Prime Mike Tyson vs Usyk

No, it’s actually bringing more equity to the discussion.

Tyson beat Berbick about 8 fights and 6 months after the Tillis fight.

You see the accent continues on Mike’s perceived excuses - even after I already pointed out that Tillis himself was in a career trough - I don’t know for sure, but my guess is Mike was a heavy favourite to KO Tillis quickly also.

Banks and Cooper? While Ali obviously developed some more after those fights they still provided some preview to a career’s worth of susceptibility to the left hook.

Ali was screwing with Cooper, trying to fight to prediction when he got caught - the return match in 66 didn’t see much change in the dynamic except Ali was more careful, pointedly avoiding Cooper’s left hook and a cut ultimately ended the fight as before.

Also, Ali’s prime game was somewhat more sophisticated than Tyson’s, so there was more to tune into perfect balance.

Foreman vs Peralta? Those fights remained extremely relevant - highlighting Foreman’s limited stamina, exacerbated in the face of a mobile, crafty boxer, lesser size notwithstanding.

Lots of fighters experience turbulence in the background - Tyson’s were simply more apologetically advertised.

So, it’s not fair to analyse the wunderkind Mike in his first year (specifically he was 15 months and 19 fights in as a pro prior to Tillis) but by year 5, at just 23 yo, he’s not prime?

Douglas was actually 6’3 1/2” - just to be more precise. Tyson wasn’t on his game? Again, that’s completely ignoring the quality of the opposition and action/reaction.

You see what’s happening here over and over - improperly dismissing the weaknesses in Tyson’s game while accenting on whatever flaw you perceive in the opposition.

Given the less than thorough examination of Mike as a fighter and his opposition - some might say it’s no surprise that pundits were wildly off the mark not just for the Douglas fight but the Holyfield fight also - and Evander wasn’t exactly at a career peak himself if we can suspend being 100 % egocentric on Mike’s behalf just for a moment.

 

This is a discussion that can go on for ever, let's just say that I agree that Tyson was over confident and his corner poorly prepared, and that this wasn't the very best version of him. Like you could say about Louis when he lost to Schmeling, pretty much. The difference is that Louis showed what he could do against Schmeling in a rematch, while we never will know how Tyson would have looked in a rematch against a Douglas that was there to replicate the first result (I don't think anyone thinks the Douglas that faced Holy has much of a chance).

But that Tyson couldn't bother to train but instead bothered to cut lots of weight without training... Absolute nonsense. And to me he looks nothing like Toney against Tiberi or Jones in Tarver 1. Tyson was never a very active fighter in the mid rounds, even when he wasn't continually hit with hard jabs and right crosses and facing a 230+ lbs guy that wouldn't let him rest on the inside. He was looking like a HW receiving a beating because he was a HW receiving a beating. Not because he inexplicably had drained lots of weight by starving himself instead of training.

I'll leave it at that.

 

Tillis was a crafty veteran who gave many upcoming prospects trouble including Page, Williams. Tyson was in his first year as a professional, and got took the distance by a crafty veteran and gained valuable learning experience going the distance for the 1st time. I don't see why that should be a negative thing against Tyson ? how many fighters have gained learning experience from going the distance the 1st time ? you don't think Tyson improved on it ? of course he did. It's nothing to do with excuses what part of my comment isn't a fact ? it seems like your judging Tyson harshly for going the distance for the 1st in his career, whilst only being a professional for 1 year. You say people like to make excuses for Tyson, but i've never known another boxer get so discredited for having a competitive fight in their 1st year as professional.

Ali improved greatly from 63 to 66 i think that's plainly obviously, again as i alluded to earlier Tyson like Ali. Had a tough fight on his way up should Ali get discredited for that also ? of course not. He was still developing as a fighter and improved greatly within the next few years and hit his peak in the mid to late 60s.

You said in a previous comment that Tyson won the title off of Berbick 6 months later, although i think 8 fights whilst going the distance twice was also helpful to his development. Ali also won the title off of Liston not long after his struggle against Cooper infact it was 8 months after, you don't think Muhammad Ali improved in those 8 months ? because i certainly see an improved Ali vs Liston 1 and 2.

Well Foreman actually stopped Peralta late in the 11th round of their rematch, and by all accounts had a much easier time vs Peralta. Which shows that Foreman learnt and improved as a fighter.

How many other fighters get over analysed for for going the distance in their 1st year a professional ?

Your focusing too much on the age it's not the age, it's the preparation and what was going on at that time. Tyson's preparation was poor and his lifestyle was turbulent at the time, and he under estimated a fighter who had a one off ATG performance. Tyson's skills after the Douglas fight were already starting to erode, in the Ruddock fights Tyson's head movement wasn't there, and he was looking for one punch instead of his usual combination punching.

When have i ignored the quality of Douglas ? have i not said Douglas put in an ATG performance vs Tyson ? but that doesn't change that Tyson was poorly prepared vs Douglas, as i already said @Loudon pointed out Tyson was gassed after 5 rounds, which is out of character for Tyson. And he looked lackluster and not his normal self throughout the whole fight.

Now obviously Douglas has attributes that Tyson struggled with, and even if Tyson was in his peak form he would still have trouble vs that version of Douglas. But i think a fully motivated well prepared Tyson, would of put up a much better contest than what we see in Tokyo.

Tyson had been in prison for 3 years, tell me another fighter who has ever been the same after that ? even Ali's exile from the sport for 3 years was it ? also never reached the same peak he had in the mid to late 60s.

Holyfield had looked shot after the 1st Moorer fight and the Bowe loss, with his "heart troubles" which was probably due to PED abuse. But he comeback refreshed and juiced to the gills. And had some of his best performances vs Tyson and the 2nd Moorer fight where he obliterated Moorer. Some people might say Holyfield's performances vs Tyson, Moorer 2, were some of Holyfield's best ever performances of his entire career at Heavyweight.

For me Holyfield's prime at Heavyweight is a little tricky for me, because in Holyfield's early fights at Heavyweight. He didn't look impressive vs Cooper, Stewart, Old Holmes, struggling immensely in those fights. The Holyfield in the Tyson fight was a more clever fighter, than the younger gung ho Holyfield who got himself in wars.

 

Touchy lil thread this one

It's Tyson for me, possibly by stoppage. At 44-10 i'm on the popular side of things thank god.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Not touchy at all JT, . If it’s been lost in translation, I too favoured Tyson but have yet to cast my vote - it may well ultimately be the decider when time comes - LOL.

 

Oh i wasn't alluding to you Pugs!!!!!! Just the overall thread in general mate.

It has peeps out to smash Mike Tyson.
It has peeps out to smash Usyk and anything modern.
It has peeps out to defend Tyson.
If it hasn't already it may soon contain peeps ready to be outraged at a perceived lack of respect for modern boxing achievements via Usyk etc etc.

In short it has plenty of action going on

A potential tinderbox

 

The thing is Usyk does not have the kind of power to keep Tyson at bay. Tyson would get to him and take him out at a certain point.

 

Is Usyk as proven at heavyweight as Tillis was?
It's no comparison really. Does Witherspoon , Chrisma
and Joshua twice Usyk opponents, equal most of
Tillis's opponents prior to Mike Tyson?
No Usyk opponents don't . Tillis though not close to being
a great fighter, was a proven contender, fighting
some of the best up in coming fighters of the era.
I'd pick most the fighters Tillis lost to to beat
any of Usyk's opponents at heavyweight.
Usyk opposition at heavy and cruiser were
simply not very good.

 

Haha. Could be a good time for me to bail. No disrespect to any alternative views - just don’t want to get too bogged down - I’ve waffled too much already.

 

Wise man, I’ll follow you out..hold the door for me will ya?

 

That's not what I was quite saying about Holyfield, but I agree I think we've misunderstood eachother somewhat during this conversation, that's why sometimes it's hard to fully explain yourself through text form. But yeah I agree let's just move on.

 

Joshua would sometimes go to the body, then switch to headhunting which he did for the majoritty of the bout iirc. He didn't really commit to a sustained body attack except in round 9, where he had tremendous success. I think he would've been much more successful had he been more consistent in this regard the other 9 rounds.

I've admittedly not watched the Mildenberger bout in a while but I don't seem to remember him being affected by Norton's body punches as much as him getting tired because of his age. He even said so in their 2nd bout "I'm more tired than usual because of my age", in the first half of the fight Norton could not touch him.

The only person I ever saw really get to Ali with his body work was Frazier, and that was post-exile.

 

Not easy to land consistently on Usyk, though. In rd 9 he definitely did, but Usyk seemed completely recovered the next round.

I their third fight, Norton doubled Ali up with a body shot. Ali was way past prime by then, of course. Mildenberger was the only one who visibly hurt prime Ali with a body shot.