Prime Mike Tyson (88) vs Prime Muhammad Ali (66)

ronnyrains, It's a conspiracy theory, someone spiked his water bottle with Chloral Hydrate. Someone put a gun to Mike Tyson's head, made him hang out with those naughty street walkers by tying him up. Someone stole his prime at age 23, they took his prime and held it for ransom. They forced Tyson to seek Desiree Washington. Man, We have to get the old Warren Commission to look into this conspiracy. Aw shucks, Lee Harvey Oswald's far away relative did it, Darn Darn Darn as Herman Munster would say. Ha Ha.

 

Let me try and address your post one final time, because i don't think your understanding the point i'm trying to make, and i don't want to argue with you.

1 Who's made excuses for Tyson going in prison ? whatever life choices Tyson made is down to him. My point being is that how can Tyson be avoiding the fighters you mentioned when he's in prison ? in regards to Morrison, Bowe, Moorer. Tyson was barely active during 1992 to 1999 due to his incarceration and being banned from boxing. I've never made any excuses for what Tyson did to be put in prison, nor have i made any excuses for Tyson for his actions in Holyfield fight. All i've done is give you a factual timeline of events, of why those fights were never really realistically on the cards.

You also mentioned Witherspoon, and i told you Witherspoon was due to fight Tyson had he beat Bonecrusher. Well Bonecrusher blew away Witherspoon in 1 round so Tyson fought Bonecrusher instead. None of this is excuses it's a factual timeline of events that actually transpired.

2 In regards to some other points you made earlier, you discredited Tyson for quitting on his stool saying he isn't a great because of it. And then replied to me saying "what has Chavez, Duran, got to do with this discussion"

Well it's simple really because Chavez, Duran, also quit in fights. But no one holds that against them in regards to not thinking they're great fighters because they quit in their respected fights.

Tyson is considered an ATG Heavyweight, for being youngest Heavyweight champion in history. Being one of the most dominant Heavyweight champions in history, whilst also being unified Heavyweight champion. Literally cleaning out the division in the 80s beating pretty much every noteworthy opponent from that particular era.

 

No one has made excuses for Tyson on this thread for the life choices he made, all i've done is give a factual timeline of events that actually transpired. In regards to a post that hinted at Tyson avoided certain fighters.

 

There are always excuses for Tyson because he lost to Douglas. You can call them factual if you choose to, losing his prime at 23 come off of it. Muhammad Ali at 23 was defending his title against Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson with ease. Why can't people just say that Tyson lost tp a better fighter that night? I never made excuses for Ali when Norton broke his jaw, I had an aquaintence who called me to rub it in, I simply told him that the better man won today. There was dead silence from him, he quickly hung up. Tyson was good but he was no Goliath.

 

I don't make excuses for his losses it's a championship fight, if Tyson wasn't prepared properly well that's down to him. My debate with @ronnyrains in regards to excuses, i think he believes i'm making excuses for Tyson when i'm actually not. As i said Richard whatever choices Tyson made is on him, and that goes for any person.

The issue i have is that in regards to Tyson is insinuation he avoided certain fighters, when Witherspoon fight could of happened but Witherspoon lost to Bonecrusher that's on Witherspoon. And Tyson due to his own life choices couldn't really fight other popular fighters in the 90s, due to being in prison and been banned from boxing.

I do realize Tyson does get put on a pedestal a bit too much by his fans, and yes some of the excuses are lame. But regarding this actual debate as i said all i done, is just give the other poster a factual timeline of events.

 

If there were legitimate factors that compromised a boxer’s performance there is nothing wrong with referencing same.

A practical application of such analyses would be if you were trying to calculate/predict the outcome of a Tyson vs Douglas rematch, had there been one.

IF you felt Mike was severely impaired by poor prep and lack of focus, of course you might reason that he would beat Douglas in a rematch, all things being “equal” - that’s a practical treatment, particularly if you’re willing to lay money down on same

I think the term “excuse” is open to several interpretations. Sometimes it seems some boxers (or their fans) take their reasoning for losing to the point of almost denying the loss and affording zero credit to their conqueror -

Also, it can depend on how many so called excuses are plied throughout a career - looking at the whole mosaic and interpreting that not one single poor performance or loss was was ever actually “owned” by the fighter or by a certain contingent of their fans.

Improperly denying and excusing poor performances and/or losses will likely lead to perverted analyses and predictions for future (or fantasy) outcomes.

 

Perry Mason could not have said it any better. Excuses are like everyone's behind, everyone has one. Heck, If someone stole my prime and held it captive at 23 I would be crying too, I might have to call the FBI. Ha Ha.

 

On the flip side, Imperfect circumstances (and there are no ATGs that didn’t experience any) can also allow for invaluable observations of certain intangibles that allowed select ATGs to see their way through at any rate.

Poor Perry Mason, that was during his time before he became confined to a wheel chair and changed his name to Ironside.

 

Here in lies the problem with excuses regarding Tyson at the age of 23: Physically and age wise he was in the prime of his life. However, fighting wise it was evident as early as the Bruno fight that Tyson was never the same fighter again. It was the end of his fighting prime because of the way he slacked off, cut corners, became disinterested, you know the story and I don't need to go into it any further.

One thing you stated that caught my eye is the "Tyson was good but he was no Goliath", which is a peculiar way of phrasing it. Could you expand on that?

 

Sangria, You are one of the Avid Mike Tyson fans that I do respect because win, lose, or draw, you are a true fan, not a bandwagon fan. But you do realize that the author of this thread has posted this thread just to watch all of us go at each other's throats just for his entertainment. I also mentioned in another post that Mike Tyson was great but so was Muhammad Ali in his peak, we never got to see Ali's prime as he was stripped of his title and license for not submitting to the military draft in April 1967. Ali did not fight for 43 months as Draft Evasion was a federal offense in 1967, Ali did not lose his title in the ring in 1967. What I meant by my statement was that Tyson like every fighter faces a possibility of a loss, even Ali. But that is what I meant, I do not like to see someone getting off on making us posters trying to tear each other throats because of this thread that has been posted for the millionth time just to cause dissention. I will say this to keep peace, again Tyson was great in his era, Ali was great in his era too. Truthfully, they will never fight each other.

 

It comes down to the mental. So, Ali, all over Tyson. Like an adult vs. a child, mentally.

Tyson's con-speak impresses some people, but he's really like a child.. a spoiled child.

 

Interesting earlier address as to whether Ali could get into Mike’s head.

I believe he did get into Liston’s head and into Foreman’s head to a greater degree.

One thing that perhaps should be remembered, we’re talking destroyers (Sonny, George and Mike) who were somewhat unrealistically convinced that they were invincible - a measure of distorted thinking ALREADY in place and something that a guy like Ali could very much play with to his advantage.

 

Hey Buddy, Your night going to reprise the role of Perry Mason again with your rhetoric are you? Ha Ha. It is just in other posts in regard to to this instigating thread, some folks who were not around when Muhammad Ali was in his peak years claim that Mike Tyson would destroy Ali because Henry Cooper decked him in his pre title days, so no one ever failed any kind of test? The Cooper and Sonny Banks were a learning process, so Ali suffered two knockdowns early in his career, he never suffered any as champion from 1964-1967. Ali cut up Henry Cooper to shreds on May 21 1966 in a title defense, no knockdown in the 1966 bout as in June 1963. My point being we have pro Tyson fans and we have pro Ali fans,. Don't any of you know that the author of this thread is playing most of your heads like a violin? Heck, I think I will stay in the Lounge, I am not going to get caught up in these less than intelligent threads, most of you are going blind or like to argue with each other, not me. I would rather get caught up in different conversations than repetitive ones that spell instigating.

 

In a mythical match though they would be matching their boxing skills and talent not comparing resumes.

 

I don't think Tyson was ever the same after Robin Givens. He could beat most guys just on talent but that extra 10% when he was at his peak wasn't there anymore. He became more or less just a Bomber.