Mike Tyson against Pinklon Thomas... Tyson had already proven his incredible reflexes on offensive and defensive mode and his punching power was feared by any of the titlists. Coming off a display like against Berbick, Tyson had to live up to that so that he could get those unification fights against Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker... He eventually fought hard against both defensive Smith and Tucker and would come victorious but against Thomas ( trained by A. Dundee whom Mike respected much), Mike would solidify his status as an unstopable force with a patient attitude and putting together massive punches at the right time and that would have anybody's senses reeling... I guess that was his prime, not his best moment as a pro (which was definitely against Spinks in Trump Plaza, AC), but I feel Mike in 1986-87 was the better Tyson ever, came slightly down on his game in 87, bombed away Holmes and Spinks in 88, and was never the same since then until January 1990...
don't get hung up on terms such as "prime." the fact is that he was a one of a kind force from 85-88/89 and was damn good before and after.
I disagree. He had already begun to lose focus and head movement as early as the Holmes fight,instead of relying on movement and combos,he began to simply wade in looking for the big shot. Tough to tell. I will say that he was far from shot when he lost to Buster and,in fact,fought a fine fight,taking and giving some MONSTER shots. But his footwork,and headmovement had already gone downhill quite a bit at this point,IMHO,costing him the fight.
Tyson is a rare case. He never actually entered his prime. At one point he had the skills and the physical tools primed, but he wasn't fully matured or seasoned yet. So, he never did.
His prime fight with hindsight was the Biggs bout. Holmes and Tubbs caused him irritations for a small time, and Spinks fight lasted 90 seconds or so, so IMO cannot be really judged, he may just of caught Spinks cold (which is not an excuse, a pro like Spinks should of been prepared for a fast start). But against Biggs, he was motivated and technically as good as he had ever been or ever was. I think people sometimes forget that the power Tyson had was an amazing bonus, at his peak he would of been brilliant if he hit as hard as Chris Byrd.
What? You honestly don't think the Tyson from the Douglas fight would've done the same thing? That fight lasted what? 30 seconds Any version of Tyson can go out there and unleash that fury.
1. I think that the Tyson who fought Douglas would still have beaten Spinks, but not in 30 secs - perhaps by KO somewhere between rounds 2-5. 2. Not ANY version. At least his "fury" didn´t have much succes against quality opposition(post-Douglas), apart from Alex Stewart and Frank Bruno.
Tyson's prime, for me, was from the Berbick fight until the fight against Carl Williams. Tyson in his prime, was a brilliant fighting machine. I've said it many times before, Tyson at his best was the most physically & naturally talented fighter I've seen. People may say Ali deserves this accolade, but he did not possess the unique combination of speed & power. No HW has possessed those two attributes like Tyson did & perhaps no HW ever will! One question I have regarding Tyson & his peak: What's the earliest Tyson could have won the title? What I mean is, could Tyson have won the title, say after only 10, 15, 20 fights?
Leading up to the last week of Berbick/Tyson the fight was pick-em with the bookies, late money made Tyson a comfortable favourite, but there had been enough evidence for people to have doubts. I do not think a Tyson without the Tillis and Green fights under his belt could beat the absolute best of the division at the time.
Whenever it best suits his nuthuggers arguments, anytime he looked good was his prime, whenever his flaws, either personal, physical, or stylistic are shown, he was not in his prime, even if he was in his prime beforehand and afterword. It's rediculous.
Tyson's prime was 86-88'. It ended when he got rid of Rooney and you can see the evidence of this in the Bruno fight (89'). He got his determination back post-Douglas, but he still wasn't the same fighter; he was actually more of a straight-up head-hunter, rather than the scientific fighter he used to be.
Wrong. His prime was 86-88', this just can't be argued. During this time, he showed basically none of these flaws that you described. When Tyson lost, it was when he wasn't training properly, wasn't focused, or flat out didn't care about boxing anymore. It's just like Tyson himself said: his career ended in 1990. But his prime ended in 88' when he dropped Rooney and went with Don King. That's when it stopped being about boxing and started being about money alone.