Mike Tyson 120-106, 119-107 and 19-107 over James(Bonecrusher) Smith.

Thats CGI for you

 

The proper blueprint to beat Tyson might've been Thomas, he boxed well, jabbing beautifully and landed a few meaningful combinations until caught with that monster hook. He was definitely in contention on the cards up uintil then. He tried to take the fight to Tyson, something that not many did.

 

Anytime I've scored that fight I gave Tillis 2 rounds at the most. He was comfortably beaten.

 

The original post was meant in sarcasm.

And I also only give Tillis two rounds against Tyson. I think people forget Tyson was 19 years old against Tillis, and Tillis was his first "named" opponent. It was a big step up for him at that point in his career. Was Tyson not allowed to learn and grow as a fighter? He improved by leaps and bounds after fighting Tillis. People have such a double standard with Tyson...

 

He showed alot of heart to me landing a knockout uppercut on douglas in round 8, the long count and bell saved douglas from knockout. it would have been a come from behind knockout win for tyson.

Notice how both these fights happened AFTER kevin rooney was fired from his corner. you argue all the time wladimir klitschko became a better fighter when steward became his trainer. well tyson was at his best when rooney was his trainer and jimmy jacobs his manager.

 

Jaws,

I seriously doubt that anyone here can find a 19 year old HW past or present that would have beaten Tillis more decisively. Not one.

With Tyson its never enough;

-They'll credit Ali for getting under an opponents skin via psychological warfare, but discredit Tyson because he intimidated his opponents not because of his physical stature or what he said or did during the press conference but more so because of what he did to his previous opponents.

-They use examples of Tyson never getting of the floor to win. Even Though Jim Jeffries and Lennox Lewis never did. But never acknowledge that Tyson ability to absorb punishment kept him off the floor and as a result he only went down after accumulating significant punishment.

They will also claim that in fantasy match ups that If "______" makes it past round XX then Tyson loses. In Tyson's career he has never been in a situation where he was leading on the cards and he lost momentum and therefore lost the fight. So the notion that he's a frontrunner is really baseless. Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis (though he was past it) never conceded the early rounds. They asserted themselves from round 1 and never let go. Yet Tyson is unfairly labeled a fronter runner.

The list goes on but you get my drift.

 

:yep

 

For some reason this has to be explained to people over and over again, when in fact it sould be relatively simple.. There are a number of posters here who use Tillis stretching a 19 year old Tyson the distance as a way to draw a comparison for how an Ali or Holmes would do against him.

Selective reasoning if you ask me.

 

I totally agree! Well said! I have had the same exact thoughts.

Tyson is in a Catch-22 with so many boxing critics/media. If he wins, the loser was "intimidated", even though like you say, Ali is given all the credit in the world for being a genius with his psychological warfare. Personally, I think Tyson's "intimidation factor" is vastly overrated. Everyone knew about it, even in his prime---this was not some incredible revelation brought out years and years later. I do not see many of the men he fought intimidated like people say. I see his speed and punches doing the intimidating! I see boxers gameplans disintegrating before my eyes...in the ring.

Like you said, the list of hypocrisy goes on and on. How about this one: No one gives Tyson any credit for beating Holmes--it might as well be as if the fight never happened! But people give Lewis credit for beating Tyson all of the time. In my opinion, Tyson/Holmes was more relevant of a fight than Tyson/Lewis. But that's a whole 'nother thread in itself.

 

In a way Tyson is one of the biggest tarnishers of his own career in the history of boxing. Holyfield could lose 100 times, and it will never overshadow his past accomplishments, but Tyson turned off so many people in his post prison career, people forget that he even fought in the 80's and just how dominant and good he was.

 

If Holmes could have taken him into the late rounds he could have handed Tyson his first defeat. He did too much up on the toes boxing. He should have held more and used his weight more in the early rounds to tire out Mike and frustrate him. Wrong strategy.

 

No other past or present HW is said to be past his prime at 24, either. Most claim that Tyson's prime was between 20-22, so at 19 he couldn't be that far from it.

 

Would you say Tyson was at his best when he fought Tillis, before he unified the titles against the best fighters in the division and then defended six times??

 

Of course he was in his prime at the age of 24. Thats shouldnt be up for debate. But he was clearly unprepared evidenced by his active social life and dismal training camp where he's getting knocked down by sparring partners. 20-22 is in hindsight his best years but 19 is still young for any type of fighter.

 

No, but he was closer to his full potential at 19 than any other HW I know of. Those who think that his best years was between 20-22 (which you do) should agree with me.