As long as you stand up to Mike Tyson you can beat him

Peter Mcneely also had no fear…

it realy is bs even when people say that about Tyson post prison Botha was not afraid and did well and rusty coming of two loses Tyson still kod him.

Even Ettiene was not intimidated, also Denny Williams was little lucky that Tyson turned his knee.

To say the truth its allways like that in fight if one guy is stronger or can impose his game plan on opponent he will most likely win, Tyson really never stopped trying vs Douglas or Holyfield

Ok Bite fight could be interpreted as quit and aginst Lewis he kind of said to corner to stop it but he did go out and have one final go as he did aginst Williams on one leg.

Aginst Mcbride it dosent count Tyson really was done.

 

I think some people mean when Mike is getting intimidated right back, or his attempts are laughed at; for instance watch the Holyfield I prefight, or the Holy II staredown. Holy wasn't just not intimidated, he was amused by Mike's attempts to do so in the first fight, and blatantly won the stare down in the 2nd.

Due to Holy's antics as described above, I always wondered if he knew something about Iron Mike the rest of us didn't. He seemed SO confident, in the face of overwhelming odds...

 

Somehow I really doubt you believe that. Holyfield fought a great fight both times. You can tell in the first that Mike was extremely frustrated, and Holy was fighting his heart out.

I choose to respect your boxing knowledge and assume you were joking.

 

I think it started because people rarely have a balanced opinion of Tyson. The critics were swinging way too far to the other extreme calling guys like Spinks and Williams bums for getting KOd in 1 round when they were good fighters on paper, it's just that Tyson was a steamroller and an excellent finisher.

While it's true Tyson's early career he got matched with a lot of tomato cans that offered little resistance, his nack for scoring quick blowouts continued even after he stepped up in class. Thus people tried to just say the entire division was trash rather than give him credit. Stopping durable guys like Berbick, Thomas, and Holmes was very impressive even if they weren't the most glamorous opponents on paper, few had ever made them look that bad.

Tyson hadn't really encountered any serious resistance other than the Tillis and Tucker fights and he won those as well. So when Tyson finally did lose to an underdog with a fairly mediocre record, that justified the criticism to a lot of people. It wasn't just that Tyson lost, he got utterly destroyed losing multiple rounds before getting KOd. Douglas never achieved anything remotely that significant before or afterwards. The irony is Tyson took on the very dangerous prime, ranked, hard hitting contender Ruddock twice who absolutely was not scared. They slugged it out in two very brutal fights but people often gloss over this.

When Tyson made his come back, the Hoylfield fights really ruined his tough guy image. It wasn't just that Hoylfield beat him, it was that he quite literally stood up to Tyson standing his ground and refusing to back up or fight the way so many other opponents did. Many guys like Tucker, Tillis, Smith, etc would try to simply survive by jabbing and only throwing 1 or 2 shots at the most, backing aways, blocking, clinching, spoiling, even etc. It was very eye opening when Hoylfield fought a smart but rugged fight and beat Tyson emphatically in the trenches. The rematch was the final nail in the coffin, because Tyson intentionally fouled out with a very unsportsmanlike conduct. That convinced people who already didn't like Tyson that he was simply a bully that could only win when someone was scared and lashed out if he faced adversity. And many people who were on the fence or team Tyson ended up hating him for putting a huge black mark on the sport. Holyfield also happened to be the first truly elite A level opponent he faced which only added more fuel to the fire.

 

Yes Holyfield had several tools and attributes to win. I wasn't suggesting Morrison could do the same thing. The point wasn't that Hoylfield only won due to him simply standing up to Tyson, it's that he broke Tyson down up close and bullied the bully.

Even the Douglas fight was a bit more of a cautious display of boxing at times. Douglas used a lot of jabs and lateral movement, was responsible on defense, and mixed things up with good uppercuts and flurries when he saw an opening. But Tyson did manage to knock Douglas down and consistently brought the fight to Douglas who was often backing away.

Hoylfield was never in trouble and Tyson's legendary power was almost never present from start to finish. Either because Hoylfield neutralized it with his roughhouse tactics and wrestling, or because he was simply tough enough to handle the blows. It's about the portrayal and flow of the fight.

 

I’m not sure. Maybe the interpretation comes from people who don’t understand the sport properly? When you see Evander take it to him in the first fight and rough him up a very casual and loud fight fan who wants to seem like the smartest in the room could spin all kinds of wild sh1t to other stupid people.

 

Well I agree with where you are going on the idea that all you had to do was stand up to Tyson as well stupid.....metaphorically and physically stupid. The problem with the people who said that was that Tyson hit harder, was faster and all around better than all the competition of his era. It sounds good to say just stand up to him the same thing people said of Liston and Foreman but having the ability too is where the rubber does not meet the road with it....the problem with it is like Liston and Foreman at the time there was no equal to him who could give as well as he could take at the time so I dismissed then as I do now. As you state everyone who got in the ring with Tyson tried to beat him with what they had and he steamrolled them. Essentially what had to happen was what did happen Tyson had to not take the sport seriously one time come in the ring unprepared to fight beyond 3-5 rds and an underdog with top notch talent had to be at his best physically and mentally for the one time in his career he put it all together....the perfect storm.

As far as the metaphorical guys like Ruddock were not intimidated and he had size, power and talent. I personally think the intimidation factor spoken of is highly exaggerated when it comes to boxing, world class is world class these guys would not be in that ring if they were intimidated as some believe. I do not believe Floyd Patterson did not think he had no chance at all against Liston I do think he was troubled with how difficult it would be same as I believe these fighters in Tysons era believed they could beat Tyson especially once they saw him in the ring...he is not a large impressive presence he is a normal sized man that would not draw any attention had he not been famous. I remember meeting him at the USA-ABF boxoffs in Colorado Springs the early 80's and was surprised at how he stopped fighters in the ring but looked so average out of it in fact I thought he was a 178 or smaller fighter until he was announced at 201 he isn't broad shouldered, long armed he just looked normal even in a tank top he was stout but you still could not tell how thick he was in the hips and waist except for his neck but there were alot of cross over fighter who wrestled like myself with thicker necks

The TV marketing of a fighter has always to me seemed to influence the belief of people about fighters true or not...never met Hagler but he seems like he, Hearns and Duran were intense personalities from what I saw on TV

 

No.

Tyson had obvious flaws as a fighter, but you had to do much more than stand up to him, in order to win!

Douglas beat him fair and square, but he dodged a bullet.

If that KD had happened early in the round, then he is in trouble!

 

Standing up to him is part of it. But certainly not everything. You’re def not gonna win if you don’t stand up to the bully. But that doesn’t mean the bully doesn’t know how to fight. Not only did you have to stand up to him you better have known how to fight because Tyson was one of the best boxers ever at hw. Holyfield won because he controlled the distance so damn well that fight. If he fought another game plan like tried to hit and move he would have gotten killed. He perfectly controlled tempo, pace, distance. That frustrated mike beyond anything as he is used to controlling all that. Usyk did the same damn thing to Joshua just different styles

 

Having no fear was important but you had to be tough mental and physically . Some one like Ray Mercer spring to mind .

 

Im not sure about 80's Tyson, but in the 90's Mercer would have been a serious problem for Tyson. Mercer had a lot of qualities that could have frustrated him.