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

No

 

Much like Riddick Bowe, he is the classic example of the guy who doesn't really have the resume to be on anyone's p4p list but who should be at the top of anyone's h2h list.

 

I don't agree with everything in this post but "scientific" is a perfect description of Tyson's style at his best. It was controlled chaos and, while much of the footwork and head movement looked random, it was all a part of Cus' master plan for Tyson based , in part, on his experience with Patterson.

 

ok, so if you accept the premise that tyson was slightly past his prime in the buster douglas fight. How do you explain the complete display of domination (besides one uppercut from tyson) by buster?

lets say tyson's prime was 86-88 after the spinks fight. pre prison tyson(89-90 buster fight) was still physical peak and supremely talented. his jab was gone, he used little head movement but still was head and shoulders above the rest.

Not being at peak condition does not null and void a complete beat-down taken. It reminds me of ali post exile arguments (tyson and ali fans are sometimes similar because they see their fighters like gods, when they are defeated they reject it and find a way to completely discredit the indecent. Even though their reasons have validity, they are exaggerated to absurdity. exp "pre exile ali would destroy frazier easily") though the FOTC was not one sided, not at all but it serves as a good analogy in this instance.

I (im sure like many others) feel that boxer A can expose weakness in boxer B even when boxer B is not at their best. I think ali would always have trouble with frazier for example, perhaps he wins all their encounters but he still has trouble. Not to dwell on post exile ali but I think his diminished skills assessment is greatly exaggerated and was very close to prime, perhaps was prime.

I know that those that disagree with me are not idiots, but even the most knowledgeable tyson fans can sometimes border on this type of reasoning at times. they simply love their fighters and defend them.

I apologize to many of you who have heard these arguments countless times before but I could not resist myself.

 

Tyson was a great fighter but as many have said. He never really fought anyone in the same class as the ATG's to judge how he would fair against someone with that skill level during his prime... also the fact that his prime lasted all of 2 years and was against fighters nowhere near the skill level of any of the ATG's leaves many questions unanswered. No doubt the guy had amazing physical abilities but he was always mentally fragile and lost his gameplan if the fight went past 3 rounds even with Cus and Rooney in his corner

 

:good

I'm glad to see someone else has actually studied the fights.
I was starting to think I was the only one.

 

I would say he was less prepared, both Mentally and Physically, post-Spinks/post-Rooney, which caused his chances of winning to drastically decline. More so Mentally if you go by what Tyson's original team thought as well as Tyson.
It all starts from the top, The Mind.


He should have still been prime for quite a while but proper preparation and attitude is key.

If you go by Emanuel Steward, 26 or so is when fighters like Tyson should start to fade. Tyson just sped up the process with his lack of training/preparation and his outside of the ring life-style.
So when people talk about Tyson being past his prime, the age factor comes into question.
How can this guy not be in his prime anymore??


I don't think he was the same exact fighter after he fought Spinks and knowledgeable people in boxing have said the same.

Another part of this when people bring up Rooney is that Rooney knew the system. He knew what works. He knew how to train for that style, how to keep Tyson sharp, etc.
He may not have been great for others but for Tyson, he was arguably the best for him at that time. Maybe Futch would have been a good alternative.
Floyd Patterson, after Tyson lost to Doulgas, in an S.I. article I read, said he would train Tyson for Free. That would have been interesting.

Rooney supplied the game-plan as well as the guidance in the corner. Those that came after, it's hard to say that anyone was able to get Tyson to respond like he did. Although what could also be included is the help of Tyson being motivated to Win/Unify the titles which would allow Rooney to guide. So those that came after, might have had a tougher time because Tyson's motivation, want/need, wasn't the same.
It's hard to say. I'm on the outside of all of this.



For Ali:
It was interesting watching D'Amato talk about Ali on his comeback. He mentioned how Ali had slipped during his viewing of Ali sparring.

Gene Tunney also felt it hard for Ali to make a comeback and be the same.

I don't think Dempsey was the same either.

With those three, Tyson, Ali, Dempsey, unlike say Foreman and Vitali...those three relied on athletic attributes and not sheer size.

 

True, we wouldn't be able to see how good Tyson truly was until he fought someone like Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis. And that didn't happen as far as the Tyson people like to talk about.

It leaves questions to be left open and asked.

I wouldn't say any ATG. If you go down the list of ATG listed on some people's HW lists, I could question some of those fighters as well. Who did they beat?

Game-Plan:
Did he totally lose it in that through the rest of the fight he had no game-plan or are you saying he could get frustrated and then need Rooney to get into his ear and get him back on track???

 

All fighters open up a little more or get less defensive after big rallies or once the opponent is softened up. In all fairness to Thomas, he was a pretty good fighter, good chin, snappy jab, but what he landed was soft and minimal, and it was after taking a horrendous beating in the first round.
Tyson did appear to be somewhat winded after that first round.
Nonetheless, you can clearly hear Rooney in the corner yelling to Tyson not to look for one shot, to move his head, and use his jab, the correct instructions when a fighter is tired and looking for one big shot.

Berbick was a one sided blow out. Tyson might have stopped moving his head as much, 3/4 into the first round but it was pretty much at the beginning of the end of Berbick, and typical of a Tyson finish once his opponent was ready to be taken out.
As far as Frazier, there is no comparison. Just because Frazier had more visible or consistent head movement didnt make his defense better. Frazier was far more predictable in his movement.

 

Sure. All fighters have flaws too, and Tyson had some flaws in his prime that some of his most ardent fans are often trying to say never surfaced until later.
That's basically a summary of the point I'm making.

I think Tyson resorted to wading in and throwing single shots quite predicatable in most of his longer fights.

Thomas was washed-up and was hitting with no power, in fact his jab had lost its snap, and yes, Tyson knocked a lot out of him in round one.

Absolutely. Rooney was a good influence.

This is true, but how then are we to distinguish it from the one-sided blow-outs he scored in his later post-prime years ?

For example, against Bruno in 1996, he starts the fight with some very impressive head movement. So, we could saying he's fighting more like a "prime Tyson" than he did against Berbick !

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGfAY9zV4A8&feature=related[/ame]

I would have said Frazier's bobbing and weaving was less predictable. It seemed more random. But I guess you'd have to be in the ring with them to know for sure.

 

Tyson looked pretty shitty in both Bruno fights in my opinion, regardless of the spectacular endings. Again regardless of how you visibly view Tyson's head moving, its getting hit that counts, and Tyson was hit cleaner in both Bruno fights than he had been in most of his prime years and thats not because Bruno was superior to all his other opponents and it wasnt only because of head movement. Watch his footwork in that clip you posted. Hes coming straight in with only bombs.

 

The change in his head movement over the course of the Thomas fight is as clear as night and day.

When the fight opens, his head movement is fast and frequent:
[yt]LDDqMKv9XlM&feature=related[/yt]

By the 4th round, his head motions are clearly slower and less frequent, and at times he's either walking straight up or just standing semi-crouched square in front of Thomas, almost as though he's just waiting for him to hit him:
[yt]u97Q916ayh8&feature=related[/yt]

The same as there is in every fight - to make himself less open to being hit.

The same goes for many of his post-Douglas wins. What would you say was the reason for him to use head movement in those fights?

Impressive or not, it still doesn't change the fact that he became visibly slower and lazier with his head movement as the fight progressed.

 

^ My2Sense you are the king of semantics my friend. The key here is consistency. Yeah Tyson walked straight in at some points in the Thomas fights but it was never to the degree of clumsiness and disregard to his chin taht he did in the later years.

As lefthook pointed out, he had completely battered Thomas from pillar to post in the first round, so there's a chance he was a bit winded or he felt a bit too overconfident. Or maybe he just lost his focus for a few rounds. In any case, Thomas never hit Tyson with anything significant as Bruno did.

Your example of the Berbick fight is ridiculous. Tyson didn't move his head in that fight because he didn't have to. He fought the perfect gameplan. Your playing too much semantics. The basic point is that sometime after 88' Tyson was looking less sharp and not doing some of the things we were used to seeing him do ; namely: headmovement, elusiveness, combination punching, etc.