As long as you stand up to Mike Tyson you can beat him

Tyson has the stylistic advantage over Ali, he's a superior version of Frazier.

 

This is exactly where it came from: after the Tillis, Green, Bonecrusher and Tucker fights where any boxing scholar tried to find a weakness, any weakness in Mike Tyson and that myth was all you had to do is stand up to the bully, bully the bully right back and he'll fold. My guess is this was a Teddy Atlas claim and the writers needed something to write. Which is silly.

Post prison you had a Tyson who tried using intimidation tactics as early as the McNeeley fight. When did Tyson ever stare someone down like that at the staredown? Even against guys like Ruddock, who Tyson HATED, you didn't see him with a menacing look. It was mostly a look of "let's go, let's get this started".

But even post prison Tyson fought with heart despite fouling a bit more often and never quit. And you posters on this site who are Teddy Atlas followers should be ashamed at making such statements.

 

Why would Tyson call Mercer out? Mike Tyson is the big name who could make money fighting anyone. Besides, Ray looked pathetic against a fat Jesse Ferguson in 1992, a guy Tyson beat into submission in 1986. When Tyson came back in '95, Mercer had lost to Holyfield. And as late as 2002 Tyson-Mercer almost came off. Saying Tyson ducked Mercer because he never fought him is something that needs to be let go. Tyson never fought Morrison, Witherspoon, Weaver, Foreman, Bowe, Moorer, Bruno a 3rd time, Ribalta a 2nd time, Ruddock a 3rd time, Holmes a 2nd time...yeah, Tyson swerved those guys too!

 

Please tell me there aren't really any Atlas followers here lol.

 

yeah easier said than done.. A big guy with a big punch and who can take a punch might help..

 

Before examining the whys and wherefores of what it might’ve taken to beat Mike, in so far as the opponent themselves.

Justified or not, I think the argument is simply ball parked that when Tyson literally faced manifest, effective resistance, his own confidence and resolve eroded in due proportion the longer a fight progressed.

Effective resistance would require, not individually, but both 100% mental commitment and the necessary physical tools and skill to follow through to float the resistance.

In one way or another, people might’ve felt that Mike’s previous opponents were lacking in either one or the other or both categories where as it is reasonably argued that Douglas brought both to the table simultaneously in highly competitive measure.

As to the 42-1 odds against Douglas. Ridiculous. The odds were far more about what Mike was unrealistically perceived to be (unconditionally invincible) than what Douglas wasn’t. The biggest bang on Buster was for being erratic.

I believe Douglas’ physical attributes and skills were duly acknowledged at the time - but his lack of dedication was duly observed and understood in equal proportion also.

Remember. it appeared that Douglas was leading in his title eliminator v Tucker before being stopped in rd 10. However, IIRC, it appeared Buster was beginning to gas a few rds prior - the old lack of fitness and perhaps lack of as and when will power coming into play.

Credit to Bob Sheridan for his call in Tokyo. Before first bell he gave an excellent and accurate rundown on Buster and his career to date - basically great ability but inconsistent dedication and commitment with varied results reflecting same.

He mused as to “which Douglas” might turn up. Sheridan was also very quick to latch onto and describe the upset unfolding.

Mike did fear losing - as he openly admitted, perhaps fearing same too acutely. So, emphatic search and destroy early rd KOs we’re the perfect antidote for said fear - fast KO victories being as distanced from the possibility of losing as one could hope to be.

Perhaps when said KOs weren’t necessarily forthcoming, an increasing sense of failure and frustration might’ve set in, and even when a loss still wasn’t likely, the longer a fight progressed, it still became that much more possible.

Whatever the deeper analysis be , Mike did go out on his shield - and all credit to him for that.

 

Do you guys think Peter Mcneely was afraid of Tyson? ....( serious question)

 

Evander Holyfield stood up to Mike Tyson in Nov 1996.

 

i think my post may have been somewhat misunderstood, probably due to my poor choice of wording. Im not saying he avoided Mercer, nor that 'calling out' should mean a great deal in the wider scheme of things from either side. Its just that , through memory of the time and being a huge tyson fan back then, i was a bit surprised that a fight between them was never mooted. Now im talking from around post Tokyo til about the time he went away, a what? 2yr or so period ? And yes, he had the 2 fights with ruddock so no one can accuse him of shying away but it was kinda present in the back of my mind, in that 2yr or so timeframe, of why his name was never being brought up and why? Everyone elses name seemed to be. I mean, he was an undefeated olympic gold medal winner and (i cant stress enough that i mean within that timeframe) had won the WBO belt so it woulda been an easy fight to sell even though no matter who tyson fought woulda sold like gold dust to be fair. Who knows? Maybe mercer was looked at as a high risk/low reward fight . Maybe not.

 

no, not one bit. To his credit he gave it his all, which is more than what some more 'established' fighters done

 

Mercer would definitely been a good opponent, but there were always guys ahead of him.

Certainly a better one than Seldon. But Seldon was an easy way to get a belt.

 

Tyson was in line for a title shot against Holyfield and just beat the all around #2 contender TWICE. Mercer's people would never put him in with Tyson at that stage! Especially without the title on Tyson. Come on man. Mercer barely got by Bert Cooper, won a come from behind pathetic showing against Damiani and beat Tommy Morrison, who, like Mercer, was an up and comer not ready for prime time.

Why would Tyson fight anyone else than Holyfield when a bout with Holyfield was what everyone on this entire planet wanted? The only reason Tyson faced Ruddock was because Don King was hoping the WBC would strip Holyfield for facing Foreman and not #1 contender Tyson.

Did common sense take a nose dive this year?

 

What? I said Tyson is one of the greatest heavyweights of all time and you translate that into I'm a Tyson hater? There are reading comprehension courses that would no doubt benefit you.

 

First: Mike Tyson comes straight at his opponents always did. This smallish short armed slugger is going to come right at the most powerful punching heavyweight champion of all time ? What in the world are you talking about? Tyson will let Foreman come to him? Name one fight where Tyson lays back looking to counter? That's not his style is it? The Holyfield fights are perfect examples of what happens to Mike when he can't come forward, he's all target a short heavyweight standing right in front of bigger men. Foreman's jab would control Tyson and when Mike got inside George would push him back like a bully shoving a kid on the playground. Then George's uppercuts and bombs would stop Tyson in his tracks. Be a miracle if Tyson saw round 4 and the difference between a Frazier fight and Tyson fight for George is Tyson won't get up 6 times like Joe did. Tyson will be looking for his mouthpiece in round 3.

P.S. Tyson had his chance to fight an old George and witnesses claim Mike said quote: " I ain't fightin that F--king animal" He'd have mentally melted in front of a type of fighter that Cus told him he should not fight. FACT.

 

No, he did not, at least not during the entire fight.

Tyson is no slugger. Never was, never will be. In his prime, he was a mix between a swarmer and a counter-puncher.

Foreman is not the most powerful punching HW, although he's probably top 5. Wilder and Wlad definitely hit harder than him. The likes of Lewis probably does too.

What will actually happen, unlike you.

Yes, he will. Tyson will come pressing and then step back if he has to, in order to regroup.
Watch the Reggie Gross fight. Tyson was pressing forward, then Gross threw a barrage of punches at him. Tyson stopped in his tracks, ducked the punches and then countered. He will do the same to Foreman.
And even if he were to trade blows, Tyson still comes out on top. He's way faster and he'd outland Foreman like 3 punches to 1. There's only one outcome in such a situation: a win for Tyson by KO.

The Holyfield fights are ****ing irrelevant since that wasn't a prime Tyson, and we are comparing prime vs prime here.
90s post prison Tyson was nothing more than a head hunter who had lost the amazing head shifts and defense that had made him so great in the first place. He barely got hit in his prime.

Tyson fought plenty of men with good jabs, none could control Tyson. He will dip right under it and counter, like he did against the rest.

And pigs fly.
Foreman ain't that strong compared to Tyson. Like I said, he was only 220 lbs for Ali, just a bit heavier than Tyson.
Foreman won't be able to push him anywhere.

Let me get this straight. So Frazier managed to get past round 3, yet Tyson (who's superior in every way to Frazier: bigger, stronger, faster, way more skilled, better chin etc) won't ?!??
Yeah, right bud, keep on dreaming. I think it's time for you to take your meds.

Tyson had a much better chin than Frazier.

90s Foreman was bigger and stronger than 70s Foreman.
And Tyson wasn't afraid, but there was nothing for him to gain by fighting Foreman. Had he won, everyone would say he just beat an old man. And if by a miracle Foreman won, Tyson's career would be badly damaged.