I'm dying for someone to explain in detail about the erosion Mike Tysons skill-set (post prison) as I think he did not deteriorate one bit untill the Botha fight. Anyone who wants to step up please do so, in fact explain to me in detail how exactly and where exactly this was happening in his repotiore? For example lets break down his best moments at HW...say Thomas or Biggs and then you can explain to me how he would have fought had Holyfield been in there walking him backwards and punching him harder. You might say that the deterioration started clearly in the Ruddock fights whereas I say that he was simply lazy in those fights and when he came back he had a renewed hunger this is why he beat Bruno quicker and in a far more decisive fashion. For the Bruno, Seldon, Mathis, Holy fights he could not have fought better, my opinion is that he was shot around the time of the Botha fight not before, hell even 8 years before he would have still been missing punches at Mathis's bob and weave Cuss style. So nikrj , Azzer85, seamus (or anyone in fact) time for you to step up and stop hiding behind bull**** reasons as to why Tyson lost his invincibility. Lets have it.
I think Holy beats any Tyson at any time in his career. However like Ali with his exile I don't believe it's possible for any athlete to be out for so long and not lose some level of edge.
Saxon, You are clearly just a Tyson hater. In spite of ONE decent looking win post prison (Bruno II), Tyson looked AWFUL in his return. Talk about ring rust: His timing was nothing like it was in the past. He was whiffing shots against the hapless MCNeeley and Fat Buster Mathis Junior for Christ's sake. And Tyson's post prison conditioning was terrible. He was totally gassed after one round against Holyfield. To say he was the same fighter clearly demonstrates a lack of objectivity. Whether prime Tyson would ever have had the mental fortitude to beat Holyfield is a question that will never be answered. But, we certainly can't get that answer from the fights they did have because Tyson clearly was not the same fighter.
Im a HUGE Tyson fan but a bigger boxing fan and what you have written is rubbish. Tyson was in the Holy fight all the way through till near the end. McNeelly & Mathis posed no threat (hence him fighting like a bar room brawler) and his rust was well off come Bruno, Holy. Serious answers only please.
He was noticeably different, he no longer sat back an worked off that heavy jab like he did, he became hook crazy, loading up an just leading with hooks, thats why he started getting countered so bad
Tyson was good enough in 1995-1997, but he wasn't the same fighter he was in 1988. Tyson was still fast, had one-punch KO power, but he had some problems: - he hadn't fought anyone from 1991 to 1995, more than 4 years - his corner at that time wasn't good for Mike Physically Mike from 95-97 looked the best in his career, excellent shape. But his stamina deteriorated and he couldn't fight for 12 rounds anymore. His main problem against Holy was that he hadn't had tough fights since comeback. Mathis was OK fighter, but Tyson KO'd him early. Bruno was titleholder, but Mike destroyed him easily. Seldon, also a beltholder, was scared to death. So on paper Tyson fought 3 decent opponents before Holy, but in reality he was untested in these fights. Holyfield was already past his prime, too, like Mike. When two great past prime fighters collide, the fight can be great despite they aren't at their best. That version of Tyson still had a chance to beat Lennox Lewis, as Lewis struggled against Mercer at that time. Tyson would've beaten Moorer, Mercer, Golota and other top fighters in 1995-1996. Tyson deteriorated far worse through 1999-2002. In 2001 fight against Brian Nielsen he gassed after 1st round and looked very beatable. Tyson was also out of shape, carrying 15 more lbs, than in 1995-96. The same out of shape Tyson fought Lewis. No wonder that Lewis dominated 2002 version of Mike from 2nd round of their fight, as Tyson was already 1 round fighter at the time. In 2004 Danny Williams KO'd Mike in 4, while in 2005 slow and unskilled jorneyman Kevin McBride stopped Tyson in 6. So to answer your question, Tyson in 1995-97 was still very good, still could beat many top fighters, but he CLEARLY wasn't the same Tyson from late 80's. Now, 2000's version of Mike was far worse and had no chance against any of the top-fighters anymore, sad but true.
I you can't see the difference between a pre and post prison Tyson, I simply don't know where to begin.
Tyson still had his power and ferocity post prison,but his all round skill level had dropped a bit. He was no longer good enough to beat the best out there.
Tyson's style- the style that he was taught- was reflex based. His reflexes were certainly not the same after his prison term. Also, he began sparring with regular head gear after being cut while sparring with Greg Page. He couldn't work out of a crouch and see, so he began standing up straight. This made him a target. The people around him were all wrong in that they did not recognize that his reflexes had slipped and that he could not perform as well in the old style. Yet they kept trying to turn back the clock, and this continued throughout the rest of his career.
What I noticed about Tyson was not so much a deterioration of skill but a reduction of rounds that he could utilise all of his skills all of the time. IMO because he was unstable Tyson Always retained his skills throughout his career he just could not use them altogether the longer a fight went on. Later in his career Tyson was as good as ever in the first round but after 3 rounds he only had a punchers chance. He got away with it because Tysons punchers chance was a world class punchers chance and not to be sneezed at. You had to be good to last more than three rounds even when Tyson was at his most unstable. For example, the Mitch blood green fight was evidence of Tyson producing all of his skills throughout the ten round distance. Tempo, speed, combination punching, head movement. In most fights however Tysons moments of brilliance were often balanced with an equal amount of time where he was frustrated and lacking in ideas .this was as evident right from the beginning of his career as in as many learning fights as title fights. Trouble is the moments of brilliance over shadowed much of the other work. Where as another fighter would develop into a good veteran fighter by changing pace, alternate between leading and countering Tyson would always start a fight like a young man then either tire or lose concentration. Or both. Tyson always lost concentration anyway but he would lose the spring in his step a lot quicker as he got older. He did not adapt but then Tyson, for all his talent, was never normal or able to mature as a person.
hmm I disagree, I'm a Tyson fan but the simple truth is this, on his way to the title he NEVER fought anyone (besides Buster Douglas who btw fought the best fight I have ever saw a HW fight on that night) who was in his face punching him with accuracy and speed in his entire career. The 100% FACTS are this... All he fought was drug addicts (Green, Tubbs, Thomas,) and ex drug addicts (Biggs, Tucker) and the mentally ill (Berbick) and two scared guys in Smith, Bruno and Spinks and a very rusty Larry Holmes. Had he appeared say 5 years earlier "the lost generation" might not have looked so lost against him and had he fought a real live dog (say a Holyfield or later Bowe) instead of being in prison then history would have been very different. One things for sure he would have backed big George up (no one in history has) and what happens if he cant ko George and Tyson is on the back foot? So was his head movement worse on his comeback? hmm watch the Holy fight he was bobbing and weaving, he was jabbing, threw body shots, uppercuts etc.. You can argue his timing wasnt the same, I say how do you know? when have you saw him in a dog fight with a great counter puncher? Sorry folks (and Tyson apologists) but Mike Tyson was not shot until the Botha fight.
Tyson himself was a drunk and later a drug addict (during his post prison times). If we turn back the clock, Jack Johnson was a huge partier, as was Sullivan, as was Liston. Max Baer did his best work at night. These guys did all right for themselves. What matters regarding who Tyson fought was that they were the best the division offered. The were, by and large, modern sized heavies with well groomed skillsets and high level physical talent. They were the spawn of a boxing golden age wherein US heavyweight talent had been cultivated extensively. There was still a plethora of gyms in major cities, no color line and the "Cult of Football" had still not exploded. His head movement was slower, more predictable and petered out after a few rounds. His first real test of his comeback was Holyfield I. Watch by round three where Mike is walking straight into Holyfield winging single hooks or rights. He never did that pre-Douglas. Also, his footwork and balance are ****. He gets squared up too often and falls through missed shots. He went from being a ballerina to a mummy. This difference is astonishing. The reasons for Tyson's decline are varied... but primarily based on his physical limitations and the style he developed around them. It required precise timing, speed, balance and stamina. Once he started losing these elements, his physical limitations were laid bare. He had been reduced to a small man trying to tee off on single shot KO's... a style that will never take the crown.
hmm I don't agree, can you show me examples of what you are talking about? I will then show you an exact comparison.