Tyson Haters Betray a stunning Lack of Boxing Judgement!!!!

Well, since every critic on him is hating, of course everyone who critizises him is a hater. Including myself.

 

i think tyson looked better in 89.......even though it went 2 rds longer...........

 

Why do you say he had better jab and head movement than Frazier? Frazier could keep up those things consistently through nearly an entire 15 rounds, whereas Tyson had a habit of getting lax with them after just a few rounds.

 

Tyson had a short peak, did nothing much after it, and never beat an ATG or a really outstanding fighter. Pretty much everybody rated above him was good for longer and/or beat someone better than Tyson's best win.

The case for Tyson comes down to H2H. He looked terrific at his best. But if he was never really tested during this period, how can you be confident that he'd really do well against the greats of all time?

 

it was the manner of which tyson done it in at his peak all the other greats were either floored or had narrow escapes tyson cleaned them out period .

 

Because his defense didnt rely on eating 2-3 punches on the way in?

 

I grew up watching Tyson in his absolute prime. I remember when he burst onto the scene. i have lots of fond memories.

Yes, it's true his peak was short '86 to '88 and after he ditched Rooney and Cayton his vintage performances were rare indeed.

But I never bought the hype about him anyway. He was brilliant, but not as amazing as people sometimes make him out to be. Actually, even at the time, behind the "invincible" hype, lots of seasoned commentators were highlighting his flaws and things he could improve upon. And at 21 there was good reason to believe he would iron out the flaws and become even greater. But he didn't.

He looked terrific if he got his man out of there in 1 or 2 rounds, but in longer fights it was shown that he wasn't this unhittable, perpetually moving, unpredictable man-eater that he's made out to - not consistently anyway. Even in his prime he looked bored and confused at times, and closed down and looked frustrated. Kevin Rooney was good enough to snap him out of it enough to make Tyson overall a very competent boxer. But let's not exaggerate his capabilities.

A prime Ali would have taken Tyson very seriously indeed, Tyson's speed and power and punching technique command respect.
Still, Ali would have schooled him.

 

Its funny you mention commentators of the time highlighting his flaws and then bring up a 'Prime Ali' who had far more detrators in his prime, with his low hands, openess to left hooks/jabs an the fact he rarely sat on his punches to get leverage.

Technically I can think of few who have a greater skill set than Tyson, not that he isn't without flaws ofcourse

 

Hater!

 

I absolutely agree.
Ali looked technically awful at times, and I hate how he plays around in so many of his prime fights, just dancing around and flapping his hands about for a few rounds, barely opening up.
But Ali was Ali, and I know enough to know that he wasn't putting 100% effort in at those times, he was having fun in there.
Against a real threat like Tyson he'd be forced to do his best and stop messing around.
He'd handle Tyson, no doubt.

I dont want to debate who had a "greater skill set", I was just contesting the familiar theme that when Tyson's flaws are mentioned, you'll get people saying "But he never did that in his prime !"

 

Agree. :thumbsup

1966 Ali from teh Williams fight would have made 1988 Tyson who fought Spinks look slow and sloppy.
Tyson would get frustrated like he did against Tillis, Smith, Holyfield, McBride and Ali would win a lopsided decision.

 

No one makes Tyson look "slow and sloppy" but Ali beats Tyson. He's maybe the only fighter I feel somewhat confident in picking over him.

 

Never seen Frazier fight?

 

Im not sure about noone making Tyson look slow and sloppy
He beat only two great fighters..a 38 year old Holmes and a great light heavy Spinks
He lost to Holyfield twice and Lewis .
If we argue just on his technical merits then i see similarites in the young Tyson to Dempsey and Frazier.Not better just similar
I dont think he has Dempsey's in fighting skills or stamina
You can make all the excuses about why his "prime" was so short but they are just that excuses
Care to explain why such a technically great fighters loses to Douglas and Williams ?
If that betrays my lack of boxing judgement then i'm guilty as charged

 

Williams ?

Care to explain to me how technically great fighters like Holyfield lost to Larry Donald, Holmes to Brian Nielson, Ali to Berbick?