Agree or disagree with prof's boxing blog, 'n readers' comments?

I mean, this is such an interesting question to me. If you look at a guy like Tyson who imo on a good day, in a good year, had a chance with any HW in history, we might agree that what his downfall turned out to be was if not a lapse of mental toughness then a lapse of his love for the game. But wouldn't we still consider him an ATG?

 

Yeah J, like most sons, I didn't appreciate the enormity of his accomplishments when I was younger and he was still here. He actually fits in well with this thread, 'cause I don't think it ever occurred to him that what he was undertaking, given his handicap was even a stretch let alone something that might be beyond him. He believed it, and without ever a doubt. And to answer your question, I think what we get is what we got, a "great" fighter given his limitations, but relative to others with more ability and two full arms, as well as heart, respectable at least.

 

I probably should have explained that prior post a little better. I believe many great fighters have insecurities. I think the trainer can replace the fighters insecurities with their own self belief and confidence. I think Tyson is a perfect example of that.
Tyson's story pretty much unfolded on tv. I wouldnt say Tyson was mentally weak, more than he was insecure, which is a bit different in my opinion. I believe he had what it took to fight through adversity. He didnt fold up when things werent going his way (early in his career), or fight below his opposition. Tyson had a fear of losing, but once he got in the ring, it really never surfaced.
He was insecure as a child, he was insecure as a fighter, but the reinforcement he received allowed him to overcome it and become the complete package. You cant be mentally weak and get through the type of fight he got through against Ruddock or Douglas, for example, when he no longer had that same reinforcement in his corner.

I think a fighter like Lennox Lewis was the complete opposite. He had no insecurities, was mentally very strong, but he didnt know his limitations and needed that corner reinforcement to harness him in.

I do believe Tyson became mentally weak later in his career, because as you said, he no longer had the desire to train and compete. He could no longer bite down and fight or handle a difficult fight and thats why he looked for ways out as early as the first Holyfield fight.

Noone could even say they would resort to biting a piece of a guys ear off, or punching a guy in the balls blatantly, or falling out of the ring and faking an injury, until they are put in that situation where their forced to make a choice when the thought of desperation comes into their mind. Am I going to fight, or am I going to look for a way out.

 

Great post. I got the feeling with Mike towards the end of his career that because the bar had been set so high from the get-go, by Cus, by Cus pumping up his self-confidence, by Tyson's ability and early success, that when he wasn't measuring up to those standards he no longer believed it, and so as you say looked for a way out. His fear of losing that you mentioned may have come into relevance here; an emperor with no clothes on after all, in his eyes anyway.

 

Virtue should go hand-in-hand with learning how to box. It can be possessed beforehand or taught as part of the process. Either way, the pupil must decide whether he will use his knowledge in a positive or negative way. And these personal decisions are the only thing that must be judged. The Sweet Science itself is merely a tool.

When an individual is trying to do the right thing in life, if he or she somehow becomes acquainted with the sport of boxing, boxing can become a metaphor for "the good fight", as the parallels are strong: self-knowledge in the firestorm; perseverance; pain management; fear management; focus on right here, right now; respect for yourself, your "opponent", the world around you with its inexorable causes and effects.

Those who wish to abolish boxing in my opinion overlook one inescapable fact: we are humans, not angels. As long as we are on this Earth, we will forever wrestle with the conundrum of own needs met versus those of our fellow human being. Our race will forever be tethered to conflicts of interest. It is the most natural thing in the world for two very young children to resort to inflicting bodily distress on each other when such a conflict arises, and adults as well will always feel the urge to lash out when faced with what the conscience clearly perceives as injustice or saving the weak from the strong. There are times when we must fight. Period.

Same with life.

How much better if we actually became acquainted with the arts of battle, physical and in life, and made them the humble servants of a virtuous character.

 

Agree, really enjoyed reading that, Prime. Alotta food for thought. Always nice to hear a sane voice, but lately it's a damn near life saver.