Tyson- What if?

By your standards, yes.

He did the same to Bruno too, so what does that prove?

And Thomas was KO'd in the 6th, not the 4th.

The same thing you are.

He already murdered Bruno as is (twice).

What he "would" do to Douglas under other circumstances is purely unsubstantiated speculation.

You could say that about anyone he ever scorched.

Why would not naming others who say it make it any less of an opinion? And why "besides Teddy Atlas"?

But since you asked for names, off the top of my head I can think of Dan Rafael and Wally Matthews.

I've seen Tyson say a number of times he was prepared and had no excuses for that or any of his losses. I believe the last time I saw him say that was footage shown on HBO's Legendary Nights.

You should if you were following his fights closely in that time, because he had at least a couple of so-so performances that received some criticism.

Neither was Bruno, so I suppose your example was "ridiculous" too?

But now what does that say about Tyson's future prospects against increasingly better opposition (Holy, Bowe, Lennox) if he stays with a trainer who possibly isn't great, and is primarily familiar with one style which has been shown in the past to be flawed and somewhat limited?

Putting the entire blame for a lopsided upset loss on outside factors and then claiming the loss would certainly never happen under other circumstances is the very definition of making excuses.

 

Personally I don't think his skills were deteriorating; for me it was more his lack of commitment to training and hunger to still be the best. Of course, confidence after Douglas became a little bit of an issue as well.

For me Tyson was still physically the same guy when he fought the likes of Ruddock, but he was negecting crucial elements in his style that made him such a force in the 80's.

Anyway, this has been discussed to death in the past...

 

The Tyson thing is silly.

People could rightfully say that Holyfield and Lewis "never lost when they were at their best" too. It's kind of an obvious statement, a truism.

Or that Holyfield "at his best, was good enough to beat X, Y and Z". Because, on their absolute best nights these fighters were all that.
But no one (or very few fighters in history) is at their absolute peak every fight, year after year.

Let's be honest, if Lewis had concentrated harder in the first McCall fight he might have shut McCall out of the fight completely, it's easy to imagine. If he had taken Rahman more seriously he would not have been KO'd in South Africa.
If Holyfield had not underestimated Bowe's toughness and stamina in their first fight and stuck to clever boxing he probably would have won. Lou Duva claims Holyfield lost motivation in 1992 and was hanging out with MC Hammer instead of training, but of course that's not as newsworthy as Tyson groping girls in nightclubs and ****ing ten hookers the night before he fought Douglas, or whatever. Tyson's meltdown has become mythical, but is largely irrelevant. Most great fighters have down periods, off-nights, losses, carelessness, lapses in focus and discipline.
You judge fighters by what they do overall, during their time at or near the top, in all their meaningful fights. Not on their best nights alone, OR their worst.

 

Lou went a lot further than that.
He went so far as to say they had to usually beg Evander just to get to the gym, which I find hard to believe, especially as just a year or two previously, he had said that Holyfield would walk through a wall if you had asked him to.
He also then kind of hinted that Holyfield would never have come as far as he did if not for him and his son, Dan.

I always thought there was a fair amount of sour grapes from Duva's side after they split.

Sorry to get off topic...

 

The Spinks fight was the pinnacle, thats where all the wheels came off after that fight, which would suggest even more that Rooney was the strong personality that kept him together, it was there last fight together too. Tyson had also beaten better fighters than Douglas, like Tucker who had a similar style to Douglas and beaten Douglas (who in reality Tyson didnt lose 9 of 10 rounds against), so your suggestion that he had fundamental problems is BS.
Tyson never lost with Rooney in his corner, that in itself is proof what he meant to Tyson. Rooney is a real no BS boxing trainer that was mentored by Cus Damato, Snowell was not. Just argueing the suggestion that Tyson was the same exact fighter start to finish, is ridiculous. Thats like saying Pac hasnt improved under Roach, or Lewis didnt improve under Emanuel Steward or Holyfield didnt improve when he went back to Brooks who was mentored by Benton and Duva.
Please tell me how Aaron Snowell has accomplished more in his career than Kevin Rooney? Training Tim Austin who was given to him by Don King? He doesnt even train fighters anymore, hes in the media now...

The importance of a solid corner must mean nothing to you. Come fight time why do they even need a trainer then once their an established pro? They could just show up and fight and their natural instincts should take over. Taking a three year layoff means nothing either. They should be able to comeback, take a couple tuneups and perform exactly as they did at their peak right?

 

Fighters do have off nights and lapses, but thats also when a solid corner is the biggest factor. You need that person to give you the proper instructions of what your doing wrong, or what you need to do to change the fight to your favor. When you take that out of the equation it gives the fighter less of a chance to win.
In my opinion Holyfield improved himself by bringing in Emanuel Steward, Tyson did not by dropping Rooney. Just the fact that Snowell didnt even have a cutman in the corner the night he fought Douglas, suggests how under prepared and ignorant they really were. Snowell went on to to train a world class fighter, but at that time he had no experience, especially on the championship level.

 

This is for M2Sense. Fast forward to the 8:30 minute mark to hear Snowells comments.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP8r5uaipe8&feature=related[/ame]

 

^ /end thread.

You know you could slap My2Sense in the face with piles of evidence and it isn't going to change his mind. He's a straight up Tyson hater.

Btw, My2Sense, Tyson has never ever said he was 'prepared' for the Douglas fight. Your just making **** up.

And I already mentioned that in the recent Tyson doc (filmed 2 years ago) he stated in plain English that he wasn't prepared nor had any desire in the Douglas fight.

You apparently know more then Tyson does about the situation though right. Your also smarter then Kevin Rooney, Snowell, and all of the boxing writers/commentators who disagree with you (which is about all of them).

I'm not even going to respond to your other comments. Your just twisting **** around that I said and ignoring the obvious. I'm done arguing with you.

 

Watch the video I posted, his weight was in check because he was an active 22 year old fighter.

 

^ He looked a bit flabby in the Douglas fight to me. He had no stamina either. Being in shape though doesn't qualify as complete preparation either.

 

Like I said, Tyson was an active fighter, meaning he was basically in training since he started boxing, only now it was less intense and less overall.
Erosion takes time to take its effect, and the erosion of not doing the things he was supposed to do from a technical standpoint, finally caught up with him when he fought a guy he couldnt take out in one or two rounds. He was physically capable of fighting 12 rounds but technically he was not.

 

Yeah sounds kind of funny, but basically there was no method or gameplan in the fight. It was Tyson just coming forward straight up, not jabbing, not punching in combination, moving his head, etc, which is what made Tysons style effective against the taller outside boxers.
It takes quite a bit of concentration and physical ability to execute those moves.