debunking the myth of Mike Tyson

Solid points.
People who make a big deal out of Tyson's "poor preparation" and "outside the ring troubles" don't want to hear it when it's pointed out that many of Tyson's best wins were over guys who had well-documented problems of their own.
It seems Tyson's the only one afforded the pass.

 

Wow! I never realised how deep he truly went.

 

It is an inconvenient truth that Tyson's demons diminished him prematurely. Either way he was not built for the long. Inevitably when he lost half a step it was going to come at an exorbitant price. His weaknesses and vulnerabilities sped up the process . This was foreseeable at the time. People doubted me when I said, pre Tokyo pre prison, I thought Holyfield would beat him. I am not claiming to be Nostradomus, I just thought Holyfield was the one that had the tools and the make up to prevail. I am not diminishing Tyson , even greats have vulnerablities.
The reality of his greatness is more complex than invincible terminator or overrated bully.

He cleaned out the division that had some quality fighters. He faced everyone during that supernova chapter that ended with Spinks . Like all supernovae he was going to burn out. Unfortunately it happened too quickly to see him face the next generation at that peak. Everyone missed out. The bottomline is that he was a special talent formed in part by some bizarre circumstances . It would have been awesome to see how he great to see how he would have done against his later peers , nevermind the greats from the past. We dont get that. Speculating on how he would of done while entertaining is just that . . .speculation . His legacy is what it is , simultaneously amazing and disappointing .

 

Amazing, however you have to exclude the years he was banished .

 

You should give Buster Douglas credit for doing what you always thought Holyfield could do.

Tyson wasn't "burned out" when he faced Douglas. He was just up against a fighter who went at him and attacked his vulnerabilities. As you say: "even greats have vulnerabilities".

 

It does make one chuckle when Tyson fanatics claim that any other version of Tyson would have destroyed Douglas with ease. I truly believe the Douglas that showed up in Tokyo would likely beat any version of Tyson, he performed that good.

 

That's easy to write on a forum but goes contrary to what those who were present at the time contend. With all his shortcomings (pun intended) Tyson couldn't afford to go into the ring ill prepared against a legit, elite heavy. Coke and broads did not a good training regimen make. And he got exposed, at least exposed as unprofessional and a guy whose game plan had to be iron clad in order to succeed.

And just to clarify, when I rank or assess a fighter, I include the factor of professionalism. That is why some dismiss the lesser showings of Jack Johnson as him being undertrained or hung-over. I give him no breaks on that, just as Tyson gets no breaks on his Douglas performance. And a guy like Tyson didn't have the advantages of a Johnson. Tyson's bad nights were destined to be far worse than a guy like Johnson who could stall and spoil and generally fight negative.

 

I (more or less) agree, and that's where Tyson's greatness is relatively lacking. There are plenty of great fighters who can dip to 90% or less, or whatever, have an 'off night' and still find a way to beat a guy like Douglas .... or at least not get thoroughly thrashed by him.
It's one of the central aspects of a great fighter, being able to beat good challengers on the bad occassions as well as the good.

Many of those "People who were present at the time" are leading the way in making excuses for Tyson, most of them have no achievements of their own. Of course they want to revel in the myth and reminisce with boy-ish tales of sex and drugs, whatever.
The deadbeats and hangers-on around Tyson only have that experience as a point of reference.
They have no idea how it compares to what Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali or Joe Frazier got up to, and nor does anyone really.

Plenty of champions and challengers were on "coke and broads" or something similar anyway. If it's a good excuse for Tyson losing to Douglas then it should be a good excuse for some of those guys Tyson was beating, some of whom had a whole litany of trouble going on behind the scenes. What's good for the goose ...

It's purely hypothetical that he could have succeeded against the best version of Buster Douglas anyway. Frankly, it's a huge a stretch, seeing as he was outboxed, out-fought and battered mercilessly for all but a few seconds of the fight.

 

Our of curiosity, how much would a loss to Tim Witherspoon in the 1980's take away from Tyson's legacy?

Or what about a fight with Bowe in the 1990's? Bowe's manager was high on the fight. Of course Mike wasn't the same post-prison.

 

Tyson losing to Witherspoon would affect his legacy alot. Dpending whether there is a rematch and the results.

The Bowe fight would have happened but Tyson lost twice to Holyfield and got banned and around the same time Bowe got the **** beaten out of him by Golota and retired.

The window was there but then their paths diverged.

 

The Bowe fight wouldn't have happened because Bowe was not in the picture at that time for him, Bowe was just getting noticed and Tyson was in prison the entire time Bowe was in his prime.

 

I don't think losing to Witherspoon would damage Tyson's legacy any more than losing to Douglas has (if it happened post Tyson-Spinks).
Probably less, because 'spoon was a 2-time title-holder himself. You'd still get the same excuses coming out that same mouths though.

 

It would shoot his legacy down entirely a loss to anyone really. A loss disproves the Tyson invincibility under Rooney and certainly a better fighter than Witherspoon would be needed if Tyson was that good, which he was.

 

The time you and I are in agreement it's more or less total.

I've no doubt that Tyson could have better prepared. But the myth have taken on proportions like he did nothing but sniff and **** for preparation for Douglas. And the problem with this is that not only was nothing of this magnitude reported in the lead-up, despite Tyson being one of the most media covered people in the world at the time; it doesn't at all correlate with how he looked in the ring either. He was at his usual match-weight and fit enough to land a very sharp counter after eight rounds of heavy punishment. And when looking at his overall movement, speed etc, I think he looks much closer to his best self than Frazier did against Foreman for example. Or Ali against Norton in their first fight.

And this with "post-mortem" reports about a fighters preparation is nothing unique to this fight either. Mailer, for example, claimed that Ali rounded off his gym sessions before FOTC with champagne and women. How much do you take take that at face value @Seamus?

 

I was referring to Tyson Bowe, post prison.

The fight could have happened but Tyson was tied up with Holyfield in 96-97 and Bowe having his battles with Golota around the same time frame and then they went in opposite directions.

...well actually they kinda went in the same direction.