The Tyson myth

I differ about the in a real fight argument. It is an insult to all the men who brought their game against a prime Tyson and got beat.

Berbick was in his prime, coming off his biggest win.
Thomas was still in his prime.
Smith was in his prime and coming off his biggest win.
Tucker was in his prime and coming of his biggest win.
Biggs was in his prime .
Holmes was not.
Tubbs was in terrific shape and still young.
Spinks was coming off his biggest wins.

All came to fight. They simply got beat. To say none came to fight or all were defeated before the bell is b.s.

They were defeated after the opening bell.

 

Being in your prime physically is totally different than having the mental toughness to deal with a guy like Tyson .... Certain fighters in history are able to 'spook' mentally weak opponents by their persona, Tyson, Liston and Foreman are among these fighters .. They are bully mentalities but they are also very mentally fragile themselves if you have the guts to stand up to them .. Spinks was an absolute disgrace against Tyson, im a huge fan of Spinks but he capitulated in the dressing room and for a true champion like him it was very disappointing, but a hell of a pay cheque for him. I wonder what price Michael Spinks puts on his legacy and whether he thought doing what he did against Tyson was worth it .. For all of his class at Light Heavy, he'll always be remembered for being caught in the eye of the Tyson storm and looking terrified doing it ..... Ali would have destroyed Tyson mentally before dealing with him in the ring, Tyson would have zero chance against Ali. Imagine the psychological attack he'd put on Tyson 12 months before the fight, Mike would crack and be a basket case by the time of fight night just like he was for the Holyfield re-match .. Holyfield faced Tyson head-on with total self belief and Tyson didnt like it, the roles were reversed and this time it was Tyson totally 'spooked' by Holyfield, thinking to himself, 'there is no way i can beat this guy, i dont want the humiliation of a long drawn out beating again so i'll bite him, get out of here and blame Holyfield for butting me' .... A classic bully psychology, loves being feared and thought of as indestructible but is very fragile when somebody actually stands up to them ..... Tyson was explosive, exciting and one hell of a fighter but a lot of it was based on the persona he created for himself, but that persona wont work against the top guys .... Holyfield wasnt scared, Ali, Johnson, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey and a lot of these old timers wouldnt be scared of him the way Spinks clearly was .... Take the fear factor from Tyson, have a gameplan to frustrate his early fire and you can get to him .... Plenty of the top guys would bring down Tyson ..

 

tyson was almost too good to achieve seasoning in the ordinary sence. I think he was a frankenstien creation. cus demato wanted the fury of a pyscopath and trawled homes for wayward boys to groom. Tyson had the best of evrything and had evry advantage over so many opponents it was almost unreal. Studying film nobody else could access, sparring with pros at age 11 etc etc. He had so may atributes and worked very hard but the fact is he looked beter when the other guy was handycapped. I know you can pick holes in any ATG but Tyson never shone in hard fights.

 

Perhaps I did not read this closely enough, as i am half distracted at the moment and this is a lot of material, but for some reason, the fact that he KO'd Spinks in 1 round, who was an all time great fighter, doesn't seem to get mentioned. If I missed it, then you have my appologies. I also don't seem to recall anyone who is "serious", ever mentioning that he'd beat Lewis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier or Johnson in one... I do think however that its reasonable to say that he'd have a good chance of stopping most or all of them at some point.

 

i agree. when you dig deep in the resumes on most of the concensus top 10s you can pick them apart but tyson's resume is at least comparable to many. look at frazier and foreman's title reigns. true, frazier did most of his best work pre title but along with many others like marciano, if you look at their records honestly, many of them were lacking. tyson's accomplishments will be looked at more accurately, for better and worse, in decades to come.

 

There was no need to produce an entire thread dedicated to rebuffing the usual tired biased crap of PowerPuncher, usually a simple "Silence '****!" does the trick.

 

Of course he is over rated - how can a fighter generally considered the no-questions-asked number 1, bar no-one, not be?? Thats the whole point

 

:rofl

ps Pachilles - pretty much in agreement with your:

i think you'll find Tyson's true standing to be somewhere between the opinion of casuals and the opinion of know it alls

sentiment

 

i know the temptation for a Tyson KO 1 prediction. if you picture him in the ring with a dempsey or a louis, you can almost see him bullrushing them in a way that they had never encountered. and if they fought iron mike 10x, he might likely score that kind of quick victory once. but the other 9 times they weather the storm, hold on and either wear him down or make it a long ****ing night for him.

 

Again, if we are talking about Tyson, let's talk about him in his prime, 86-88.

Holyfield did beat him post prime but Evander had the exact skill set needed to do so. He was a very fast, terrific boxer with a terrific jab, a great left hook, excellent movement, very strong , deceptive power and a cast iron chin. A prime Ali is the only other guy I'd say matched up that well against Tyson. Maybe Holmes but I'm not 100% sold.

 

i think he would have a good chance of bombing dempsey out in a round

 

This. :good

If you judge a fighter you have to look at his complete career not just on the aspects of it which suit you and your argument.