good points..but, ultimately if tyson acts like a ****, he is surely all the man he ever will be and not a baby??....one of d'amato's sayings was what a man does in the end is waht he was always gonna do.....tyson went on a rampage of barely controlled megalomania....sure, some of the hangers on could , and should, have put the brakes on the train, but hell, mikey is/was a grown ass man and must take at least some responsibility for his actions./...
It has to be 1988.I assumed that was the opinion of most fans and experts.It seems only recent rather superficial historical revisionism suggests otherwise.You read Ring magazine articles from the time speculating that he was on the downward slope after the second Ruddock fight. After Rooney left him in '88 he starts coming straight in with the big right hand and starts getting hit clean with big punches coming in.Before that, you could count on the fingers of one hand how many times Tyson had his chin really tested. The fact that he also seemed to lose quite a bit of his timing of his punches may have influenced his strategy.He never really regained his counterpunching abilities,which came with that. Similarly,I would argue from that George Foreman's prime was around 72-74 (before the Zaire fight),but not the later fights including the Lyle or second Frazier fight.
So if 92 is the tail-end we can assume his defeat to Douglas occurred during his prime. We can further extrapolate that Douglas- a fighter who had no other significant victories- had the right combination of attributes to defeat a prime Tyson, size, strength, reach and strong jab. We saw hints of this vs. Tucker and to a lesser extent with Green and Smith.
While Tyson was at his prime per se when he fought Douglas, a peak Tyson and a prime Tyson are two entirely different entities. Not to mention that Douglas was absolutely brilliant that night. It was a bad day on the job for Mike Tyson and Douglas stepped up big time. If it had been Muhammad Ali or Larry Holmes on a bad day, I would probably pick the Douglas of the Tyson fight over them.
I think the problems in the Douglas fight were more manifest than merely a bad night for Mike and a good night for James. Tyson always needed to- and was incredibly successful at- enforcing his style of fight, pace and distance-wise. However, when meeting a tall, strong opponent, especially one with a really good jab who control the distance and pace, he had to look for a plan b which he did not possess. The motivated Douglas did exactly this. Tucker had his moments doing the same. It is a fight plan that can work against a 5 foot 10 inch opponent but is fairly useless against taller, skilled opponents like Holmes or Ali, no matter how bad a day they are having.
I thought Douglas was for most part standing his ground,throwing one twos and tying Mike up when he came close? Pretty basic stuff. The fact that Tyson was unable to make him pay for this and was himself brutalized non-stop is,t my mind,a measure of how far he had fallen as a fighter-both mentally and physically-since the Spinks fight.
Tyson is perhaps the only heavyweight champion that was shot at 23. I mean it was not like Tyson took any real beatings before Douglas. Non of that Ali Fraizer or Marciano Walcott or even a Dempsey Firpo kinda of brawl. Tyson never had to come from behide to win, never had to get off the deck to win. Never had to face a foe that was even in skills to win. He just rampage though the divsion. I dont buy the fact Tyson was past his prime when he lost to Doulgas.
Easier said than done. It's much the same Tucker tried and did fairly well with. You need to be one strong f'er to clinch Tyson and manhandle him. And to throw the one-two and not get stung in return it helps to be tall and long. I don't think Tyson's short prime was some sort of anomaly. It was much the same as with many smaller, aggressive, attack-type fighters... Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier... Bigger, taller fighters simply have longer primes.