debunking the myth of Mike Tyson

It still doesn't happen because Tyson needs a warm up fight ( McNeeley) and then bowe gets trounced by golota forcing another rematch, which again forces Bowe to rethink boxing and thus Tyson goes for Lewis and then holyfield. bowe is entirely a circus act now. The fight simply was not marketable at that point and everyone wanted a Holyfield vs Tyson fight more than anything.

 

I dont understand what you're trying to say?

I'm explaining why the fight didn't happen.

 

Exactly.
There were a few contemporary reports of Tyson being seen night-clubbing in the second half on 1989 but there were similar reports now and then about Tyson skipping training for the night spots, and getting beaten up in sparring or whatever back in 1986 and 1987.

EVERY well-known heavyweight champion, barring a tiny few exceptions, was out drinking, womanizing, partying, drugs, whatever ..... and doing it almost constantly and to mythical proportions if you want to believe the most lurid tales of them.

Buster Douglas's mother died and he was suffering from a flu type illness, according to everyone around. That's hardly ideal either.

 

Two points: It was not only the sycophants who talked about Tyson's downward spiral, heavy partying and lack of training. It was writers and broadcasters and trainers who were not his.

Plenty of champions who were on "coke and broads" included Tyson for much of his career.

In the end I will still rank Tyson's winning column over Dempsey's, over Jack Johnson's, over Jim Jeffries', over Marciano's and Liston's... I am happy to go that way with the discussion. That he accomplished the majority of these victories in just a few years should not be held against him.

 

Tysons win column is better than some of the guys he's compared with.

 

In a way losing to Douglas helped preserve his legacy. I mean losing to a relative nobody meant it had to be Tyson that lost the bout not that Douglas won the fight, something must have been wrong with Mike, it had to be a fluke surely.....

Losing to someone like a Witherspoon or a Holyfield would have been more of a case of Mike losing to a better fighter.

 

And yet none of them gave Buster Douglas a hope in hell of defeating Tyson.
In fact, prior to Douglas beating Tyson, very few of them gave Holyfield (who most rated highly) a serious chance of defeating the unbeaten Tyson.
That highlights exactly how inflated Tyson's rating had become.

That's what I said, but ... Who knows, who cares. Cokes and broads are part of life. Who knows what people get up to...
People (celebrities seeking 'public forgiveness' especially) often exaggerate their drug use. The idea that Tyson was some sort of substance addict from a young age has been disputed by people who were there as well.
Not that I care. It's irrelevant.

I agree with that last sentence.
But the fact that he lost badly to one of the contenders of the very era he supposedly "cleaned up" should be rightfully noted.
Buster Douglas was there, in the ratings, throughout the "Tyson era". When he got his turn he whipped Tyson. That's a fact.
As for Holyfield, he was a direct contemporary of Tyson's. They were both way past their bests when they met, and Holyfield whipped Tyson.
These are irrefutable facts.

 

No you are saying it could have happened but it wasn't a real possibility.

"The Bowe fight would have happened but Tyson lost twice to Holyfield"

The above is your quote ,you blamed Tyson for his losses, when it was Bowes Golota performances that made that fight impossible to make, check the dates on what you are saying and you will see. Bowe had fought Golota already before Tysons second fight in his comeback..by the time Tyson was ready again for a top guy ,Bowe had practically retired from boxing before 1997 after his second rematch with golota.

 

Good point. For me, the smart money have to be on Holy beating him in the next fight. Sure, there would still be plenty of the same kind of excuses, but probably not as many seeing how Holy was seen as the only series threat and the biggest match-up that could be made at HW at that point. On the other hand, when a Holy that was seen as washed up actually did beat a Tyson that was back to beating contenders with his old ease it has still been explained away so...