1995 I think this a very overlooked fight. Tyson was coming back from the jail layoff, rusty, and really not at his best at all. His timing seems off, and the layoff makes that understandable, BUT I do believe this fight indicates certain things about Tyson's style. Mathis Jr. seemed to stifle a lot of Tyson's work by presenting a low target, crowding Tyson, dipping low, and barging forward. I've always noted that Tyson stands with his feet a bit square when attempting to in-fight or clinch, and this makes his balance weak, it's not a strong stance. ( On the other hand, his footwork allowed him to spring into ambidextrous attacks from all angles at mid-range fighting.) The fact that Tyson was rusty was not the only factor causing him to miss with his punches, IMO. The fact that Mathis was a guy as short as Tyson with a cagey dipping defence, and the fact that he could get inside and low on Tyson and upset Mike's balance, account for some of the confusion and messiness in Tyson's work that night. A prime Tyson would have probably found the finishing punch a bit sooner, knocking Mathis out in the 1st or 2nd. But Mathis didn't have the power to trouble Tyson and was not necessarily any sort of super-durable fighter. However, I do think this fight shows that a short bobbing-and-weaving low-charging fighter WITH power and WITH durability could conceivably caused major problems to Tyson, even a prime version. People say "you have to box, move, out-maneuver Tyson, and you have to be tall and rangy to beat him. That's the only way". Guys like Frazier and Marciano are at a "stylistic disadvantage" according to these people.Being short and bob-weaving forward is seen as no sort of strategy against Tyson. But Buster Mathis Jr. is the ONLY short guy who used a dipping, bob-weave, head-n-your-chest type strategy, and to be honest it seemed to baffle and off-set Tyson's style more than most of the tall guys who tried to out-maneveur Tyson. Mathis was ultimately a creampuff puncher who got caught with a good punch, he was not any elite fighter, and really he had no chance of winning. Still, I think the fight raises some important and interesting questions about how Tyson's style might mesh with others.
I agree with some of the points you made, but as I supected early on, this thread is a veiled attempt at proving how your main man Frazier would have beaten Tyson. Good thread though jabster:good By the way, how would you see Burt Cooper doing aroung the time of his good run in 1991 against Tyson?
As i recall it, this was one of the worst performances of a prime Tyson. I think critics at the time pointed out after this fight that he had declined a lot. Of course then came the Bruno fight in which he looked as good as ever. That hints at Tyson looking bad against Mathis because of styles as Sonny's Jab says. I think ring rust played a role too; albeit a limited one, i mean he had trained and sparred plenty. Although sparring stories could be deceiving, Nate Tubbs and an other sparring partner said he hit as hard as ever. Or maybe Tyson was troubled by men called "Buster".
I think you hit the nail right on the head there Chris. Styles really have nothing to do with beating Tyson, but if you name is Buster than you should automatically be favored.
I haven't set out to "prove" anything regarding Tyson V. Frazier. That would be foolish. But I dont deny that the post is partially meant to question the reasoning of those who claim that Marciano and Frazier had the completely wrong style to deal with Tyson. Also, I'm attempting to understand and explain what I think are the exact strengths and weaknesses of Tyson's style, how it works. There's a science to his style, one that was extremely effective against certain other styles. People who say "Tyson would crush the smaller Marciano (or Frazier)" tend to run the risk of reducing Tyson purely down to power puncher, like he won everything on brute strength and athletic gifts, rather than educated science. Anyway, I can only call it like I see it. Rusty or not that night, I think there were higher-ranked heavyweights, tall, powerful, boxers types, who Tyson would have looked more impressive against that the dipping, short, bob-weaving Mathis. Therefore, I think the style's relevant. I dont think Bert Cooper would have caused Tyson much difficulty. Smokin' Bert's defense and style didn't impress me in the same way as Mathis showed. Cooper wasn't cagey, just powerful. And I think Tyson would cope with any stray bomb that Cooper may land with, and return with interest.
Well, normally it's name that put the asses in the seats, but in this case, the name puts Tyson ass on the canvas. I read that Jay Bright (Tyson's trainer for McNeely and Mathis) said that they had to 'rebuild' Tyson, how he had forgotten how it was to be hit, timing etc. I find that hard to believe. Boxing had been Tyson's life since he was 13. He had declined, but i hardly think they had to teach him how to bob and weave again, as he stated.
Good point as usual, Sonny. However, small swarmers could bob and duck for a while but only briefly delay the inevitable. Tyson still crushes them in a hammer-and-tongs close quarters slugfest simply because he's faster, more accurate and more powerful with both hands.
These are good points - the bob-and-weave type fighters may have not been at quite the stylistic disadvantage. The counter-argument would be that small, agile-type fighters would not be able to manhandle Tyson to the extent that guys like Holyfield and Douglas did. They'd be more susceptible to Tyson's lethal uppercuts, and the biggest problem with trying to get in close against Tyson during his prime years is that it lets him use that handspeed to land his combinations - unless you're trying to clinch him, of course.
For all of his faults he was a fast handed heavyweight who's father was also a product of D'amato.. Buster was a throw back and had taken a leaf from his fathers book by adopting a manic defensive style.. Mike was patient and waited for a chance to land some clean shots in succession.. I thought for a second comeback fight he boxed tremendous.. Mathis had some very cute skills as a B fighter.. He was the perfect opponent for that time.. I spent the day with Buster in Vegas on the day he should have boxed Mike (first announced date) before Mike pulled out because of the failure to sell tickets against the caesars event (Bowe v Holy ) Mikes thumb WASN'T BROKEN, it was a cost cutting excersize by Frinfrock and Kirkorian and the DKP crew .. Buster was very low in esteem and we walked to the Aladdin coffee shop and chatted before going to a boxing event in the Alladin theatre between Obed Sullivan and Art Weathers.. with Mo Wilson on the card also.. Mathis said to me that he beleived the fight was never going to materialise.. Henry Akinwande was also angry that his fight with Tony Tucker (his biggest test to date) was also called off.. Jerry Ballards fight with Ruiz was also re scheduled.. The one thing i was glad about looking back is that Tyson kept his word and boxed Mathis in Philly with Tucker v Akinwande on the undercard.. Ruiz v Ballard eventually hapened in Atlanta when Bean Boxed Holyfield at the Georgia Dome.. Mathis honestly wanted the fight in vegas and wanted his father who had recently passed to have lived to see him become a sucess.. Buster was indeed a very nice smooth fighter and has a lot to be proud of.. Many a decent fighter lost to Mathis ... Cus actually had a lot to do with that fight taking place even having been dead for 10 years..
Tyson did not so much need a trainer in his corner as a mechanic to lubricate him in that fight, he was that rusty. Mathis Jr was a second level version of his old man IMO. He was fine to a certain level, and showed glimpses of class thoughout his career, but the moment 'Leg Iron' Mike got rid of enough rust to create a cute angle, boom, it was over.
Way too fast. I think to an extent, Tyson was saved there. I just rewatched the fight and he was in more trouble than i thought. No surprise that the Don King referee pulled one of the famous quick counts out of the hat.
It was noticable that Tyson began to use the tactic of hopping to one side and throwing a hook. Trying to get in at different angles, get behind Mathis Jr's guard. Buster was doing such a good job at defending against the shots from the front that Mike needed to do something different like this, even playing matador a bit. Far as I can remember, it was not only a successful tactic but I think a step-and-hook like that that was the start of the fight-winning combo. Mathis Jr got through with a lot though. I remember him rattling off a 4 or 5 punch combo on Mike at one point, all landing. Weird to see that against Tyson. If Mathis Jr had any pop this could've been an interesting test for a rusty Mike.
Tyson actually fought a smart fight there. Mathis was pushing Mike, trying to lean on him, and also smothering his own attack in the process. Tyson never has been one to do a lot wrestling on the inside. Watch his fights, and you will notice that when a fighter tries to push him, he just leans into them and lets them for the most part. Tyson spends a lot of energy cranking up on shots, no need to waste any seeing if he can push his opponent around. Tyson showed patience, waited for opportunities, and created opportunities with his footwork. Tyson did waste some big punches. A simple one-two would have been much more effective than big hooks against Mathis. I don't see this being a stylish nightmare for Tyson. He looked relaxed, and didn't seem to be stressing much. You can tell when Tyson gets impatient, and starts stressing. Look at what he did to Botha's arm in their fight. The head butts he gives at times(he was using his head some in the Mathis fight, but no more than usual). The forearm to the chin of Evander before biting him a couple minutes later. When he is being dominated; he starts going through the motions, and stops trying to win. Look at the Douglas, and first Holyfield fight for examples of this. I didn't see him start that in the Mathis fight either.
