The three causes of Tyson's decline?...

[/QUOTE]

Definitely or else he'd be doing more time for ****, cumming day and night and Mike Tyson don't mix I'm afraid.

 

This is not exceptional to HW's though, the same can be said for short fighters in every division.

 

Yes even as late as 2002-2003 a one round blowout of ettiene was pretty impressive...golota ko 2 likewise

 

Too much overanalysis. From 1985-88, he really wanted to be the best, from 1988 onwards, he just lost the drive and hunger to be the master of his craft, he was already a legend and an all time great HOF by 1988.

He lived off his later career based on everything he did from 1985-88 which is something no one else can ever do.

 

in reality, probably losing Cus. The man was a father too him, in rough n smooth, at a time when he was still a child in a mans body.

And the child is father of the man (irrelevant but it sounds good and it makes people think "wuur?umm").

 

I don't think Tyson declined any quicker than anyone else. Even great fighters are made to look better against lesser opposition. Tyson is a great example.

I certainly don't think Tysons first loss was due to any decline.

Tyson beat a lot of names, he was legitimately great in his own right anyway, much like Louis was before Schmeling, but his championship opposition (despite their names) flattered him initially because many were not legitimately live challengers in the first place.

We thought they were but they were not.

Tyson got too used to things falling into place. The more legitimate ones took him the distance. Tucker and Bonecrusher. Yet that prepared nobody (myself included) for Douglas. The next live legitimate contender after Tucker.

That loss amplified to me that Tyson needed to prove he was not just a one trick pony, And he might have been on the way to doing that because I believe he was good enough to do so but he went to prison and surrounded himself with creeps. A lot of talk about needing cus or Rooney to move his head is BS. Tyson was a brat by then who chose to do what he did. Rooney wouldn't have made any difference.

His comeback was actually quite amazing. I think he was legitimately the best heavyweight in the world again. Nobody was saying Tyson was past his best until he lost to Holyfeild. But that loss broke his heart. His appetite for competition went with that first loss to Holyfeild.

 

This wasn't adressed to me, but my answer is simply that Douglas, a much larger and talented and well schooled fighter, fought to his full potential, without any inhibitions. Tucker, Thomas and Bruno all had some success fighting behind a long jab, but they couldn't sustain it. Douglas could and did.

 

ear ear.

though I would maintain he didnt look sharp in his comeback. Just briefly motivated to "come back"

 

Yes, I believe Tyson was where Ali was (at least) when he beat Foreman. Tyson on his comeback, like Ali of the 1960s, was not quite as fast or sharp but still capable of producing results worthy of the best heavyweight of the moment. It proved Tyson was a great fighter to get as close to what he was and Ali had with his career.

He took out Bruno better and quicker than first time. And Tysons comeback fights were all impressive. Seldon may have quit but he quit because Tyson put the fear on him.

Nobody much talks about this second coming period before the Holyfeild fights. But it was worthy of the great fighter he still was.

 

He got too arrogant when he became Don King's fighter, he believed his hangers on when they said he was the best ever. Going into the Douglas fight it was inconceivable to him he could lose, you could see his contempt, he didn't give a rats ass about that challenge, he got caught with his pants down, totally unprepared mentally for the best fighter he would ever face (who very likely could have beaten Tyson at any point). His own ego was partly responsible, then maybe his instability to deal with the problems in his life. Loses wise I think he was able to mentally get over the Douglas fight because it was such a shock, but I dont think he could get over the Holyfield loss, it short circuited his brain and he basically stopped being a proper fighter, from that loss he became a circus.

I think Tyson would have struggled to stay on top by the mid 90s anyway even with best intentions. I believe its possible he could have beat Holyfeild in 91 and an early Lennox Lewis soon after. but I think the Riddick Bowe that fought Holy would give him serious problems, another big fighter that could be a superb boxer. Then Later an improved Lewis would probably beat him as he slowed down.

 

I think it was too much, too fast. Keep in mind, Tyson went from being a 19 year old living at home, catching the bus to being a 20 year old who was a multi millionaire who owned Rolls Royces and being one of the most famous people in the world. Listening to Tyson today as a 51 year old man,he sounds like he's gained a lot of wisdom over the years, wisdom that can only be gained by life experience. I'm sure if he could have the wisdom of a 51 year old Mike Tyson in the body of a 20 year old Mike Tyson, he would've done things a lot differently.

There's an old saying that youth is wasted on the young.

 

Patterson had a similar style and was able to fight top level until nearly 40 years old.

 

Actually I think Tyson was exposed as beatable when he meet Frank Bruno. Bruno visibly rocked Tyson and had him in some trouble, but lacked confidence.

I would add 4 ) When he started facing opponents who were not afraid of him.

 

I agree. Too often the emphasis is put on how Tyson had declined for several reasons, but rarely on how Buster got it all together for that one fight. He was a man whose heart wasn't into boxing and his training and performance reflected that - until he finally lived up to his potential and became heavyweight champion of the world. The Buster of that night would have been a formidable opponent for any fighter, of any era.