Tyson of 89-91 V Heavyweights of History

George Foreman always beats Tyson (Not 100 out 100 times. But best vs best). Terribly style matchup. Cus D'Amato told Tyson that "No swarmer beats Foreman." Granted Tyson isn't your typical swarmer (More mid-range fighter) he still needs to get in against a big Foreman. This is why I believe Tyson avoided (Yes, avoided) Foreman at all cost. Granted, Foreman didn't deserve a shot but he wanted nothing to do with George. I believe a 87-91 Foreman beats Tyson as well.

 

So the guy who beat the crap out of Bruno and Ruddock, and smashed Williams and Stewart to one round defeats wasn't prime?

Tyson had lost none of his speed, power, timing or reflexes by the time of the Ruddock fights. Physically, he was the same guy he was in '88.
Yes, his style and mentality had changed somewhat, and he wasn't quite as effective as before, but if that wasn't a Tyson in his prime, then I don't know...

By '91, Tyson was more hittable, although he still wasn't easy to hit. He also threw less combinations and went looking for one big punch, which cost him. He didn't set up his punches as he had done previously. There were signs of slippage in the Bruno fight, but by '91 he had become more one-dimensional than during his peak years.
That said, I think Ruddock was one of the better fighters Tyson fought, and it took a Ruddock for us to see that there were convincing signs that Tyson was not employing the hallmarks of his style which made him so effective in the 80's.

To be honest, I still don't see a whole bunch of heavyweights beating him at that point. Outside of the elite level guys, I don't think there would be many (if any) fighters that would beat him, provided Tyson came into the fight in good shape.

The reason Ruddock survived into the latter rounds in the first fight and went the distance is because Tyson's timing was off, and he went looking for the finisher without setting it up. I personally don't see Ruddock going 12 with a Spinks era Tyson.

Even so, the only guy I'd pick without reservation to beat that version of Tyson is Ali. I still think it would be a hard-fought fight for several rounds.

Others who definitely could, but I wouldn't make big favourites, would be

Lewis
70's Foreman
Bowe
Louis
Holyfield
Tua
Holmes

Maybe one or two others. Not many.

To beat a Tyson of that era, one needs a great jab, a strong chin, the willingness to absorb some big shots, decent mobility, the strength to tie him up, sufficient firepower to make him respect you, a strong will, and the right gameplan.

Now someone like Tua may not need all that. He had a concrete chin and big power, and at his best a great workrate. But not many fighters of that style have Tua's chin, power or stamina.

Guys like Jersey Joe Walcott, Gene Tunney and Jack Johnson I feel would try and finesse Tyson too much, and that would be a mistake.
A good all-rounder like a Schmeling is probably just not powerful enough to get the job done, and neither is Patterson, who is too fragile mentally anyway.

Aggressive fighters like Dempsey and Marciano I think would maybe also just not be quite powerful or big enough to beat Tyson at his own game. Frazier is big enough, but I'm not sure he could take a sustained beating, should things start to go in that direction.

Other guys like Mercer, Lyle, Quarry, the early 80's heavyweight champions and contenders...maybe one or two could spring a surprise, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The one fighter I haven't mentioned is of course Liston. He seems to have the right tools, but Tyson's faster hands would dictate most of the fight, imo. He (Liston) definitely is a candidate though.

 

Nope, not in my mind. Tyson didn't was the same at that point and I don't buy the excuses his fans make for him. His mind was the same mentally if not more mentally strong if he could handle Ruddock's power without faltering. Physically he was the same, but he did falter a bit from throwing combos. I don't believe his defense faltered at all. Tyson was big on his d-fense for that fight.

I also don't buy into the lack of training and all that. Maybe after the loss from Douglas he was somewhat discouraged but I don't feel he went not training all those years and being lazy. I'll give him that for post-Holyfield II where he was a fiasco and for the Lewis fight in 02 but that's about it. Yes, I bet he wasn't as focused or dedicated as the Douglas fight as he was with Berbick or Spinks, but that's not to say he didn't train. Other way that was all on his doings, and I don't believe his conditioning was that bad seeing how long he lasted. I give Douglas the credit, I don't take credit away and make justifications.

Tyson really seems to have a lot of excuses for himself. He also seems to confused and contradictory about him. Even when you listen to him in his new film. I'm a big Tyson fan but the guys mind was all over the place and maybe he had problems dealing with things as a fighter... however I don't buy a lot of his excuses and try taking away from those loses.

If this is such a worse version I guess Tyson's prime is just infinitely small. It's hard to accept that, but truthfully this can only be validated because his mind and focus being weak at that point. I don't see such a huge difference from Tyson of Spinks or Pinklon Thomas or Larry Holmes to Bruno or Tillman or Alex Stewart and etc. Realistically the differences get escalated by Tyson's fans.


Either way, prime Foreman beats any version of Tyson.
Sonny Liston might beat this version of a Tyson
Ali should
Lewis at his best would
And Holyfield

 

Holy beat Tyson whenever and whereever.

 

I think Tyson would do well. The thing I notice with Mike is that he did have a problem with the mentally strong but you had to also show him you could take his best shots and hand in there and he had good stamina for about 7-8 rds. Tyson only stopped one man past 8 Jose Ribalta and Mike never got off the floor to win.

As far as Foreman, I think Rudduck was as good a puncher as anyone big George fought or at least as hard of a puncher as Ron Lyle. George avoided the bangers early on but fought a few decent punchers in his comeback and was more relaxed in there and could go more rounds than the younger version ( he learned Pace) I think this fight could go either way.

Holyfield was always a problem for Mike ( for Whatever reason) I thought Evander was going to get murdered after his struggle with Bobby Cyz but he went into the fight with Tyson and walked on water.

Lewis another problem because Lennox disected Iron Mike and fought carefully.

Tyson would beat Bowe ( it may be an ugly fight with a lot of holding and leaning but I think Bowe would get rocked early and the RSC within 8.

Liston would not be easy but Tyson's speed and quick pace early would be a factor but Sonny and Mike would be Bully vs Bully but Liston would be stronger late.

Ali on the other hand was mentally stronger but Tyson had an arsenal for Ali and would throw Ali off with his speed and willingness to mix...Ali could be the stronger at the end of 15 but I think Tyson had the style to cause Ali some grief and would be incouraged with his early success. Tyson also was a good left hooker. I dont think Ali's power would faze Mike and Iron would trade with Ali.Close matchup

As far as Holmes I think tyson had the perfect kryptonite for Holmes and the variety of punches that would alway be a problem for Larry. Mike had the right hand the he could throw over the jab and he could switch up and hook with it. Always a problem for Larry.

Marciano would have to weather the early storm but the fight would get tougher as the rounds went by and Mike may also walk into something early but this fight could boil down to a back and forth battle and Marciano taking charge after the 7th and come on from there with Mike showing discouragement.

I think Dempsey and Tyson would be a war and there men to me are most simular. Fast starters, Mean, good killer instinct and can do the 12 rounds well but not in the top 10 group for stamina and the 15 round route was no friend to either man. This would be a good battle. Dempsey proved he could get off the floor to win, tyson was more of a frontrunner and fizzled when the other guy did not...People may get mad at my opinion but I would put my $ on the ESB underdog JackD.

 

Bruno was the best in his prime and in shape heavyweight that Tyson had fought to date. If you watched boxing in the 1980's, the media made it feel like Tyson was a lion amongst docile sheep. And indeed he was.

Tyson defeated some of the guys Larry Holmes defeated, and blew out a scared Michael Spinks. But the Bruno fight was a revelation. Tyson could be rocked and hurt. After it was over, I thought to myself, Tyson is not the invicncible destroyer the media is making him out to be. Bruno almost had him. But Bruno himself has major confidence problems.
As Tyson went on a rant in the interview, I thought to myself if he ever meets someone who's willing to stand up to him, he's going to be tested for real.

 

if he ever meets someone who's willing to stand up to him, he's going to be tested for real.


That was Mikes problem, call it what you may " Bully syndrom" whatever but he did not like it when you stood up to him. Now if he would have overcome that issue early on in his career and came back he may have developed mentally but that issue has always haunted him.

 

I thought RUddock stood up to Tyson quite well. Anyone who watched Tyson closely throughout his career, I think its fairly clear at this particular time he wasnt doing the same things he was under Rooney. He may have been in his physical prime, but he was sliding in his fighting prime. Just like Lewis got better once he hooked up with Steward, Tyson declined when he got away from doing important things that made him special.

 

Defensively he was not the same, and conteporary articles and reports ALL reflect that. It was one of the reasons guys like Steve Farhood began to think Holyfield could beat him. You really think he was as good at slipping and moving his head as during his peak years?

I do agree with the rest of your post though. He still had the ferocity of the old days, even if it wasn't as controlled. He wanted the title back desperately.
There isn't a great difference between vintage Tyson and say, Bruno Tyson or Ruddock Tyson. Physically, there was no difference. Same guy.
There were small signs that something was up, but yeah, to say he wasn't anything like his best days is off the mark.

 

There is truth to this, though like I think like with many issues regarding Tyson it's been overblown and oversimplified.

One thing I think in hindsight that hurt him was that his victories were a little too easy sometimes. He didn't face a gut check early on (You couldn't call the Tillis fight or the Green fight a gut check really) and even during the championship years he won without breaking a sweat most the time.
He didn't have to climb off the canvas to win, nor did he have to stage a late rally when behind on the cards.
Things came a bit too easily for him much of the time.

Tyson was a confidence fighter. When confident, he was brutal, but when he doubted himself he sometimes came unstuck. I think the point is exaggerated sometimes, but there is definitely truth in it.

 

He fought Holyfield in 1996. I'm talking about Tyson of 89-91. Physically he was the same. Maybe not quite as disciplined but I don't buy into their being "Two" different Tyson's as if he completely changed as 21 to 23 year old.

The Tyson of Ruddock was terrific. Ruddock his probably the best on his resume from anytime as a professional. Spinks would be the best name, I guess. I think Tyson used great defense in the fight and was throwing deadly combos. I agree that he tried looking more for 1 shot more but he had terrific combos. It was the combos that had him win the 1st fight. His defense was game, and had to be game for Ruddock. He was interviewed before the fight saying that "His best defense was his offense" and was praticing on the slip bag like the old days. Just because Ruddock didn't go down like others like Spinks, Berbick, or Bruno doesn't mean he "wasn't the same" it just means Ruddock was that much better.

The only thing I'll say about a Tyson of 89 onwards (Completely excluding the Douglas fight because I do feel that is clearly his worst performance... fighters are allowed bad performances) is that he didn't set punches up with the jab as much. But really, the exaggeration people propogate to try convincing people that the "Peak" version of Tyson that fought Spinks was invincible and it's "clear" that Tyson rapidly declined and was never the same is silly. I see little to no differences when looking from afar. It's like there's to different versions of Tyson. One is on the end of complete invincibility that no man can beat, and the other was mentally weak, unmotivated, and has 1000 justifiably excuses/reasons as to why he isn't nearly as good. Tyson gets a lot of passes. 1991 Tyson is still a prime Tyson. Post prison is another story, even though I do feel that Tyson of post prison was less affected than an Ali of post-prison physically.

However, even a 96 Tyson was thought to beat Holyfield. Only 1 or 2 writers picked Holyfield. And guess what? Almost half picked Spinks against Tyson in 88. That doesn't mean much.

 

That's a fair comment. Ruddock was utterly convinced Tyson was scared of him. As you know, Ruddock was being avoided by everybody at that stage and I think it says a lot for both men that they were willing to face the biggest puncher either had yet fought.
Both could have chosen an easier opponent yet chose to fight each other.

Why I'm laughing is that you're pretty much on the money. It's always going to be that way with fans though, isn't it? Your guy is unbeatable if all the stars align correctly. Hey, you're the same with Rocky. :hey
I'm a Tyson fan myself, but I try to keep a sense of balance. Big Marciano fan too, by the way.

 

You have to take into consideration the trainer factor. Its very easy for people to say Lennox Lewis became a much better fighter under Emanuel Steward, but everyone thinks its BS about Rooney being a big factor for Tyson.
Lewis was always a boxer puncher, but Emanuel Steward, taught him to use his jab to setup his punches properly, tightened up his footwork, taught him how to fight at range, and helped him deal with a fighter at close range by tieing and holding, leaning etc.
Tyson on the other hand was always a swarmer, but a very unique one. Rooney had him using his jab punching in combinations and most importantly being an elusive target, the biggest thing that started to slip when he left. Rooney also brought a lot of mental stability and confidence to Tysons corner. Tyson at his best was very difficult to hit, and the reason so many opponents went into a shell against him or simply got knocked out is because he could slip and counter his opponent so well so they almost couldnt do anything without the risk of getting countered.
So while ultimately their styles never changed, the fine tuning did, and this is the biggest factor of how a fight plays out especially on the championship level and to me the team is just as important as the fighter. Its like having a fast race car, if you dont know how to drive it you cant win the race.