mid-'60's until his own completely forgivable exile...
An the constellation of his abilities had shifted quite significantly re: speed, endurance, chin, style.

I do think & many see that Tyson not only particularly collapsed in his training efforts before Douglas, but for that fight more than his corner was significantly deficient.
It is in large part a philosophical difference, but IF one sees him as never as good from then on, less overall head movement & combinations, more headhunting & loading up, often (admittedly sometimes only until near the end) less motivation...

I think whatever age he or anyone is, if through no fault of anyone but themselves they are less skilled, their prime has ended.
Now go get me some Tops baseball cards from the corner store + for all your kin, the head doctor says those are safe.

Scan the skies for Mike Tyson's from fossilized DNA reconstructed Carrier Pigeon fleet for the engraved invitations--->The reunion with all 335 members of our immediate & (s)extended family & the kidz own offspring, 'bout 1450 & counting is a-comin' this Christmas!

Looted & abandoned, we are gonna bring it back to snuff & party like it's the proverbial, back to the future 1999!
Right back where most of y'all wuz conceived...[url]https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/a-look-inside-the-playboy-mansion/6/[/url]

 

I swear Paps, you already done told me about Tyson’s prime and your calculations on the whys and wherefores.

The BIG crash of ‘90, remember? Folks were mighty peeved given their misplaced investments and to this day they’re still going on and on about it, offering too many savers to the argument for prime invincibility with defeat automatically signalling post prime status in the most circular of circular arguments.

And, if we’re going to treat Mike with such affording analysis upon defeat, for the sake of equity, then we’re also going to have to go back through his opposition with the same fine toothed comb to better calibrate Mike’s due credit for those victories, calling in any and all personal features/issues that arguably detracted from the opposition’s own performances and assumed status as at fight time.

Ninety eight, eh? I recollect that you weren’t even sure of your age, coming from an over swollen, dirt poor family yourself with no time to spare for recording birth dates or other such stuff.

So you finally made some sensus out of that census stuff they writ up? I mean, one decade prior you’re not even mentioned, implied non existent and then the next you’re recorded to be all of a big spanking 17 years old. I remember you told me, during one of your periodic stays at a place you called the house of “many doors” (you never let me come even though I asked every time, it sounded like fun) that that’s where they used to call you “Sonny”…but wait….born 1923……that’s near enough for hand grenades……surely you ain’t….?

Well colour me stoopid, I also recall you gave me a oversized teddy and you called it the Big Ugly Bear. That plush toy had the scariest “fixin’ to kill” stare I’ve ever seen. Did I forget to thank you for the nightmares that I still have to this day?

I suppose if sheet metal Mike had busted Buster in a few rds, it would’ve squeezed one more fights worth of prime out of him just by result, no questions asked. Everyone happy. Too bad Mr Douglas stayed front and centre, stuck it to him good and hard from the get go and while he prudently tied up Mike as and when for a few secs at a time, he didn’t fold like a cheap tent or go in for lovin’, self preservin’ protracted hugs. Nah, it was win or die trying. As Mikie used to say, all plans go out the window after you get punched in the head (in this case, punched in the head, very hard and often from first bell). No dummy that Mike, a great prognosticator.

Mike was used to setting the tone from rd 1 and against more than a few opponents who were happy enough if they just managed to see the first 3 minutes out and while Mike gunned for it as usual without any lack in his approach v Douglas, Buster took the play right away from him and it was he who was landing heavy artillery even before the first rd was finished.

Anyway, I’ll keep my eyes peeled and not to presume your wealth but Bezos’ inter phallactic rocket would be a fine choice to drop them golden tickets off, impossible to miss and I’ll definitely turn up fur that Xmas reunion. I guess name tags will be mandatory. I wouldn’t be surprised to see M to the T there. Given your stoic defence on that fella’s behalf he just has to be “family”. right? And if that’s the case, I’ll defend him too and not just because he’s blood but also because he just might happen to beat the **** out of me otherwise. Good ol’ boy Mikey likes the wacky tobaccy too. Yee-Haw!!!

1999? Ah, the purple one, good times, strange clothes, maybe I’ve been dreaming also when I wrote this.

EDIT: Just realised you said you had me at 98. Dang, that puts out all my clever calculations which I ain’t about to correct lest I publicise my own age which you know anyway Paps though I never did receive any birthday cards from you.

 

Don't care.