Interesting Tyson article from 1987

Interesting, but a tad bit biased it seems as well. Esp after reading the first paragraph with CLancy and the other 2. They claim hes not good enough yet and he needs to learn...but they dont mention what.

Secondly i thought Rooney made an interesting comment about Tyson only being at 60-70% of his capabilities. They were right that Tyson needed a better foe to really challenge him.

His will to win is what disappeared after prison. His ability to dig deep

 

A little much from Clancy there, but he underlines a few key distinctions between Frazier and Tyson. Mike did not bend like his heavy-handed, come-forward contemporaries, rather he was fairly upright, making for a less fluid fighter.

This was after the Tucker fight, so the latest flavour was that Tyson was not so potent against better competition, but there was some astute observations there from Holmes about his his inability to box, and the author about Mike having to punch over the top, often missing.

Tyson was better than these opinions, but some of the qualms resonate. Tyson was a ball of energy that burnt out, and sooner rather than later. The man was not made to last; of this there can be no doubt.

 

A little much from Clancy there, but he underlines a few key distinctions between Frazier and Tyson. Mike did not bend like his heavy-handed, come-forward contemporaries, rather he was fairly upright, making for a less fluid fighter.

This was after the Tucker fight, so the latest flavour was that Tyson was not so potent against better competition, but there was some astute observations there from Holmes about his his inability to box, and the author about Mike having to punch over the top, often missing.

Tyson was better than these opinions, but some of the qualms resonate. Tyson was a ball of energy that burnt out, and sooner rather than later. The man was not made to last; of this there can be no doubt.

 

Unforgiven you must scower the internet looking for articles that knock Tyson. Funny as hell to hear Dundees comments after two of his trained fighters got detroyed by Tyson. Well if it was Ali or Foreman it would be total destruction. Show me an article where rival trainers that love their spot in the limelight will praise a rival fighter and say hes awesome and unbeatable? They all do this, but the fact is Tyson was knocking out Dundees fighters and he was knocking out Giachetti's fighters. Arcel was pretty impartial and spot on saying Tyson was better than Marciano was at the same point in his career. Same goes with Rooney, he acknowledged some of the mistakes that Tyson was making, and those very same mistakes became Tyson's main fighting style once they parted ways.
I think its obvious Tyson wasnt a finished fighter, noone has ever disputed that but he was undefeated with a pretty dominant record for a young fighter so anyone thinking he could easily be beaten was full of ****. :tired

 

Here is Dundees comments prior to Berbick fighting Tyson.

Dundee briefly salutes Tyson as the hottest property in boxing but then enumerates the weaknesses he believes his new client can exploit. "This is a helluva commodity but he's only a kid and fighting the biggest fight of his life against the first heavyweight of substance he has met," Dundee says. "Berbick has the style to do a number on him—call it awkward with good balance. He hasn't been licked since September '83, so talk of him being an in-and-out, unpredictable performer won't wash now.
Tyson won't find Berbick running, like all those guys he's been knocking over. Against Tyson, running is fatal. You have to slide one side or the other, take his momentum away, or move back and hit him with a good counter. He has to get you in clinches or on the ropes to operate on you.
"Berbick has had terrific sparring. He's been working with cruiserweights Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Bernard Benton. He's licking his chops at the thought that for once he won't have to chase, that Tyson will be right there in his face. Trevor is a good body puncher and has 23 KOs to his credit. He's confident and so am I. I think he will stop Tyson in a late round."

 

I have a tremendous amount of respect for all the trainers in that article, but its kind of funny how they knock a guy who is so dominant especially considering most of the other elite fighters who came after Tyson were showing a lot more trouble getting to the top than Tyson did.

 

I like Angelo, I worked with him for several years, but I did often times find myself rolling my eyes at the things he said.

It just goes to show you that they are all full of ****. They dont all of a sudden become impartial off the record in a boxing magazine, they always talked ****, especially the ones who had a reason to. Fact is Tyson blew out alot of those guys fighters in that article (Futch, Dundee, Giachetti), so its kind of funny how diminished they became all of sudden after the fact.

 

I agree with what LeftHook said

I believe that Tyson from 89-05 is what his "natural" fighting style was. The Damato/Rooney style was a program that was installed into him and although he used it well, it was still foreign to him, thats why he always reverted to haymakers and slugging etc when he was frustrated or tired, that was just his natural instinct.

 

This is a good article. 20+ years ago regular newspapers put good stuff like this out. I can't see why you are upset Lefthook, as this article features multiple opinions in it.

Tyson's peak was 1987-1988, which coincides when the article was written. 1987-1988 was about as good as Tyson got. By 1989 he was showing flaws ( Bruno fight ) and by 1990 Douglas upset him.

Holmes quote to me was the best as he correctly foreshadowed that Tyson lack of height and reach will cause trouble vs bigger opponents who can outfight.