MIKE TYSON...What COULD HAVE BEEN

I'd like to see what happens when these supposed "great fighters" get in the ring with an 80s Mike Tyson.

Tyson was THE MAN for a 4 year period, he lost his focus but that doesn't take away what he did from 86-89. There's only a handful of HWs that beat the number of contenders that Tyson beat, and none were more dominant.

 

Larry Holmes was more dominant and so was Joe Louis. Holmes held the title for over 7 years and wasn't beaten until two months shy of his 36th birthday. His quality of opposition is on the same level as Tyson's. He beat a younger and fresher Berbick and Smith. Tyson dispatched his opponents with more ease because he had more power, but Tyson was less dominant in his era than Holmes was in his. It's simple calculations, a fighter who reigns for 3 years and 3 months ain't as dominant as a fighter who reigns for over 7 years. You're talking about how easily he dominated his opponents, yes?

Ali arguably dominated his opponents from 1964 until 1967 as equally as well as Tyson, although he dominated in a different manner.

 

How can anyone not admire what Mike Tyson displayed from amateur to the Truth? It is fruitless to search among the most celebrated heavy bruisers for anyone with his combination of shocking power (reminiscent of Louis), speed (faster than Liston), defense (harder to hit than Frazier), chin (easily and frustratingly absorbing everything thru 37 fights) and stamina (no Foreman-fatiguing after 5 rounds).

He had no glaring weaknesses but clearly an unprecedented talent. It was not just his stats but the way he performed in the ring. He solved Holmes and Spinks easily, undisputedly, the way no other pro fighter ever did, in addition to a slew of all other comers, so conclusively that opponents were reduced to either looking for a place to lie ASAP or spoiling to see the final bell, but any fighter who actually tried to mix it up with Tyson was brutally kayoed.

It is no accident that Tyson put boxing back on the map; anyone with sight could see this man was a wrecking machine, an incarnation of the darkest fears of another fellow human being. Clearly this man would reign as long as he remained focused.

The Douglas fight proved it took a massive, skilled, sublimely-inspired fighter to overcome even a 40% version of Mike Tyson, and then only after the benefit of a long count and an impressive beating over 10 rounds. The fact it was the greatest upset in perhaps sports history shows how greatly Tyson was regarded. Yes, he was hyped, but, yes, he lived up to the hype.

Everything else is post-climactic. If Ali is given a due pass after being away 3-plus years, so must Tyson's performances post-prison be kept in perspective.

I wonder if anyone has actually tried to put himself in Tyson's shoes regarding the deaths of D'Amato and Jacobs. Every human and pro fighter needs someone, something, to fight for. I believe love is the fire that fuels the belly of the greatest gladiators. Judging by what Tyson himself said, he became champ for Cus; once champ, what other motivation was there? Just the crooked dealings of all those around him, all looking for their miserable piece. Again, I take to heart Tyson's insightful comment: "There is no mother to show your clippings to." I cannot ignore the correlation between his decline and lack of affectionate support.

Tyson with his heart in the right place would tear through very many an "elite" pugilist.

 

Impressive work, Prime. And convincing.

 

Well, to be faster than Liston isn´t that hard. Liston was pretty slow.
But yeah, Tyson was very impressive. But look who he fought. Those guys weren´t worldbeaters. That should count for something.

He had his weaknesses just like everyfighter. Douglas and Holyfield showed us some of them. Yeah he looked great knocking out Spinks and homes but Spinks didn´t come to fight he was looking to get out of there. And Holmes was getting in with him after a few years without fighting and no tune up. This tarnishes these wins quite a bit. If you want these wins to count fully than Tyson´s losses late in his career have to do so either - or do you want to have a double standard here?

I agree in his prime he was great for boxing. After '89 he was nearly eaqually bad for it with his out of and inside the ring behaviour.

Nope, he didn´t. He dissapointed becouse he lost himself. And no Tyson wasn´t 40% for Douglas. He was the same as in the year before. Sure he had fun over there but do you really think he didn´t in his other fights? He wasn´t as good as before but surely not at 40%. Douglas just exploited some of his flaws and had the night of his life.

Ali´s career after his absence was far far better than Tyson´s. ali beat atgs, Tyson lost to them. That´s not comparable.

Sorry but that´s part of beeing one of the real greats. Tyson fell short here.

Sure he would but he would lose to nearly as many.

People should be more realistic and objective about Tyson.

 

I do admire Tyson at his absolute best. He was very well packaged 'freak of nature' but he never quite lived up to expectations. Many had him marked down as have the potential to become the greatest heavyweight champion of all-time. Being devastating in your prime for just over three years is one thing, but evaporating quickly is another matter altogether. He could not sustain it. Overcoming problems outside the ring is what many other fighters have to cope with. Handling the spotlight is part and parcial of being considered 'great' at the time.

He had a glaring weakness, his mental toughness. And he never solved Holmes easily, far from it. Yes, he was the first man to KO Holmes, but he hardly looked devastating up until he got through to end the fight. The movement, clinching, and general experience of Holmes made life difficult for him. Fighters would have given Tyson more problems if they believed in themselves. But what happened, happened. Tyson's reputation made many opponents legs turn to jelly during the staredown prior to the sound of the opening bell. Not Tyson's fault of course. Mental games and fearsome reputations are all part of the fight game.

He would reign as long as he remained focused? Are you telling me that Tyson would have remained unbeaten for as long as he wanted, excluding physically going downhill. Lets not forget, Holyfield was just around the corner had he beaten Douglas. Then we are back to where we started. "he would have lost to Holyfield anyway as he never had Rooney in his corner" Tyson on a H2H basis matches up very against other great heavyweights, but certain styles out there don't suit him too well. Tucker did grab often when Tyson got close, yet the movement bothered him equally as much IMO. Tucker proved over 4 rounds that movement, a solid jab, and the ocassional right hand were nice weapons to use against a prime Tyson. He's lucky he wasn't sharing the ring with a peak Holmes or Ali that night or he would have been beaten.

So it's all about what Tyson never done? While Tyson's timing was off somewhat, Douglas had a lot to do with Tyson's timing being off. His thudding jab, fleet footed movement, and bursts of combinations were Tyson's main problems. He anticipated everything coming his way, and made Tyson ineffective. The greatest upset in sports history shows you why Tyson isn't among the elite, not just how highly he was regarded at the time.

Ali fought Quarry in his first fight post exile. A top ranked, durable, and highly regarded heavyweight challenger. Tyson on the otherhand choose McNeely. And the fights prior to sharing the ring with Holyield were not ideal preperation for what lay ahead and brung him back down to earth, defeat. A big difference. And the comparisions between them both in terms of adversity and achievements is like night and day. Reclaiming the title from the prime Foreman at the peak of his powers and the Bruno, again like night and day.

Agreed.

 

Haven't read the thread in it's entirety, but I did watch Tyson during his hayday and remember it well. Certainly there was the awe of invincibility and the feeling of destiny that it was only a matter of time before he'd be the greatest ever. Like a generation before him, (ie Ali - Frazier, Ali - Foreman) time stood still when he fought and everyone either watched, or knew he was fighting.

My take on where he could have gone is that I think he'd have beaten Douglas, that's probably a fairly easy prediction. Out of the fab three Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis, I'm pretty sure he could have beaten Bowe, less sure of the other two. Lewis I could see him perhaps winning the first fight and it turned into an Ali=Frazier trilogy, Lewis would probably win the other two. Although it could go 2-1 in favour of Tyson also, with the second fight being up for grabs. Now Holyfield is the real hard call. I'd say that if Tyson was focused, and since I believe he'd beat Bowe, I have to believe he'd beat Holyfield, but again, if there was a trilogy I think Holfield would win at least one fight, and possibly two. But If either Holyfield or Lewis is going to beat Tyson twice, I'd pick Lewis before Holyfield to do so. Both might, but I'd give Holyfield about a 40% chance and Lewis about a 50% chance.

Career-wise we'd probably be looking at top 3 H2H and about the same career-wise, although if he beat Bowe, Lewis and Holyfield, and won all the rematches and/or trilogies he would have probably had better comp than even Ali and if that did in fact unfold, arguments could be made of him being number 1 in both categories. albeit with a shorter career than many others, retiring at 32-33.

 

40 percent?? Thats a bit low. I put Tyson about 95 or so percent imo.

Lewis beat a 40 percent Tyson imo.

 

Holmes wasn't more dominant than Tyson.

He had a longer reign and more defences, but he failed to fight many top contenders of his day. In 1990, at the end of Tyson's reign, the only man left standing was Holyfield, and he was scheduled to fight Tyson after this quick tune-up called Douglas or something....


But if you look at Holmes' title reign, you will see that many fighters didn't get their title shot. Thomas, Page, Dokes and Coetzee at one point were pretty highly regarded but never saw their dream come true. In addition to that, Norton didn't receive a well-earned rematch, as did Weaver and Witherspoon, both who gave Holmes very close fights. Louis was dominant because he always gave rematches when there was a close fight. Tyson just beat them so bad that there was no need for a rematch. Holmes missed out on those and as such, loses his claim to be called truely dominant.

 

Sounds very reasonable.

 

Agreed. However, my interpretation of being 'dominant' wasn't cleaning out the opposition in devaststing fashion. It was soley based on Holmes reigning longer than Tyson, thus being more dominant in that regard. But I see your point with fighters like Witherspoon and Norton not getting the rematches they deserved.

 

Absolutely spot on. Tyson steamrolled the best of what was available and deserving in no time. He took on the best.

 

Since, character is widely acknowledged as one of the most integral traits in the formula for a boxer to achieve greatness / fufill his potential, do you guys think it was possible for Cus and Jacobs to have developed self-sustaining character within Tyson if they hadn't objectified him (by seeing him as having a short shelf-life and a fast track to boxing greatness), and never cut corners with his fragile and undeveloped psyche (reportedly paying hush up money to cover up his juvenile and criminal behavior)?

In other words, can the kind of character needed for someone like a vunerable and mentally weak Tyson be developed for them to be able achieve thier potential? How much can character really be nurtured or developed?

 

For a bruiser, Liston in his time was considered to have good handspeed, thus the mention; but the point is no heavy swarmer/slugger/puncher has had greater two-fisted handspeed than Mike.

Again, it was the way he beat all comers towards unifying and defending the title that captured the boxing and nonboxing worlds' imagination.

It counts for something that an amazingly successful light heavy champ who had the balls to climb to the heavies and take on and beat undefeated champion Holmes and huge puncher Cooney was suddenly reduced to primal fear by Tyson -who also had just quite frankly humbled the proud and boisterous Holmes. No man should do to Holmes what Tyson did inside 4, unless he's something special.

This thread is about what could have been for Tyson. My main thrust is the guy had a very unlucky childhood, like so many inner-city youths, and was destined to be just another anonymous casualty -yet I admire the way he overcame his demons enough to become champion of the world and add his name among the very great champions in history on skill displayed in the ring alone. As I said, in my view, by the time of his return from prison, he had lost the essence of what had made him great. I am not disputing his post-prison shortcomings, though he did regain the title and lost it in a fight that could have gone either way to a guy most likely bulked up by steroids.

I believe this is addressed in my previous post.

How many hyped contenders like Michael Grant never win a title? Tyson did so and then some. Just on the strength of what he did from '86 to '89, his name will be etched in boxing as long as civilization exists. Again, the expectations for Tyson once he arrived were result of his nonpareil ability displayed in the ring. This is standard when a new phenom arrives on the scene and threatens to eclipse cherished stars from the past. Athletically and ability-wise, Kobe is perhaps the equal of Jordan, but will he prove to have the mettle? With Tyson, it was also, "He looks great, but let's wait and see how he reacts against a challenge." My thesis is he was flawed to begin with, put himself together for an awesome run, achieved unprecedented success in record time, lost his support, his reason, his "Because of my mother! God bless her heart!", and unraveled in Tokyo. Everything else shows a rudderless man, fighting gamely, mind you, even as we post, to hold together and not fulfill his Liston fate.

Anyone's heavy resume pales next to Ali's. However, prison life in Tyson's case must be worse than having the borders of the whole country as a free man to train and keep in shape as the title-stripped undefeated heavyweight world champion, like Ali did in his exile.

Having a hole in the core is Tyson's greatest weakness head-to-head. But his ability has shown to me very few greats would be able to place a Berbick- or Holmes-version of Tyson in the dire straits necessary to expose that relative fragility.

I envision a young, hungry Tyson, bent on fulfilling D'Amato's "foregone conclusion" dream, primed for destruction in his corner, waiting for the opening bell, and I see a nightmare for any great you care to mention.