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

So first you criticize Tyson for showing disregard to his chin at certain points in his career, but then you say it's OK that he showed disregard to his chin at other times (and even went so far as to call it "the perfect gameplan") because he ended up beating the guy decisively while doing it.

You can't have it both ways.

 

Tyson looked like **** against Spinks

 

Yes you can, it's Mike Tyson. Everything comes full circle with him.

All this lack of this or lack of skills/sharpness post 1988 is over-highlighted when the points you made prior to that happened irregularly all in the same way. Tyson wasn't just **** against Bruno all of a sudden. He was just as great against Carl Williams as he was Spinks. But nobody says that when that's one fight before Douglas.

I've been watching the Ruddock fights, and I don't think those are Tyson at his sharpest. Again, though, Ruddock was a serious powerful opponent that could test him somewhat. He could've jabbed more and used more combinations in those fights, though. I think he worked the body better in the second fight. I've noticed sometimes when Tyson gets tagged big he fights back and disregards head-movement at times.

Still, those Tyson 88 pinnacle bull**** really needs to stop. Nobody can point to a single thing in the Spinks fight that made him any more brilliant except for a result. It's non-descript generalizations. Post Douglas is another argument that' more apt imo.

 

People so frequently compare '85-'88 to the '89-'91 and then to the post- jail Tyson because there are obvious differences between these versions of Iron Mike. The '85-'88 Tyson ,who was at the peak of his powers and who also had Rooney in his corner and Jim Jacobs managing his money, was supremely talented, hungry and FOCUSED on fighting. Rooney and Jacobs kept him busy, kept him out of trouble and kept him focused on the path laid out for him. This "support" system was not in place after Jacobs died and when Rooney was fired so things like the Buster Douglas debacle became possible.
I know it's difficult to believe that an athlete's performance can change so dramatically in so little time but when it comes to a sociopathic personality like Tyson's...anything's possible. My point is that Tyson would not have lost to Buster Douglas if Rooney was in the corner and he probably would not have gone to jail if Jim Jacobs was still alive in the early 90's but this is all rather irrelevant.

 

It's not; in fact Foreman changed more evidently on film from 1973 to 1974 than Tyson did from 88 to 89 or whatever.

All these arguments, just don't show it's course on film to the extent Tyson fans would like to claim. The difference can be almost like one good performance to the next being an average one.

Buster Douglas of Tokyo would have beaten any Tyson. The difference wasn't a whitewash of nearly sweeping the fight because Tyson was so past it to Tyson killing him in 1987-1988. The only way would be a lucky early KO, which is possible but not the most likely scenario.

 

I'm not gonna argue it anymore because it's been done to death . But essentially if you can't see the difference in an 87'/88' tyson and post 88' I don't know what tell you except maybe you haven't seen enough Tyson fights or watched them to the extent that other people have.

He declined after 88'. It's not the first time that's happened. Fighters come back after year lay-offs and don't look the same. Fighters get old overnight. Fighters are great one day, and look **** the next. Fighters peak early, and fade quickly. It happens. When your training hard, focused and your with the right people, then you go in the opposite direction, you go downhill.

Tyson went from a scientific slugger/boxer to a one-dimensional head hunter. They were talking about it way back during those days, it's nothing new. The only reason some people make a big deal out of it with Tyson is because of how quickly it all happened. But they forget that by the time Tyson fought Douglas he had over 30 fights and 9 title defenses. Most fighters would accomplish that over a span of 5-10 years or more. Anyway, :dead

 

I completely disagree with you, but to each his own.

 

Here are the fights then:

Here against Williams, he moves his head and crouches as deeply as he ever has. He actually KOs WIlliams specifically by slipping a jab and countering with a perfectly timed left hook:
[yt]atNIasv2I5s[/yt]

Against Douglas, he opened the fight moving his head and slipping jabs, and using his own jab, about as quickly and frequently as he usually opened fights with:
[yt]zTQ7CsEK5DY[/yt]

In both fights, he actually moves his head More than he had against Spinks and Berbick before '88:
[yt]OJOZPzmIJ2w[/yt]
[yt]aD44ZPFHLfg[/yt]

And anything you can say about him showing disregard to his own chin against Bruno you can also say about him against Spinks and Berbick. And you can use the same argument you used to justify the Berbick performance by saying he was going for the kill against an opponent he had hurt early.

The claim that there was a sudden "difference" between him pre- and post-88 simply does not exist on film. As Pete said, the only "difference" was the result, at least in the case of the Douglas fight.

 

Bingo.

Exactly.

Agreed.

 

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much if he did show bad habits and less head movement in a 3 year span. If he's a true great, he compensates and goes to something else to continue to be effective.

It wasn't as if age and physical deterioration from sustained beatings from fights caused an irreversible decline. He was a young guy & was not absorbing punishment to win his fights. So just why can't he be asked to make adjustments?

 

Tyson became more inconsistent as a fighter starting with Bruno, just as Lennox Lewis started becoming more consistent after the loss to Mcall. Thats the reason its considered his pinnacle. 7 title defenses and a an undefeated record on the championship level. His first fight after Spinks resulted in Tyson getting wobbled and hit more than he had in any previous fights and then a couple fights later getting stopped by Douglas, a clear decline.

As far as Spinks, he was a superior fighter to Carl Williams, there is no comparison.

Thats like saying Tyson was as great against Clifford Etienne as he was against Spinks. The outcome might have been as spectacular but that doesnt mean Tyson was the same fighter and consistency should be tallied over a course of fights, not how he performed in one particular fight.

 

The move Tyson made against Spinks for the final KO is his finest moment as a fighter. Most people on here could never appreciate it or even see it. It was the sharpest form of timing a fighter could ever achieve.

 

I completely agree, that was expertly put. :good

 

Yet when someone posts a clip of "prime Tyson" (vs. Berbick, Thomas, Ribalta, Tucker, whoever) "coming straight in with only bombs" or displaying an instance or two (or several) or clumsy footwork, you (and others here) will be quick to make excuses.
"Oh it's because he knew he had his man worn down", or "he didn't need his head movement there", .... or "You're just nitpicking".

I'm in no denial whatsoever that generally Tyson was better up to '88. I accept that, he was just more intense and he did display his better stuff more consistently, plus Rooney was good at getting him in shape and keeping his head together and firing him up when he got sloppy in fights.

I think it's fair to point out that some of his post-'88 performances were pretty much the same as vintage Tyson, as my2sense has been doing well here.
And it would be nice if people here just took an honest look at prime Tyson and noted that he did display the flaws that became more pronounced in his post-prime days.
Just as commentators were noting in '91 that he had regressed, there were many in '87 and '88 noting the things he could improve on.