His skills were 95% cos he had a 4 year 2month layoff. BUT - He has more strength, power, aggressiveness, was thicker-set/better built, threw more haymakers and was more durable post-prison.
You really don't know ****. More durable? When did he manage to go the distance? Throwing more haymakers is a good thing? Better built?
He did not manage to go teh distance cos he faced better opponents post-prison like Holyfield and Lewis. The "peak" Tyson of 1986-1991 would never have lasted as long as the heavier, better chinned and more durable 2002 Tyson did against Lewis (who had just came off his peak performance rematching Rahman.). Throwing more haymakers is a good thing if you are a aggressive, come-forward, KO-focussed fighter who looks to get rid of his foe in teh first 5 rounds, before his stamina problems kick in. Better built/thicker-set, yes - 1986 This content is protected 1995 This content is protected 1997 This content is protected 2005 This content is protected
The one thing you left out because you acknowledge wasn't there was his speed. Tyson's ability to execute precision combos and take advantage of openings were a result of speed which made him the fighter he was. Take that away and it hinders his ability. He was far more aggressive before prison, actively engaging with Ruddock a fighter who had top tier punching power. Being thicker actually hurt him, it slowed him down. The layoff hurt him. It was far too long to expect him to maintain effectiveness. The ring was clear in the McNeeley fight. It was very clear. I just read your last post. I think you'll find the General Forum more suitable.
Why the phuck didnt this fight happen goddamit! Arent they both from the same neighbourhood as well and Zab Judah? Brooklyn, brownsville 3 big wastes of talent all from the same area