Prime Tyson is Holmes era starting with Norton

. When Holmes fought Tyson in 88 he had not fought in 2 years or won a fight in 3. He didn't take Tyson serious(dumb) and even recorded on album during training camp. When Holmes fought Holyfield he had won 6 in a row including a shut out win over a prime Mercer. Holmes was able to trouble Holyfield and last the distance , Tyson was not.

 

tyson was in excelent shape against douglas. it was a war. there is no way anything but a world class athlete could edure the beating he took (and nearly pull off a great come from behind win with that long count) unless he was in his prime. mike was simply as good that night as he was most of his reign only douglas had an answer for every damn thing tyson did-that night.
The trouble with tyson was that like liston and louis his talent was such that he got too far too quick without paying his dues within the ranks. Louis had the resolve to get over it but the other two did not.
most top stars find themselves in a real fight, down on the cards against a live hungry fighter before the stakes are quite so high but tysons sheer talent prevented him from benefiting from this.
mike was a kid with no answers. instead of sucking it up and forcing his will on the guy hed stand around waiting for something to happen and get frustrated. he never regained that focus or faith in a gameplan after that, relying on power and intimidation he declined rather than adapt a more economical veterans style. it was "**** or bust" tactics from that point on in his career, with his power it worked most of time but there was nothing much to fall back on.

 

That fight was anything BUT a war.. You had one man sporting the best performance of his career while the other was hardly fighting back.. For me, a war is something to the effect of Holyfield vs Dokes, Holyfield vs Bowe, Foreman vs Lyle, Marciano vs Walcott..... Those were fights where BOTH men traded life and death.... Tyson vs Douglas was no where near a battle of those proportions. I also disagree that he was in excellent shape for that match... Physically, he might have been okay, but psychologically he was not there, and his corner people did a terrible job in between rounds. His comp leading up to the Douglas fight wasn't exactly stellar, but most of those men were no worse than Douglas himself... In fact, Tony Tucker was a better fighter who even beat him.. Some of the other points you make are valid though.

 

Tyson's prime was too short to fight the Holmes schedule without running into several losses later on...in my opinion.

 

shavers could , so tyson whom had about the same punching power and a better chin could also
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr-w536NuMw&feature=PlayList&p=482EB7B30BDB53CB&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=27[/ame]

 

we just disagree. IMO tyson came out of the blocks with speed and head movement against douglas. buster took it all away. tyson bought feints all night. buster feinted a jab and would skip to one side timing a counter combination to mikes response to the dummy. he made mike pay all night. it was like schmeling louis where a good gameplan overcomes talent. without being able to counter his way in mike was a sitting duck on the outside and he ran out of ideas. give him his due, he took his lumps that time and kept trying. it wasnt a landslide in the scoring. it wasnt all one way, at that time evryone was so used to a tyson blow out that they were shoked into thinking it was going all busters way. Tyson-douglass is a great fight.

 

I just love the way all you Tyson lovers ignore the larger part of his career and focus just on the early days and his bum of the month campaign.

Judge him on his whole career and what do you have? A few good wins and some savage defeats. No ATG record is it? - facts are facts you can't re-write history to suit your own view point.
:good:hi::happy

 

:good:good

 

Though not Tyson's fault, his destruction of Spinks was not impressive.
Spinks was so overhyped it was a joke. Probably all of the ATG fighters would have massacred Spinks that night and the Berbick of '86. Too bad Tyson
didn't get a real test in '88. No doubt Tyson would of done well with many of the opponents Holmes fought but I agree that he(Tyson) would not
have lasted as long at the top.

 

This is outrageous.

 

Spinks was fine at light heavyweight. Holmes was not the same in '85
and Cooney had mental problems. Tyson was ready to pounce.
Spinks couldn't have made Tyson blink. (and didn't)

 

although i do subscribe to the maxim that great fighters win great fights against great fighters there is no doubting tyson beat a lot of world class performers easily. establishing himself as the best of his time. be they belt holders or just worldclass fighters tyson was impresive enough beating them all.

that said, tyson never won a truly great fight, thats my one gripe with him. he was in great fights against holyfield and douglas but he didnt win those fights.

 

Do you mind if I ask you three questions?

1. How old are you?

2. Did you REALLY see this fight, or are you going by short clips and the testimony of others?

3. Assuming you DID see Tyson vs Douglas, did you see any of his earlier fights to have something to compare it with?

 

Hey chocklab, while i'm sorry to discover from your warped idea that Tyson's skills and technique never changed, that you watch Tyson's fights blindfolded, perhaps you could have a gander at this 1991 article by Ring magazine, which describes in detail how Tyson changed from a technical perspective post-Rooney.

http://www.miketysonboxingmemorabilia.com/1991.html
Enjoy.

 

Great article... I remember reading it 20 years ago..

Based on the replies and posts that I've seen around here over the past 3 years, I really don't think that there are very many posters on this site who

A. Saw that fight

B. Watched it with objectivity

C. Viewed many of Tyson's other matches to contrast it with.


I hear a lot of **** like " Tokyo Douglas beats any version of Tyson." So its like okay, you guys are willing to give one man the benefit of the doubt that he stepped outside of his usual self for one single night, but not awarding the same benefit of the doubt to the other? I mean really..... To some of these guys, Tyson went from being the greatest fighter of all time to a champion who barely deserves to be rated on an all time list, whereas Douglas went from being an average fringe contender to having every bit as much talent as Muhammad Ali, all in the course of one evening......