Is Tyson really susceptible to the traditional boxer?

Yeah an old war torn Holyfield was lucky to have met Tyson when he did.....

 

I don't know about "traditional boxer" but if you had to fight a prime Tyson, I'm pretty sure you'd want the option of having long arms !
Reach is ALWAYS as a net advantage, and even if fighting on the outside won't be enough to win the fight, it will be good at times.

 

The key to beat Tyson is to know what he is going to do before he does it. Can't do that, you can't beat him no matter how tall, fast or strong you are. It is a tall order but Tyson was a programmed fighter. There was a sequence to follow.

It isn't a certain style. It isn't a certain height or punch. It's knowing what Ttson is going to do before he can do it, and obviously being good enough to fight to fight to the finish with him.


Easier said than done!

Tyson was fast, he would make an opening (usually draw a jab) then pounce using angles to attack on the blind side. His foot work was excelent and his hands fast. But if you watch, Douglas feinted with the jab that Tyson wanted to draw from him. Tyson was buying these feints. As Tyson stepped in with his head moving side to side, Douglas had him trapped. Buster could stop Tyson with a double jab because he knew what way Tysons head was going to go. After he bobbed left he went right. It was always side to side. Tyson was showing Douglas this each time he was fiented out of position. He could reach him because Tyson had committed himself. Watch Lewis too. He used this.

But you can't say it was traditional skills that beat him. It was a guy who could read him.

 

You are quite right that it was a crucial element for Douglas to be able to read and time Tyson. But traditional skills also come into the equation of course. Those - the footwork, the jab, the right cross - are the tools he used to capitalize on reading Tyson. Feinting and drawing the opponent out of position are also traditional skills for me.

It's like Marquez-Pacquaio. It's not that Marquez was technically superior to Barrera - or even Cotto and Bradley by any wide margin. The reason why he did so much better than these guys is that he could read Pac like an open book. But he still needed his excellent technique to pull it off.

 

Absolutely! Reading the opponent is the key element. Technique is merely the foundation, an important bead rock with which to draw upon to utilize a plan.

Douglas worked off the feint beautifully. It wasn't the feint in itself though. it was the faint together with the positioning and reading how Tyson responded to the feint.

Crucially Douglas repositioned himself too. There is a lot going on when you watch how Douglas orchestrated it. Feint, reposition, counter, reposition.

Tyson couldn't stop the way he was doing things. He just kept on doing them and kept on getting caught. He did not give up. I will give him that.

It's just not the case of predicting one type of fighter being wrong for Tyson. Or a case of "style match up" because Tyson destroyed good tall guys with a jab that were like Douglas.

So many of the guys Tyson destroyed could feint, jab, punch in combination in the most traditional sense..many of them higher regarded than Douglas. Guys like Bruno, Williams, Biggs, as well as Mitch Green, saverese, Ribalta who were long 6'6" boxer's with traditional skills.

People don't understand this so they think Mike Tyson didn't train properly. But you ask Tyson. At the press conference announcing his retirement he said "his career had been ended since 1990" he knew he had been found out as far back as that.

 

Totally disagree. Holyfield's strategy was masterful vs Tyson and it didn't involve any sort of mind reading magic.

Holyfield let his hands go many times when Tyson did and kept him from moving forward and dominating. He crashed thru his favored mid range and tied him up with aplomb. Pot shots followed by clinching and many other things. Thhe punishment he dished out by having the balls to punch when Tyson did and the frustration he caused by negating Tyson's favored range told in the end. Past prime Tyson or not, it was magnificent and would always be Holyfield's best strategy.

If you worry about Tyson's so called programming you are in trouble. Most wil have to negate his attack with punches and frustration, not trying to time this and that. Buster let his hands go better than anyone previous and you could see him knocking Tyson's rhythm off. Tyson wasn't exactly known for his plan B if you were good enough (no easy feat) to handle part A.

A stationary or backing up Tyson is a vulnerable Tyson.

 

Yes, the way to get him stationary or backing up is easier said than done. If you second guess his move and catch him then he stops to think. This is when he becomes stationary. You can back him up when he is stationary.

Holyfeild punched with him, tied him up inside, stood with him..But he's still needing to know what way Tyson is going to go when he controlled the distance the way that he did.

 

Maybe so - but I don't like the 'my guy wasn't in shape' argument in boxing.
It's not like Tyson took either fight at 24 hours notice. He wasn't in shape for Douglas - but there's only one gentleman to blame for that, and it ain't Douglas. Against Holy I'd say he was in shape, but over the hill of his own unique physical development curve.

 

Tyson was susceptible to a tall, big heavyweight. I don't think there was a particular style that troubled Tyson, but a big , strong man.

 

when he trained properly like he did in 85/88 period .i never really thought he had a problem with tall heavyweights .he even out jabbed tucker biggs thomas etc . his biggest problem was upstairs .he was always going to self destruct as larry holmes said and did .

 

Yes and no.. I think he definitely WAS susceptible to the tactics of traditional boxers, but it also would have taken "exceptional" ones to expose his flaws when at his best. And in truth, there weren't very many of them at heavyweight. Now In a lighter division, and in a strong era of quality boxer types, ( such as the welterweight scene of the early 1980's. ) Tyson would have had problems

 

Tyson is susceptible to bigger men who can box and punch that were not afraid of him.

Also a bit open to good counter punchers, but most heavyweights are.

Not a good rounds7-12 fighter either as his stamina, punch output and such slowed down in these rounds.

I can't think of one all time great who lost his three greatest legacy fights by huge margins. ( Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis )

Bruno was a bigger man who can punch and box, and he shook Tyson up, however, he was afraid of him and didn't have the mental toughness needed.

Tucker was a bigger man who could box, and punch, but he had a hand injury after a very good start and I think was somewhat afraid of Tyson.

 

what happened with Biggs, Green, Williams, scaff, Smith, Bruno, Ruddock, Tucker, Saverese, Nielsen?

 

Tyson did not lose all his big legacy fights by huge margins. The Berbick fight (First title), the Tucker fight (First full unification of all titles in over a decade) and his fights against linear titlist Spinks and ATG Holmes cemented Tyson's legacy. And Tyson dominated all those men. At the time Tyson fought Douglas, it was hardly considered a legacy fight. In fact, to most observers (Press, Media, Boxing Trainers) it figured to be Tyson's easiest title defense yet. And it showed in Tyson's preparation, game plan and choice of corner men. As for Lewis, Tyson was finished as a fighter by that point, and had no business fighting anymore. But, he needed the big payday. Against Holyfield he gets less of a pass in my book. Tyson was past it, but, so was Evander. But Evander was the mentally stronger of the two and came well prepared.