Tyson versus Dempsey

:rofl

 

I FORGOT to say - Tyson has BAD Footwork - sometimes he got Confused And thought he a southpaw or was just stood square-on with his oponent!


And he had Bad balance - Bonecrusher ANd Steward slips are good examples to show it.

 

I agree, his balance and footing was never great.
There are some here who have argued he had better footwork and better balance than Joe Louis.
I thought that was a bit crazy.

 

Well i know you are biased... But a lot of what you say is true, although exaggerated he did have those weaknesses.

Lol at the sometimes he got confused and thought he was a southpaw comment.

 

Louis had better footwork and balance technically but Tyson closed Distance far far quicker and thus couldn't be stifled by movers as easily.

 

Tyson was coming up a bit between eras, just like Ali some 20 years earlier. Still, destroying guys like Berbick, Thomas, Biggs, Holmes, Spinks and Williams like he did is rare, unique even - even though Thomas, Holmes and perhaps even Spinks were past prime, and the rest were good contenders at best.

 

I love guys like you, who say your big fans of Tyson but make a BS post like this. Tyson cherry picked the rest of his career? After losing to Douglas he faced the most dangerous fighter in the division two times in a row and was in training to face Holyfield before he went to the can. Tyson lost two fights in his respective prime after cleaning out the division and unifying all three titles. Hardly overated. :-(

 

Yeah, Tyson deserves credit for fighting Ruddock, but I've heard him say Don King did him wrong by matching him with him !
Ruddock was becoming a huge sensation in his own right, following the monstrous Dokes KO .... he was a draw, and someone needed to fight him (Holyfield and Foreman being tied up, Douglas gone away). Tyson had already ducked out on him once, so the fight was a natural, and King couldn't really lose.

 

Tyson could have faced Holyfield for the title. The Holyfield fight at the time was considered an easier fight for Tyson than Ruddock.

 

Ruddock was a bigger underdog against Tyson.

 

Doesnt matter Ruddock was considered a more "dangerous" opponent. Certainly not an opponent one would choose if they were ducking Holyfield?
Please post the odds too. Would like to see that. Were the odds established after Tyson fought Ruddock?

 

Doubt it anyway. Here is the odds for Ruddock 2

Tyson has remained a 4-1 to 5-1 favorite this week.

 

I think the best odds Ruddock achieved against Tyson was about 9-2 to win (in the second fight).
He was somewhere around 6-1 for the first fight.

Holyfield was 2-1 shot for Tyson, around September/October '91.

Ruddock was a huge puncher, so in that sense of course he was "more dangerous". I wouldn't say that makes Holyfield an easier fight.

Who said Tyson was ducking Holyfield ?
Tyson wasn't even champion.

(Don King didn't want Holyfield, for obvious reasons, but he Holyfield's camp gave his pal Sulaiman no excuse to rob him of the WBC title, as hard as they tried.)

 

I dont think Holyfield was an easier fight either, but if someone was cherry picking their opponent like the previous poster stated, they certainly wouldnt have faced Ruddock, twice (especially with what went down in the first fight), and stylistically speaking after Holyfield was going to war with everyone and getting knocked down by Cooper, Im sure the Tyson camp wasnt really thinking Holyfield would be overly dangerous, just promotionally it wasnt what King wanted which was total control. He did promote Ruddock.