Did Tyson have a weak pain threshold??

Tysons Achilles heel....between his ears. Always was a mental case who could not handle being in a losing fight. No plan B, bully mentality, could be defeated mentally way before being beaten physically.

 

That's not true, he showed plenty of adjustments during his prime against the likes of tillis, smith, green, tucker when they took him the distance. He had the discipline to outbox his opponents when the early knock out wasn't forth coming.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

 

What's wrong with getting cuts and blood, this is what the sport is about

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

 

Naturally being headbutt big time on your eye by an illegal headbutt will take its toll mentally

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

 

Wrong. In a losing fight he almost always loses. No great comeback win like Ali Frazier 3, Louis Conn, Marciano Walcott.

Tyson had all the physical abilities. All fighters have an Achilles heel. Tysons was in his head. He was a mental case. Could not respond when he was pressed, forced to think, losing.

 

I know this has been beat to death but I wonder how Tyson would've done if he'd kept Rooney. He showed no real drop off until he fired Rooney as trainer. That might've affected his boxing approach & kept him on track. Young Tyson was aggressive but was wiling to break a guy down & was in shape to go rounds. Later Tyson had a poor defense, got discouraged on occasion, & lacked stamina. All time great talent but probably needed a tight structure to get the most out of his skills. Short fighters need to hustle more than tall fighters & Tyson began to look for the quick Ko exclusively.

 

Nope, you are just beeing biased. I already proved to you that against Tillis, Tucker when there were questions asked of him, he responded. Against Ruddock he responded. Against Botha he responded. You asked a question when did he turn around a losing fight? In those fights he did.

Accept it like a man and quit talking out of your behind.

 

Again. None of those bouts were great comeback wins.

He was beating Ruddock all over the ring in both fights.

Comeback vs Tucker???

Losing fight vs Douglas. He lost.
Losing bout vs Holyfield in fight one he lost.
Losing bout vs Holyfield in fight two he fouled out.
Losing bout vs Lewis. He lost. He also wanted to quit in his corner.
These last four bout are career defining fights.

His own trainers state there was lots of dog in Tyson. Take him to deep water. He drowns.

 

Some terrible examples. Tillis was just a step up in class early career and a light puncher. Tucker? What did he land, one good punch? Welcome to boxing. Tyson beat him easily and he was always ahead of Ruddock, tho admittedly he had to bed at times. He was however by far the better fighter in those two fights. It's not like he was dropped or behind on points.

 

Tyson beat Tucker by 5-8 points on the scorecards.
Tyson beat Ruddock in both fights going away. He was way ahead pretty much from start to finish.

Lots of dog in Tyson. I saw it in him as an amateur and that same Tyson came to the surface in bouts where he was indeed getting beat up. Bully mentality.

 

You are conveniently changing the narrative from when did he come back to win to "great comeback wins"

Ruddock had his moments and had some good rounds in between, Tyson recovered and took control of the fight. That falls under the definition of fighting back.

Yes, Tucker was up ahead on the scorecard in the first 4-5 rounds of the fight which was expected as he had a fast start. Tyson adapted and took control of all the other remaining rounds, he realized he wasn't going to blast Tucker out of there and therefore he decided to just outbox and outpoint him. But this falls under the definition of coming back from behind and winning.

It could be argued that he did turn around the fight with that upper cut in the 8th round where Douglas benefited from the 14 second count.

They may have been career defining fights but everyone knows that Tyson was completely past his best especially for the Lewis bout which no one really takes very seriously anyways.

 

What you are conveniently ignoring is the fact that Tucker was ahead on the scorecard in the early rounds from 1-5 as he was the one who started aggressively, Tyson had to dig deep and take control of the fight later on. This falls under the definition of coming back.

Ofcourse but Ruddock fought back in the middle rounds and had his moments, Tyson could have easily folded during those moments but he bounced back to take control of the fight from a monstor puncher. Fits the description for fighting back.

I can see you conveniently ignoring the Botha fight as it doesn't suit your agenda.

 

He still challenged Tyson and Tyson had to dig in deep for that victory, he barely edged him by 1 round and a knock out. But this falls under the definition of fighting back when challenged.

Tucker was ahead on the scorecards up to round 5, he started very aggressively, it was Tyson who had to accept the fact he was not going to blast him out of there and instead decided to outbox and outpoint him.

Ruddock had his moments in the middle rounds which he was able to win and put Tyson on the backfoot with his power punches, to Tyson's credit he reclaimed control of the fight in the later rounds, but this fits the definition of bouncing back from difficult situations.

 

Oh stop it!!! Tucker won rounds 1 and 3 on the cards then went backward fast. So coming from a 2 rounds to 1 deficit is digging deep and coming back?

Puhlease.