Get the **** out of here Tyson only threw a handful, of combos and that was in round 5, the only round he had any sucess in, against holyfield
Ruddock II was really where observers began to question whether Tyson was still the same guy. I remember several articles in KO, World Boxing, The Ring and B.I. where writers were noticing the lack of head movement, the lack of true combinatons etc. Eddie Futch: "Tyson is now a stand-up fghter. He's walking in. It looks like he's developing a pattern - throwing just one big shot." John Johnson: Mike Tyson is going the other way now. He's not the fighter he was. I hear from sparring partners that he doesn't listen to anybody. You can't fight like that. It's like he's a lost child." "The consensus among the quintet of trainers we polled on the subject is that Tyson has strayed dangerously from what made him the dominant heavyweight of his era." - Boxing Illustrated, December 1991 Angelo Dundee: "I don't think Tyson's the same fighter he was two or three years ago." Bert Sugar, reporting on Tyson v Ruddock II: "But Tyson, now a prisoner of his own image, was not the Tyson of olde, the Tyson B.C. (Before his Championship.) He now fights in spurts...and where has his bob and weave gone? When he bobs, he doesn't weave. And when he weaves, vice-versa. And, incredibly, he gets hit. Often." Further in the same article: "And although there was no question as to who the winner was, there are now questions about the winner." Mike Lupica, The New York Daily News: "At the end, he looked 35 instead of 25. The Tyson of a few years ago, the one who took apart Tyrell Biggs and Michael Spinks, that Tyson is gone." Pat Putnam, Sports Illustrated: The new Tyson hesitates, openings come and go untested...the current Tyson hits once, twice, grabs. Or permits himself to be grabbed. What's more, he has fallen victim to puncher's syndrome: The small deadly punches with which he once set up his victims have been all but discarded." Seriously Jon, must this one-sided beating continue or do you want more?
Wow....just....wow?! I have been labeled a Tyson hater (am not), and still find him overrated by some (not as many as used to) who call him top 5 @ HW. But to not see a deterioration among his skill, style and work ethic is moronic.....you might as well just come on here and say "I am an idiot"! If you watch boxing and can't see the deterioration happening prior to prison, I would have to question your analytical skills....to not even have the ability to see it post prison is comical. I would go as far as saying the last we saw of a peak Tyson was Spinks. He went from a methodical monster, with freakish power who would break down a fighter (many times a lesser one) to the body, and was himself very hard to hit clean. Unfortunately we may never know how good he could have been, due to lifestyle choices, and career mismanagement...if you don't see a difference in how Tyson trained and his style evolution after Rooney I feel sorry for you. @ the time of the Bruno fight Tyson seemed to still retain his physical peak and power (Physical being the key word....prime Tyson no longer existed at this point IMHO), but if you watch his fights he is now relegated to a power puncher seeking head shots or the kill if you will. Gone is the guy whose body shots to Ferguson still make me wince. He was so convinced of his greatness and power, that he bought into the myth (speculation on my part) and by virtue of that his training, preparation and style and ability all deteriorated. Look @ his hit percentage (as well as how often his opponents connect on him) from the Bruno fight compared with the previous few even more so in the Douglas fight (not taking anything away from Douglas in one of the masterpieces of boxing history)...Prime Tyson didn't exist prior to incarceration let alone afterwards. I also don't think Tyson ever faced a prime/peak Ruddock, and that Ruddock fell into the same trap as Tyson in regards to relying upon their power and not the whole skill set that brought them into greatness (or borderline in the case of Ruddock) in the first place...I still believe prime Ruddock/Tyson would have been a fight that would have been spectacular! I also predicted a Holy win over Tyson back in 86, and still feel Tyson Ducked/dodged him pre prison, let alone post and that Holy would always beat Tyson...and simply is greater. But c'mon don't come on here pretending to be unbiased and say "duh" I don't see a difference...it just makes you look silly!
You are missing the point. POST prison his combos and head movement was back, it is plain to see. He could not have fought a better fight against Holyfield at ANY point of his career. Tyson is more myth than legend.
What you fail to understand is that the head movement and combo's were all in spurts. The guy just couldn't (or didn't) keep it up. He fought a total of 8 rounds prior to Holy, against McNeely (I mean, c'mon) a petrified Seldon, a non-threat in Mathis (and I thought Tyson looked poor here, except for the KO) and a deeply intimidated Bruno, who at the best of times was stiff. He did look good against Bruno, but Frank had no interest in trying to win; all he did was hold and foul and try to survive. Frank put up a much better effort in their first fight. And then we have Holyfield. Why did Tyson continually throw right hands that mostly sailed harmlessly over Holyfield's head? Where was his hook? Where were the body shots? As Azzer correctly points out, the 5th was the only round in which Tyson launched a sustained body attack, and it proved to be his best round of the fight. After that? Zip. Tyson punched with speed and power, but he was predictable and was not able to sustain anything.
The best Tyson was when he fought Holyfield? That logic I am having difficulty understanding. His lead trainer was long gone as well as Rooney...these were the people who made Tyson....Tyson. IMO Holy that night beats any Tyson but no way was that Tyson that night the best version. All you see is one punch at a time, lunges and utter confusion from mike.
If this is your whole point, or the topic you wish to discuss then just make that the thread/topic for discussion. All of the other stuff, just makes you seem uninformed or blinded by an agenda that won't let you embrace and/or experience reality as well as unable to discuss it a rational and accurate manner. I agree that Holy beats Tyson @ any point from...hmmmm.....lets just say the Dokes fight when Holy was the real #1 contender. I believe he beats Tyson @ any point in time from then to when they really fought. Would it have gone down the same? Doubtful they were both younger, quicker and threw more volume of punches and were also both better at avoiding being hit...IMHO Holy still beats him....you can accomplish that in a legitmate debate....but the rest of the nonsense you brought to the OP, is just that....nonsense!
I just wanted to see wo knew what around here. Some very good (and some garbage) posters on this end of the forum. Thank guys my Tyson survey worked a treat.
I hear you but I wanted to see who would give me an uniased answer, who would craft an articulate responce, who would just start insults etc. Fun thread, thanks for the reponces.:good For the record Tysons skills went downhil from probably the first Bruno fight, maybe even earlier in fact. Holy beats him at any point as he could take the power and fight back.