Mike Tyson and adversity

Tyson was throwing bombs at douglas until the end and rounds 8 9 10 were brutal tyson was hurting douglas as well and just didnt have enough.

Against Holyfield Lewis and Danny Williams the last thing he does before getting stopped is throw a hail mary right hand to try to turn things around. The people calling tyson a bum who woukd always fold take the last part of his career which was really just a reflection of his out of control life, and try to draw conclusions on Tyson before prison. Doesnt work that way. People change sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse.

Plemty of examples of fighters who quit once but didnt quit later and found courage(bert cooper, andrew golota vs mollo, george foreman FOLDED IN ZAIRE, he beat the count but just walked to his corner without protest but showed alot of heart later) and of fighters who were known for their heart and bravery but eventually just couldnt or didnt want to take it anymore(erik morales against pacquiao in the rubber match, mike alvarado, julio cesar chavez, roberto duran, dwight qawi)

Tyson was frustrated at not being able to get to holyfield because Evander was smothering him and gettig inside all of his shots, the bite was out of rage and frustration. Just watch the tape and look at tysons eyes during the delay after the first bite, he lost control. It was inexcusable but i didnt see someone who was afraid of getting whipped i saw someone who was angry and didnt know what else to do. Holyfield whipped him much worse the first time, in the rematch he was mostly just lunging in as soon as tyson threw a punch and then mauling him against the ropes without much actual infighting. It made tyson uncomfortable and he lost it.

Tyson outright quit against mcbride but i dont think there is shame in that if he recognized he didnt want to fight anymore and retired immediately afterwards and never came back. No excuses, he just didnt want to fight anymore after 20 years as a pro which is 20 years more than most of his critics.

 

Tyson at no point was on the verge of losing. It was also a fight in which both were highly motivated. Tyson on the other hand was very close to ending both fights early.

Had that fight taken place in the original 1989 schedule I suspect Tyson wins by round 5. He really came out on fire after Douglas loss.

Ruddock himself would have leveled many guys had he brought that same fire in him even after Tyson but suffered a very bad career managed by his brother.

Tysons adversity was very good but boxing logic is when you win all the time competition is weak and they forget how you win.

 

I think there are signs of it ... in way more subtle forms ... in some of Tyson’s prime wins.

He was very willing to do what Teddy Atlas calls “make agreements” with opponents. If Bonecrusher was going to hug and hold all night, Tyson was willing to make it that kind of fight and not try to take it up a notch. Similar with Tony Tucker ... 1-2-hold by Tyson and Tucker. Or Bruno even somewhat.

Funny you should cite Ruddock. In that fight, and many others, Tyson was VERY wiling to break every rule in the book (he probably hadn’t thought of biting, or maybe because he was winning he wasn’t desparate enough) — low blows, trying to break his opponent’s arm, etc., when the going got rough.

But with Holyfield he was getting hit and LOSING and his frustration came out ... the other guy wasn’t willing to make the agreement.

So I think there’s evidence that Tyson had some of that in him. Against Lewis when he was older and hopelessly outgunned, he basically makes an honest go of it for one round and then he takes his beating like a man because he knows if he goes off the rails again he’s probably going to be banned for life, and he can kill any future boxing income goodbye.

I don’t think Tyson was a total dog, but I think he was a bully/frontrunner type who didn’t hold up well when someone stood up to him who had the wherewithal to fight him on equal or better terms.

 

Solid post. I do think some of the Bonecrusher/Tucker result was also due to Tyson having no plan B if plan A wasn't a goer and he also lost intensity pretty quickly if an opponent got thru the initial bursts. He was also extremely easy to tie up in there and didn't punish on the inside hence these guys having a relatively easy run to the final bell.

At the end of the day it's hard to stop all of them too i guess.

 

Yeah, I don’t even mean stop them though ... he would have freed himself to beat them up and dominate them if he really wanted, but sort of didn’t. Like “I’ll just coast since they’ll let me, both are big boys who can punch, let sleeping dogs lie.” Which may be smart, but it isn’t the thought process of the young killer people then and now thought of him as.

 

Fair enough Pat.

 

Well Mike showed that he can fight back when he got battered and badly hurt by Buster Douglas, and then dropped him hard at the end of 8th.

 

Tyson was all bully and all dog. Compare him to all the greats and realize that he NEVER was able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

No Lewis vs Conn
No Marciano vs Walcott
No Ali vs Frazier Thrilla in Manila
No Holmes vs Norton
No Holyfield vs Bowe
No Lennox vs Vitali
No AJ vs Wlad

Tyson either blew you out or he folded like clean laundry. Holyfield beats him 100 out of 100 times.

 

How many more rounds would botha have to dominate to pacify you? Oh wait then youd criticize him for how bad a B level fighter was making him look.

Pinklon thomas was in control and had won the 3 previous rounds on larry merchants card before getting KOd

Ruddock battered tyson in the round previous to getting stopped. The rematch spoke for itself with its brutality.

Was the tillis fight was close enough that some people think tillis was robbed!

Vitali got stopped on a cut, what if douglas broke his ankle from the 8th round?

AJ vs Wlad? Lpuis vs Conn? Marciano walcott?

Tyson dealt with spinks much better than louis and Marciano dealt with conn and Moore and dealt better with holmes than AJ and Marciano did with wlad and walcott.
Only on a forum does losing rounds enhance your legacy.

Ill give you ali frazier and holy bowe, tyson robbed himself of the opportunity of such fights by getting himself locked up but again he had plenty of other combative fights, so yes it damages his legacy that he didnt have those fights earlier but it doesnt prove anything about his fighting spirit when he was still a fighter and not a mentally ill, drug addicted fraud.

Roy Jones catches the same flak for being too dominant in his prime, and then gets his faults when he wasnt the same fighter anymore retroactively applied to his prime years and frankly its nonsense.

 

Same thing with the frontrunners---look great when everything goes their way. Dominant. Put him in competitive fights against guys with tools and that's where the lack of a plan B comes into play.

And those results sure do differ when it is frontrunner version compared to the other

 

You asked a lot of questions, so I’ll do my best answer them in order.

I don’t remember Botha dominating Tyson. I do remember Botha fighting scared and frustrating Tyson to the point that Tyson tried to wrench his arm at one point. I think Botha did his best not to get seriously hurt.

My argument against Tyson hinges on his inability to EVER snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Criticizing Tyson for struggling against Botha or any other level, A, B, C, or journeyman level fighter has no affect, one way or the other, on my critique.

Despite winning a few rounds, Pinklon Thomas was never a threat to Tyson.

Ruddock was a front runner. I also felt he was scared of Tyson and didn’t even believe he could win. He troubled Tyson a little bit, but he was not going to win. He was heavily muscled and fought very tense. As a result, he wore himself out and succumbed to a TKO.

Real boxing fans know Tillis was not robbed. Anyone who thought Tillis was robbed probably feels that way because he was the first person to take Tyson the distance.

Vitali did lose to Lewis on a cut. Still, without the cut that Lewis caused with a punch, Vitali probably would have stopped a tiring Lewis. What’s your point in bringing this up?

If Douglas had broken his ankle in the 8th round OR if the ref had not given Douglas 13 seconds to recover from the KD, this would be an instance of Tyson snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. IF either of these scenarios actually occurred, you and I would not be having this discussion.

AJ vs Wlad. Wlad nearly stopped AJ in the 5th round.

Louis vs Conn. Conn boxed Louis silly for most of the fight. However, greed got the better of him and he ended up losing by KO.

Marciano vs Walcott. Walcott was ahead on ALL 3 scorecards before Marciano introduced him to Susie Q in the 13th round.

You didn’t mention it, but remember Holmes fought through a torn bicep to pull out the decisive 15th round against Norton.

Are you disputing these examples of the winners snatching victory from the jaws of defeat?

Losing rounds does enhance a fighters’s legacy. Whether or not you think this is fair is irrelevant. This is why people give Floyd a hard time. This is why people always discredit prime Roy Jones’s dominance. The fighters I named in the examples above snatched victories from the jaws of defeat. Do you know what the common denominator is in each example? The loser in each fight is a member of the IBHOF. Wlad is not there yet, but he will be in his 1st year of eligibility.

I have never accused Tyson of avoiding top fighters. In fact, he has IBHOFamers Holmes, Spinks, Lewis, and Holyfield on his own HOF resume. Regardless of when he fought them, I give him credit for fighting them. However, the results of each bout make my point...he NEVER snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

Holyfield beats Tyson 100 out of 100 times, whether the fight happens in 1986-1990 or after his prison stint. In fact, I strongly believe Holyfield is the prototypical fighter that Cus D’Amato would’ve never put Tyson in the ring with.

I don’t credit Tyson’s willingness to absorb his beatings to a fighting spirit. Instead, I think Tyson’s psychological makeup and feelings of guilt, which he routinely expresses in recent interviews, made him believe that he deserved the beatings he took. Look at his body language while being counted out against Kevin McBride for an example.

I completely agree with your statement about Roy. He was impossible to negotiate with in his prime. Roy insisted on dictating all terms. It worked while he was on top. Unfortunately he has fought on way past his prime and there are people who are happy to pay him back by discrediting his dominance. Prime Roy at 168 gives any fighter who ever lived a serious puzzle to solve.

 

A pure hatred post

 

Excellent. Exactly captures the Tyson myth. KUDOS

I agree brother. A punk dog getting a thrill knocking out old women in elevator s is never gonna grow a heart and beat a Holyfield. Tyson was ppuzzy in his heart. It has been documented since he was a kid but his nthuggers refuse to believe it. Put it this way, in a war, Tyson is not one you want with you in the trenches. He is NOT tenacious. He will NOT overcome. He will cut and run and , leave you alone to face it every time. Then, from a safe place out of danger, he will start talking ****. Just like his homeboy fans.