An unbiased evaluation of Tyson.

Just because it gets better for you doesn't mean the thread = Fail.
Comments like fail and props seem to be of a certain lingo. Off the subject, Jim Rome had to say props all the time. He thought he was hip.

 

What's a Jim Rome?

 

A sports radio talk show host.

 

Scoreboard.

 

Tyson also had his opposition scrutinized closely, & like most all encounter it was not a ton of peak guys, but compares ell with most HWs. Hard to get prime vs. prime anytime. Now he lost the so called legacy fights, but he was not the same then. It is foolish to say he lost vs. Douglas due to a smart approach. That helped, but if Tyson was trained & focused, not just whoring it up & crash dieting, he clearly takes the fight. Almost did anyway, bit of a long count.

Yes some were scared & it impaired themn. Others fought bravely. But clealy Tyson was not merely hype or a mirage. He had tremendous speed, power, combinations, good endurance for a power fighter, & excellent defense. How he would have done against a peak Holyfield? I believe he needed 'roids, head butting, & a more stationary Tyson to take him. I pick prime Mike against Lewis, but can see the case for Lewis.

Tyson was one of the very best ever during his short prime.

 

At anyone time if you ask somebody what it would take to be an instant ATG there's usually 3names one could use to describe who needed to be knocked out in order to be regarded as an instant great. Around 1986 anyone who could knock out Holmes, Spinks and Thomas would be regarded as such. Later of course people can argue about the merit of it. activity, age recent form etc but the fact still remains Tyson did what was required by layman's rules. He also whipped Olympian Tyrell Biggs and unbeaten Tony Tucker, Frank Bruno and Truth Williams who were each very strong would be champion material. This was TYsons era and he owned it.

Douglas was a sleeping giant. If you analyse the 87-1990 period Tyson, Tucker, Williams and Douglas were the only heavyweights actually beating curent rated fighters. Holmes, Tubbs, Thomas, Spinks, Bruno, Biggs were not. So for all their higher prestige this second group of big names are not quite the wins on paper the world thought they were. Under this maxim Douglas was surprisingly underrated. That upset loss is not as crazy as is usually accepted.

What hurts Tyson was how much Douglas let himself down after winning the title. Tyson deserved the hype. He was a great champion and did hat great champions do.

 

WELL BERBICK WAS A MODERATE CHAMP BUT HE DID GIVE A PRIME LARRY HOLMES 15 RDS OF TROUBLE.HE WAS NOT SKILLED BUT STRONG AND DURABLE(EXCEPT AGAINST TYSON!) SMITH WAS 6'4" POWERFUL AND THE REASON HE WAS "UNAMBITIOUS" WAS IN THE IST RD MIKE SEPARATED HIS RIBS! HE WAS SCARED TO DEATH.IT WENT THE DISTANCE CUZ ALL HE DID WAS HOLD OR RUN.NOT TYSON'S FAULT.THOMAS WAS A VERY GOOD CHAMP AND ONLY A LITTLE PAST HIS PRIME(HE WON THE HBO SERIES TO EARN HIS SHOT,SO HE MUST HAVE STILL BEEN GOOD). TUCKER INJURED? MAYBE IF NOTHING ELSE IT SHOWED MIKE CAN OUT JAB A MAN WHO WAS 6'5".BIGGS 6'5" OLYMPIC CHAMP THE"RIGHT STYLE"TO BEAT MIKE,CRUSHED.HOLMES STILL PLENTY LEFT(YRS LATER BEAT MERCER)ONLY LASTED FOR 4 RDS,RAN.WOW 2 WHOLE RDS OF A 12 RD FIGHT "COMPETITIVELY"? IS THAT YOUR BEST CRITICISM OF MIKE? AND I DO NOT THINK JAB AND RUN LIKE HELL IS FIGHTING! WILLIAMS? "BETTER DAYS"? SEZ WHO,WAS 6'4" 81IN REACH BEAT HOLMES(DID NOT GET DECISION) CRUSHED IN 1 RD! DOUGLAS? WAS AS BIG AND FOUGHT JUST LIKE BIGGS,HOLMES,THOMAS,TUCKER,WILLIAMS THE DIFFERENCE WAS MIKE,NOT THE OPPONENT. RUDDOCK, WAS BIG AND VERY STRONG,HARD PUNCHING,HE DID NOT "ALMOST WIN" PLEASE WATCH BOTH FIGHTS AGAIN.BY THEN, TYSON WAS DEFINITELY ON THE DECLINE,ZERO HEAD MOVEMENT(LIKE FRAZIER MINUS A LEFT HOOK)! AND NO COMBOS AND HEAD HUNTED.STILL HE SHOWED AN AMAZING CHIN RUDDOCK HIMSELF COULD NOT BELIEVE MIKE WOULD NOT FALL! HE DID CLEARLY BEAT HIM TWICE AND BROKE HIS JAW! HOLYFIELD? AGAIN,WAY PAST PRIME AND SAME FOR ALL AFTER.LOOK AT HIS FIGHT WITH SPINKS(212LB FIT). HE WAS A HARD PUNCHING LIGHT HEAVY,WHO AT HEAVY,GAVE FITS TO HOLMES TWICE.K.O.'D COONEY, A POWERFUL GIANT,MIKE CRUSHED HIM IN UNDER A MINUTE.WHEN THE "GREATEST" ALI FOUGHT CHAMP BOB FOSTER(180LB) IT TOOK HIM 8 ROUNDS! AND HE DIDN'T RUN LIKE SPINKS! LOOK AT SOME OF HIS(ALI'S) "WORLD BEATERS":Evangelista,Richard Dunn, Jean-Pierre Coopman,Joe Bugner,Chuck Wepner,Rudi Lubbers,Floyd Patterson,Jürgen Blin,Buster Mathis,
Karl Mildenberger

Oscar Bonavena,Zora Folley,Brian London,Henry Cooper,Archie Moore(ANCIENT),Alejandro Lavorante, TYSON WOULD HAVE DESTOYED THESE BOXERS IN HALF THE TIME.YET ALI IS CONSIDERED THE GREATEST! AND I DO FEEL HE COULD HAVE BEAT LISTON,FOREMAN AND FRAZIER.FOREMAN HIMSELF SAID OF EARLY TYSON "PUNCHES AS HARD AS JOE LOUIS AND MYSELF WITH THE HAND SPEED OF ALI AND HAS GREAT HEAD MOVEMENT" I THINK HIS VIEW IS MORE INFORMED,AND CORRECT THAN YOURS.NEVER HAS A HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMP COMBINE SUCH POWER,SPEED,COMBOS,ELUSIVENESS,ENDURANCE,CHIN(AT HIS PEAK).IF HE WAS A BIT MORE MENTALLY STRONG AND STAYED WITH ROONEY AND ATLAS, HE WOULD HAVE HAD A MUCH LONGER,SUCCESSFUL CAREER.DESPITE HIS HEIGHT AND STYLE HE DID NOT SUSTAIN PUNISHMENT.


,
,

 

he beat the **** out of him becuse he stopped moving his head and with no combos,the fight lasted longer than it should have,and yes he could punch like hell! holmes was older but a younger one would have fought the same,could not handle pressure. ali? his toughest fights were against short, strong, maulers,pressure fighters.bonavena 15 rds and way past prime,frazier beat him once,second fight either way third,frazier was blind in one eye.he said would have great trouble with marciano,not sure of outcome.if you think rocky was too light,foster was 180lb and not as strong or of chin.the others? let's just say i wish like hell i got to see them(in mike's prime).

 

regarding the view "the first guy(douglas) to show no fear and hits back beat him." did you even see his fights with ribalta,tillis,ferguson,berbick,williams,biggs i could go on and on,they were NOT AFRAID,some,till they got hit(see:bonecrusher)did BECOME afraid! even if his prime was shorter than an ali or holmes,who cares! it was 10 times more exciting! that is why i watch pro boxing.

 

Tyson had a great title reign. He was a spectacular performer when on his game. The contenders he faced were talented guys, yes some were lazy, some had drug issues etc. Don King was a terrible influence on a generation of heavyweights.

Anyway I've always felt from a pure boxing perspective that Mikes win over Pinklon Thomas was his best performance. Thomas was starting to outbox Tyson and put that jab on him but Mike turned it around and brutally stopped him.

Tyson was getting overated at one time but now it gets to the point where he is often under rated.

He cleaned up the division.

 

Yes, it is a pity Tyson did not have a young, prime name to fight against as Ali did with Frazier. There was promise of that man being Holyfield, but the stars did not align correctly when both were at their peak for them to fight.

The same can be said of many of the greats though. Most did not have a natural rival in their prime, and that is in part why Ali's legacy has been so strong.

I do agree in part that Tyson was built up to be an unbeatable monster; Spinks and Bruno where scared to death when they fought him.
On the other hand, it is quite interesting too that some opponents seemed to deliver a career-best performance against Tyson. It can be argued that Tillis did, that Tucker did, and that Douglas definitely did. Even Mitch Green was begging for a Tyson fight. I don't think it's coincidence.

The reason for that I believe, was that Tyson's scalp promised incredible riches and fame*. Also, some fighters just respond well when they haven't got anything to lose. So while I do agree that some were almost beaten before the first punch was thrown, others seemed to raise their game against him.

I suppose Tyson is just one of those fighters that strongly polarises opinion, and always will. I respect your opinion.

*Douglas was paid $24 million for fighting Holyfield, a sum of money that never in his lifetime he had earned in all his other fights combined.

 

This is an excellent point. If Tokyo Doulgas had fought Holyfield, we may have a very different historical perspective of both men. Instead, he reverted back to 'lazy Buster' and Holyfield got the belts.

 

People seem to forget just how young Tyson was when he was destroying folks and you just gave some great examples!..Berbick, Witherspoon, and Spinks are all great examples how Tysons opponents back then were far from bums...Id even throw Holmes in there even though He should have just stayed home that night!! But Holmes was no Bum even at 37 or 38!

 

Berbick and Spinks were nothing. Holmes himself even admitted he was not ready to fight Tyson and was there for the money.