An unbiased evaluation of Tyson.

yeah Larry did have a look of concern on his face during the announcements. most of these guys must have felt they were in the ring with an animal that wanted to kill them rather than a boxer. I guess that's why Tyson was one of the most intimidating fighters of all time, during his prime anyway.

 

Tyson looked very off that night in Tokyo, was not training well & living a horrible lifestyle, had weight drained for the fight, still Douglas may have needed a long count to win. He fought really well that night & a great style to beat Mike. I still do not see it having been near enough if Tyson was fighting as well as he had in likely any fight since Tillis-where he learned a fair amount.

 

^
If anyone was primed to beat a peak Tyson it was Douglas that night, the biggest shame about it is we didn't see how a properly prepared Tyson would have done with it.

The first real challenge of his career and he wasn't on. Its his own fault though and its his own fault he left his legacy open for critics, cause many will say Tyson stood no chance whatever shape he came in at, and he has given them a lot of ammo for that assessment.

Personally I think a few more of those uppercuts could have got the job done and Douglas's confidence would have been dented more. Its the fact that Buster had such a good momentum that helped his confidence and performance, if Tyson had more in the tank it wouldn't have been so one sided and Douglas would have had a harder fight on his hands, did he have the stomach for that and taking more Tyson power punches?

 

Tyson looked sloppy and lethargic throughout the fight and his punches had very little steam on them

he himself admits in the James Toback film about ***, he said its best to abstain from it before a fight because you dont realise how much it takes out of you.

 

Lets not forget the numptys in Tysons corner who were using a water filled rubber had in place of an endswell.

 

They definitely looked they didn't know what they were doing.

 

I think this sums it up.

So I've been watching Tyson's rookie and sophomore years. Whenever he seems to 'struggle' with an opponent he would fix the problem in his very next fight. Tillis for instance. Tyson looked disinterested in the clinch. His next fight against Green his activity increases and splatters Green's greasy moe all over the ring. Then the Boneclutcher unification. Thomas was the next one up but Mike was better at cutting off the ring against Tucker.

We never got to see Mike fulfill his potential while improving with each fight up to Spinks. That is scary.

 

It is simple math: Douglas was a legitimate contender who fought an exclennt fight & strategy, but Tyson was slower that night, lacked aggression, & weaker due to his dissipations, his own fault. If he still nearly had Douglas struck out in perhaps a beyond 10 count, & Douglas was emboldened by Tyson's relative passivity, how could Douglas have beaten Tyson if he was right?

 

That's a good observation. He was definitely changing his game, which showed him to be a very dynamic swarmer. When it comes down to it, Tyson was built to fight, physically and mentally, he knew how to hurt people instinctively. He had the potential to be the best ever but as with most people that are great at something, they are flawed. Problem is if you are flawed in boxing you will be exposed in a brutal way and coming back is very difficult.

I still go along with the theory he beat himself, his indulgences in the material world of being champ and having whatever he wanted was his downfall. He hated the rigid life his old team offered and to this day he seems to resent the Cayton /Jacobs set up, but they kept him on the straight and narrow, kind of anyway. without that stability it was all over, soon as he got rid of that structure it was over, free to do what he wanted, which wasn't good for him, Jacobs and Cayton knew it and Tyson later acknowledged it by saying you had to be willing to give up having fun in order to be great. Don King didn't give a **** or understand Tyson needed rigid structure, so he just fed his indulgences to keep him sweet. I don't fully blame King, Mike was just weak in the way he did what he wanted.

sorry way off topic now.

 

So which office do you hold in the Tyson fanboy morons club?

President, Secretary, Treasurer, Gofer?

I'd bet that image of Tyson grovelling on his hands and knees reaching for his gumshield like a baby reaching for its dummy, gives you nightmares. LMAO.

 

^
this may sound a bit pathetic but I find that image quite poignant.

 

The excuse mongers, and fanboys can scream like stuck pigs all they like. The reality is Tyson trained no differently for Douglas than he did for either Bruno or Williams ( after he got rid of Rooney ) he just came up against a guy who wasn't afraid of him, and punched him back harder, faster, and a lot more often, thus exposing his feeble mental state. An " on top " fighter, and ONLY an on top fighter.

 

you are the opposite of a fan boy though and take it to the extreme, which makes you as bad as the suck pigs. I cant take people seriously when they say Tyson was fully prepared for that fight. But I can admit Douglas would have been a handful for a trained Tyson as well. As with most things its not all black and white. With Tyson people tend to go from one extreme to another, he is either an on top fighter that will fold when punched back, or he would beat all of the all time greats. I believe neither personally and take a more middle ground. I gone over this so many times that being called names for defending Tyson is like water of a ducks back, for one thing I'm not abstaining Tyson from blame, he was a weak minded champ.

 

this message is hidden because Foxy 01 is on your ignore list

i can bet this **** had nothing productive to say

 

why do I get the feeling that entering in a debate with this poster might not be a good idea