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

Because fans feel a need to get "personal". Like they own a piece of a fighter because their a "fan". I can understand villifying a fighter for not doing anything for the sport but for Mikes impact on boxing just from a boxing perspective anything less than admiration as a fan in my eyes is a joke.

 

Azumah1... original quote is flawed but it was an article you had already posted on another site..

 

So now you're admitting he had a habit of getting lax with his defense and head movement, and focusing on one shot at a time? And not only that, you're actually justifying it as well? That completely undermines your whole point.

Originally you denied that his head movement got lax against Tucker, remember?

Now you're saying it did get lax, but that it's OK that it did. Which one is it??

And how was there a "lack of threat" against Tucker? Tyson was clearly wobbled in the first round by Tucker's left hand, which was not the hand that was later injured. Since you don't think Tucker had done enough to make himself a threat, then on what basis do you say Bruno did?

And what decides when "the need is not pressing"? Bruno was considered no more dangerous than Berbick or Spinks entering the Tyson fight. And what do you think made Truth Williams so dangerous that Tyson apparently felt the need to use head movement?

 

I'm not saying Spinks took a dive but he wasn't mentally there. Mike Tyson even admits he wasn't there to win which is why he doesn't think it was his pinnacle.

Almost everyone looks at Spinks walk in the ring and before the introductions to see a stone-cold fear in the eyes of Spinks. You might be the only poster on this forum that doesn't think Spinks was terrified. He didn't just quit (Although that first knockdown was just him getting overwhelmed), he is still a fighter and didn't just go down. You've never faced your fear before while confronting something?

Even Tyson after the fight talked about how he knew he saw fear and immediately knew it would be a 1st round KO. He said he knew he would just try getting to land a good punch to hurt him or get a cut or something.

Seldon was scared too. Spinks wasn't the only one.

 

Ah, yes, I remember him getting dropped in sparring.

His personal life was becoming a wreck since he married Givens. Still, the Spinks fight was his pinnacle. The Bruno fight wasn't his best performance. It's a nice writeup and you found something, but nothing specific mentioned really.

 

maybe this is true but frazier had much and much more heart and determination then mike for example.
and though i am not taking anything away from mike fact is that a prime tyson (the 80ties version) never faced a truely great opponent. holmes being washed up and spinks was like a rabbit caught by headlights of a car (almost totally frozen).
mike has a great resume but his fights to the other greats of his era he lost. that is a fact.
and for example ali beat other ATG in there prime so did frazier (ali) and foreman (frazier).
i personally still have a hard time rating mike.

 

Haters and huggers have one big thing in common! Both have a lack of boxing judgement in an unbiased impartial manner! I doubt anyone that posts here does not have boxers who are among their favorites or most disliked....among their underrated or over rated.....or boxers with styles that are asthetically pleasing or just not enjoyable to watch...although through the years I am finding fewer and fewer who I don't respect or enjoy!

Your post could easily have read Tyson huggers/fans have a stunning lack of....and been just as accurate! Sensing bias is not a particualrly desired or benificial talent....almost all of us can weed it out if given enough posts to review! Tyson huggers claim him as top 5..haters label him around 15+ reality is probably 8-14...#11-12 on my recent lists.

 

Tyson married Givens a few months before the Spinks fight. He fired the entire Catskill crew after the Spinks fight and Don King put a whole new team in place, managers, trainers, handlers etc. His personal life was already deteriorating, and once the structure went out of his professional life, he went down the tubes quickly. This kind of story is more typical in boxing than a fighter losing all his millions.
A fighter becomes successful, he gets lazy or slacks off, his personal life goes out of control and they become more inconsistent professionals. From Riddick Bowe, Buster Douglas, Lennox Lewis, even the most disciplined fighters make the same mistake. Some are smart enough to correct it, others are not. Tyson just didnt care enough about his boxing legacy anymore.
The reason he didnt go back to Rooney is because he didnt want to commit to that type of discipline in his life. He didnt want to go back to working as hard as he used to, and being controlled by a trainer, and if he was 75% of what he used to be he was fine with that, because it didnt affect his paycheck.
Believe me, Tyson is, and was, well aware of how his fans view the whole Tyson Rooney marriage.
He was also aware he was headed for a butt whooping, the people around him were telling him, he just didnt care, and it could have been any fighter with half decent skills and some courage, Douglas just got the call.

 

^ In fairness lefthook , I think Douglas was a bad style matchup for Mike. I watch the Tubbs fight, who had a very similar style and build to Douglas and I could see Buster even giving that version of Mike a lot of problems. I think Tyson a few years early certainly would have made that fight more competitive, but to what degree is uncertain. Douglas had the wrong style for him, and his speed and footwork was a problem as well. Calling his skills 'decent' is not giving the guy enough credit and it degrades Tyson even further. Douglas was far above decent, at least for that night.

 

Tubbs and Douglas are pretty different, imo.

For example, the Tyson-Tubbs bout is a showcase of Tyson's ability on the inside. Douglas refused to fight Tyson on the inside, shoving him off, tying him up, etc.

Holmes and Biggs are closer to him. But yeah I agree with your general point, Douglas was a super fighter. And it wasn't just that night, watch him in the fights just prior to Tyson like Berbick. He was magnificent.

 

Tubbs and Douglas style wise are pretty similar, and they were around the same height. I think Tyson actually does better against taller fighters. It's easier for him to slip under their punches, and tall fighters tend to move move backwards which plays into Tyson's style imo.

Douglas was basically the same height as Tyson, but he had a good reach advantage. He fought a very textbook boxing fight - popping the jab, moving out of range as soon as Tyson came in. When Tyson got on the inside Douglas immediately pushed him off or fired off combinations. He never let Tyson get off. His handspeed was impressive as well. It was about as perfectly executed of a gameplan as your gonna get against Tyson.

 

I disagree with this. While you make a point, I think some with great technical skills, ability, and decent power can really off set that. Douglas had all the tools. And Douglas had great lateral motion, shuffling back and forth in a way most Tyson's opponents couldn't (Rather than backwards or constant circling).

In fact, I can't think of any fighter shorter than Tyson, or within an inch or so of his height that I would give a legitimate chance in beating Tyson.

Douglas and Tubbs are a little different though. Tubbs fought much more on the inside and don't use his reach and judge distance with angles and movement.

Douglas is like 6'4 and Tyson is 5'11 if he's lucky. Douglas stands straight up and tall and fights like a real big man unlike the way Tubbs fought who he has at least 2 inches on (At least it looks that way bust listings are closer).

This is exactly what MuchMoore said. It's not as much as a gameplan is it is the tools as we see. Many tried to stand up or do things and had success but not to a consistent enough success. Holyfield and Douglas; fighters with elite ability/skills could successfully implement a gameplan (And had favorably style matchups, especially Douglas).

 

Yeah I goofed that. Douglas is taller, but he didn't really fight tall against Tyson. He hunched himself over, and only looked to be a few inches bigger then Tyson. It was his reach advantage, hand speed and foot work that caused the problem. That and just looking very sharp, throwing combinations, and fighting Tyson off on the inside .

Guys who fight tall tend to backpedal, clinch (etc); that plays into Tyson's style, imo. When your a shorter guy, Tyson can't get under your punches as easy, ala Holyfield/Douglas. Tyson's style is built around dealing with taller/rangier opponents. Look at all the tall guys Tyson fought and they almost exclusively got eaten up. That and also fighters who came right at him.

 

thats the part of the argument that is both incorrect and insulting to buster douglas as a fighter and a insult to us (the readers) intelligence.

Thats the problem with these tyson worshipers, they belive tyson beat himself, that all his skills were gone.

Tyson, really should get the victory in his ko defeat, certainly not douglas.