Mike Tysons resume was rubbish in a weak era.

That's stuff he could control. That's not an athlete that's past his physical prime.

His athleticism wasn't noticeably faded until the Botha fight in 1999. At that point you could have said, yeah, no matter how hard he trained or how focused he was he was simply past his physical prime.

 

You don't even know what the word 'prime' means.

For the 4th time, he had already declined as a fighter by 1989.

Despite only being 23-24, by 1990, he was ALREADY PAST HIS BEST.

Now why don't you read the excerpt which I posted.


Let's make things very simple for you:

If you dispute any of what Mike wrote in that excerpt from his autobiography, then please tell me which parts.

If you don't dispute any of what was written, then please explain to me how he could have been in his prime/at his best?


Here you go:

http://www.newsweek.com/inside-greatest-upset-sports-history-225113

 

It's not as simple as that.

Yes, at 23-24, he wasn't past his physical prime. But he was in decline, as he'd lost his focus and the desire to be the best possible fighter that he could be.

It was a psychological issue.

He no longer had the desire to lock himself away to study the greats of the past and to hone his skills in the gym.

He became too arrogant, and his training slipped, as his top priority became womanising and partying.

He was a guy from the streets who suddenly found himself as one of the most famous people in the world, surrounded by bad people, and with millions of dollars at his disposal.

Unless we were in his shoes, there's no way to say how any of us would have acted in that same position.

A person can't control his natural feelings towards anything, whether it's towards a person, a place or a situation. Otherwise, nobody would ever become depressed or suicidal etc.

I don't expect anyone to have sympathy for him, but if you followed his career or lived through his era, you would know that despite only being 23 years of age, he wasn't the fighter he'd been in his first 3 years as a pro.

He didn't beat bums but then suddenly lost to James, because James was a huge step up in competition. He lost to James because he'd declined as a fighter and he was underprepared.

There's no reason not to think that Mike would have beaten him if he'd have fought to his full capabilities.

You can criticise his behaviour, you can criticise his lack of longevity, but you cannot claim that he was at his best/in his prime for the fight against James, when he clearly wasn't.