Why did Mike Tyson fail to KO James Tillis in ‘86?

Tyson had a brighter peak, but Holyfield was more consistent throughout his career at the elite level.

 

How does one reconcile Bowe being gifted with his spectacular lack of accomplishments outside the Holyfield trilogy? If beating Holyfield in and of itself makes Bowe great the same presumably is true for Douglas and anyone else who manages a big upset win

 

I never called Bowe a great fighter, I think he was an underachiever.

Bowe was a little more consistent than Douglas, but neither of them achieved their full potential to be honest.

 

Bowe beat prime Holyfield twice and many would say three times. Tho his successes were fleeting and he lacked depth in his resume, he has higher top end win/s than the likes of Holmes, Marciano, Liston, and many would say Louis, for starters. He didn't hit the top end once like Douglas, he did it three times. Eddie Futch thought he had the talent to be the best heavyweight he ever had, and more. Like Tyson he didn't have the mental strength or dedication to maintain the rage. It's well documented.

 

I actually think Tyson KOing all three of those guys is very possible, good chance he gets someone as slow and aggressive as Liston in the first 5… George is doomed, Ali would be hit with more left hooks then he got against Frazier, trouble with Ali is he clinched and that was his “inside game” Tyson had the same problem and his whole style was chasing jabbers down and lighting them up, Ali was incredibly tough and could even win but a KO isn’t improbable and it has a fair chance of happening he hit a lot harder then Frazier, he had two hands and came out like a man on fire. I’m not the biggest fan of all four of these guys, I’m only really a “fan” of Louis, Dempsey, Marciano and Walcott as far as “pure” HWs go, I’m a lame elitist who thinks the best boxers are usually 160lbs and below before anyone starts screeching about me being a Tyson fanboy… I actually think he was pretty limited, I’m one of those guys who believes Frazier could do a lot with Tyson because he was lost inside.

 

Can anyone really argue with the best skills being possessed by the lighter guys? It's sort of basic physics. It's not that a big guy can't know all the little things to do, it's that moving a 6'6", 250lb body to do those things constantly is just impossible.

As to Tyson vs. Ali, I go back and forth. Sometimes I think that the Ali for fought Cleveland Williams would frustrate and eventually stop Tyson. Sometimes I remember that Ali didn't have his legendary durability back then and think that if Cooper could floor a young Ali, Tyson sure as hell could have. Sometimes I think I want to send in '74 Ali against a prime Tyson, as that gets the closest to his prime form in terms of skills/speed/footwork, but brings in the iron chin and elite recovery ability. '74 Ali could handle making a mistake here and there against Tyson. '66 Ali might need to fight a perfect fight.

 

some of the conclusions are a bit strange to me. The very fact that we are having a heated discussion just because 19-year-old Tyson, after a year of professional career, was not able to knock out a ranked opponent in his first serious fight is bizarre.
Should we draw conclusions from the Marshal-Liston and Jones-Clay fights and reflect on their place in history?
The Tillis-Tyson fight itself was a very good fight at a high level. I think it could have been the fight of James' life, just like the fight of La Motta's life was the fight with Robinson, but it wasn't necessarily the fight of Tyson's life. Would any sensible person bet even one dollar that James would repeat this "success" a year later?

 

Ranked by who exactly?!?!?! Tillis had lost his previous three fights including to a Biggs who had had just 7 fights.

 

maybe you're right, I thought Tilliis was on the ranking lists in 1986. It seems that Tillis had as bad a streak as Mercer before the fight with Lewis, and Tyrell Biggs looked better in the 7th fight than Tyson in the 20th, but I guess that's only theoretically, What do you think?

 

I'm not sure what Lewis has to do with anything. You said Tillis was ranked and i explained he wasn't - he simply can't have been.

 

Lewis absolutely nothing, I wrote about Mercer... You can replace Lewis with Whitltearspoon - Ray won against him even though he couldn't be classified after he hadn't won a fight in 3 years. So, compared to Tillis - the fact that he was not classified does not mean that he was not better than Tyson's previous rivals. Do you now understand what I meant or do I still need to explain my point of view?

 

You never had to explain anything from the beginning. I'd given my own take on it earlier in the thread. There was multiple factors as to why Tillis went the distance and was difficult on the night. Some try and make a mountain of it but he beat better boxers than Tillis during his blitzkrieg. I was just letting you know that Tillis wasn't ranked.

 

Pretty much this as well as probably he had an off night. Maybe underestimated Tillis, who was talented but came off a few straight losses. A bit like Ali with Jones.

 

What people often forget is that he was still a teenager at that point.

 

Journyman92.

Just how is Foreman doomed?

More like Tyson is.

No one in history walks straight into prime Foreman and survives. He would have almost decapitated Mike with an uppercut, plus George had one of the top five heavyweight chins in history.

When Tyson falls he won't be getting up like Joe did.

Also Sonny.

Tyson had trouble with fighters with a good jab, Liston's was arguably the most brutal in history.

Mike is not just swatting it aside and HE would be the one intimidated.

As for prime Ali - Tyson's chances would be slim and none - and slim just left town.