Tyson- What if?

This is how I see it. It was the last fight under Kevin Rooney Steve Lott and Bill Cayton, who were excellent for Tyson keeping him in check. The fight was not expected to end like it did, with many people feeling Spinks would be able to do what an older Holmes could do for a few rounds, only better.
Its very easy to say now that it was a one sided blow out, Spinks was too small, etc, but that was not the consensus point of view before the fight.
It also wasnt a reckless approach either, there was some technique in there. The reason Spinks was trying to land something big, was just to make Tyson back off. The reason he couldnt is because Tyson moved in a way Spinks couldnt.

 

87 Tyson would've beaten all of them convincingly

 

Sure, some people thought Spinks awkwardness could dethrone Tyson, but that was mere hopefulness. Some people in the press picked Spinks. But even the HBO crew doesn't excited or in the least bit surprised by what they said. Bob Sheridan's call is much better for the excitement. Now, Spinks was undefeated, small, and not getting any younger. He beat an aging Cooney which was his real only puncher test. He never fought a pressure sort of style that would obviously hinder him as being the smaller man.

My point deals with Ideal Mike. Everyone talks about this performance. Yeah, Mike caught him and timed him with that beautifully uppercut. But how the hell is this proof that this is your ideal peak Tyson? I don't see him doing things better or worse than he did against 88 onwards. He really trucks in ferociously, seldomly using the jab and throwing bombs with huge intentions. His ferociousness is his technique. There's hardly patient or variation. Tyson just wants to get this fight over with. My problem is, people use this example because of its result. But going by the results the fight against Bruno is a fine performance. Now, the performance is one of Tyson's worst, but I don't start chalking up a pattern that Tyson immediately got worse. I think there are performances that are arguably worse or comparable before his fight after the Spinks fight. It's like when a climate scientist sees 2/3 years of steady decline in temperature and says we're heading in an Ice Age. It's hog-wash (Didn't that happen via early 1970's. All the non-credible ones jumped on it and Time magazine took the bait).

And who the F*ck cares about Rooney being in Tyson's corner. Does that automatically improve his performance or improve how he is doing things? People really try to connect the dots, overstate things, and use double standards in this situation. Since to me, performance is the reflection of their idea about Tyson's performance. Yes, in an historical perspective this is probably Tyson's best win. But I'm talking on an action/visual standpoint, since this is where the merits of the debate have went.

Exactly. And I know this is going to sound crazy, but to me it shouldn't. Had Tyson fought exactly the same way against the Tokyo version of Douglas in this situation I think he would've lost. Yep, there I said it. And then, nobody calls this a peak Tyson. I'm fine with it being his best performance on a legacy standpoint, but for the many Tyson advocates that hypocritically use it as an example of Tyson at his best and then talk about how he lunges in against Bruno, doesn't use the jab, isn't as effect, etc. It's hog-wash. Then the lack of training/focus hysteria begins by the Douglas fight, but it's harder to argue against that.

My point is about Tyson is that I do think we've seen a better Tyson. I know the circumstance were a 1 round devastating KO. But if the people who want to see a patient, varied, good head-movement, sharp, effective, and jab-throwing Tyson at his best then don't refer to the Spinks fight. Then talk about how the Bruno fight is clearly Tyson 20 levels down. I'm calling BS and a double standard. For me, it's like using the result as a point to validate how one Tyson was clearly more ideal, when of course, Tyson acts and does exactly the same. He's very ferocious, and Spinks is scarred out of his mind.

 

Tyson was already the undisputed champion. Faced guys who took him 10 hard rounds, 12 rounds, 6 round whatever. There was no questions about his stamina at that time.
Taking a fighter who was supposed to present a serious challenge to him with Spinks pedigree and completely destroying him in one round was certainly a pinnacle to his already stellar career.

 

Read my post to McGrain to get why its considered his peak. Also Tyson wasnt a huge heavyweight either. Your stating your point like Tyson was twice the size of Spinks.
You dont understand why Rooney was a factor? The trainer that prepared him for all of his previous fights, and gave him the answers in the corner between rounds? Thats not a huge factor, going from that to Jay Bright (who never trained a fighter previously) and Aaron Snowell whose prior claim to fame was carrying the spit bucket for Tim Witherspoon?
I would be curious to know what you consider Tyson's sloppy performances prior to the Bruno fight.

 

I know of Rooney's importance, trust me I hear it everytime I argue with Tyson fans. However, just because Rooney is in his corner doesn't enhance is performance. Tyson was ferocious, and impatient against a Spinks who was looking for a lucky punch. Tyson knew Spinks had nothing to bother him. Spinks was terrified looking, I'm sure he had doubts. It's not Spinks' size as much as his proven-ness against a pressure/slugger like Tyson. Spinks derailed an aging puncher like Cooney, but the rest of his big wins at HW came against an old and lazy Holmes who was a boxer type fighter.

My2Sense already went on about Tyson's performance in the past that weren't so great. I'm not joining here to be repetitive. You're honestly going to sit her and tell me that Tyson looked so magically on the Spinks not and so much worse against Bruno. Why is he worst? Besides the fact that Spinks doesn't even make a fight out of it and had little to no chance to begin with. And don't use the press picking Spinks because of his awkwardness, as if that's a legit enough reason to pick a fighter. He lunges against Spinks, throws big bombs, and doesn't use the jab nor have the patience head-moving killer that we've seen from Tyson. But the result was 1 round KO.

You can find a defensive highlight video that will have more of his fight with Bruno than Spinks. Of course, more footage. But that's half the point. Spinks fight was so short we don't really know. From what we see we can't see he dramatically got worse against Bruno.

The fact of the matter is so many more fighters have noticeably declined and don't have their fans make such big excuses for them. People can't just say he got ten times worse for the Douglas fight, so they try using that he was declining in the Bruno fight because he wasn't doing things as effective. Previously, it was he didn't do them often. Now it just wasn't as effectively. This is what the smart Tyson fans do to try coated the Buster loss. Frazier from 69-70 to 73 declined more physically than Tyson did from 87-89. Marciano from 51-55 declined more than Tyson did from 87-89. But you mostly just hear about Tyson. Both fighters I mentioned declined much more noticably, but there's little to no reason to make mention of it. Even Tyson fans talk about how he can't take Foreman's power and use that as a guarantee for Tyson against Frazier. It's hogwash, because Frazier was in reality a shell of himself if you compare his decline/laziness to Tyson from Spinks to Douglas. In fact, there were signs like weight gain, deterioration. With Tyson, it's a lack of focus and refinement of his skills?

By the way I pick Tyson against Frazier in a fantasy matchup.

And for the Bruno fight. Is that really evidence for a decline? Can't a go have one unspectacular of a performance before it's labeled as an obvious digressive trend?

 

Its not about Rooney just being in the corner. Its about a trainer who is qualified, taking him through an entire training camp, working on techniques to offset his opponents weaknesses and strengths.
Training wasnt just hitting the heavybag, jumping rope and running like it seemed to become with the two clowns that took over. There was a strategic plan that was instituted in camp.
With Tyson everything went very fast, but certain movements were worked on. I never saw that with Tyson again until he started working with Tommy Brooks who was very big on strategy.
Again, Tyson had already been through tough fights, unified the title and defended against a wide variety of different styled fighters.
Doing what he did to Spinks was the pinnacle of everything else he did previously.
There was little else for Tyson to prove. The sloppiness came as a result of many things with the big factor of Tyson getting away from what brought him to the top where he stood undefeated. I dont agree with M2Sense and the things he pointed out. I see things differently than he does. I already pointed out what I saw in Tyson and the proof was ultimately proven in his future fights, where he was knocked out by Douglas, and hit a lot by Ruddock and Bruno, more so than he had ever been hit previously and against fighters who werent any better than the fighters he had beaten in the past.

 

Maybe that has some merit. But a lot if it is somewhat speculative.

Strategy, really isn't essential with Tyson. If he is sharp, knows who is in front of him and knows what he can do he doesn't need it. Was it strategy to lunge at Spinks and blow him out of the water? The reality doesn't change regarding the performance of that and thereafter.

You talk about being hit a lot against Ruddock. But he was training big time on his defense for his fight with the slip bag. He was quoted as saying "I believe the best defense is the best offense." That was the keys for that fight in camp. Rooney gets too much credit. He did nothing of significance after Tyson.

What were these movements you speak of by the way?

As with almost all Tyson arguments about his prime, not prime, peak, whatever. They usually go absolutely no where. So I don't know how long I can continue to argue like this.

 

Your not open for an answer. Ive given you what I believe to be the answer and the reasons why I believe Tyson started to decline, and pointed out the differences in previous posts. You obviously dont agree so thats fine.
Strategy is paramount to every fighter. There is no way Tyson could go through all the fighters he went through with reckless abandonment and just being sharp.
Every fighter at some point starts to decline for a variety of reasons. Tyson was what 37-0 before he fought Douglas? Just the fact of accomplishing what he accomplished had to contribute to it as well.
Training is very hard and tedious especially once you accomplish what Tyson had and it was probably hard for him to get up for fighters like Buster Douglas and Henry Tillman who werent considered anymore of a threat than the guys he had already knocked out, and probably somewhat similar to the situation with Lennox Lewis in South Africa.
Thats probably why Rocky Mariciano's record is so coveted right?
Brian Nielson couldnt even match it using tomato can opponents as his standard.

 

Pete, I knew you'd bring that up, but there is a difference. If you watch closely, Tyson feinted with a jab before moving in. "Barreling in" would indicate moving in with disregard to defense which wasn't the case in the Spinks fight.

Also notice that Tyson counters throughout the fight, looking and waiting for the openings. He fought a very sharp, intelligent fight against that opponent. Of course he didn't respect his power, he was fighting a smaller guy - but then he also wasn't reckless either. I can count at least 4 jabs thrown by Tyson including the feint at the beginning that I already mentioned - and most of all of Tyson's shots were counters. You don't see that kind of stuff post Spinks in most of any of Tyson's bouts.

 

It is an indesputable fact that Tyson went downhill quite sharply after the split from Rooney, I would even go so far as to say that there was a change in him after D'Amato's death. I myself believe him when he says he fell out of love with boxing after that-or at least began to fall out of love.
How differently the match with Douglas might have gone I am in two minds about, obviously Tyson with the head-movement and combo's, the bodywork, the sharpness which were missing in tokyo is a different proposition. On the other hand I know, as I'm sure others do, something of what Douglas was feeling around that time and I'm sure it would take a gargantuan effort from anyone to make Douglas wilt, short of knocking him spark out.
As to Holyfield, I would pick Tyson at his best over the Holyfield that ko'd Douglas. Holy at the time hadn't filled out so much as he later did, also fights like the Cooper and Holmes fights show that he was somewhat less inclined to play to his strengths, I believe the differences in his performance during the forst two Bowe fights are a reflection of this also. In short, Holy beat a fading Tyson in the 90's with a very good gameplan, what I am saying is I question the pre-bald Holyfield's ability to stick to that gameplan. Whether that be due to immaturity or a better partnership with Turner than with Duva, or what?
Vs Lewis: I've flip flopped over this a number of times over the years but I have to say that right now, peak for peak I go with Tyson by knockout. I'm no big Tyson fan (although I respect the skills he had early in his career)-actually I like Lewis a lot more but I just think that the difference in speed and Tyson's ability to slip the jab and his combination punching, mean Lewis would be unable to keep Tyson off him.
Bowe I think would make the best fight with Tyson-from a spectator point of view that is, maybe a heavyweight version of Hagler v Hearns but I just think bowe was far too easy to hit. It might resemble a higher class version of Tyson and Ruddock as well, a better Tyson having a similar type of fight with a better fighter than Ruddock but I do think Tyson would win.
It's purely conjecture of course, any of those fights might have gone the other way against even the very best Mike Tyson, we're talking about a handful of very, very good heavyweights but Tyson was a brilliant, gifted fighter, even if he was really a flash in the pan when you look back on him.

That would have put Tyson right up there with Ali and Louis IMO. It just wasn't to be though, the guy didn't have it in him to hold everything together and avoid the sharks so we'll never know for sure.

 

MrBassie, I think your post is spot on. I also think stylistically Bowe would have presented the toughest challenge for Tyson. He just had too many offensive weapons, and his size and mean streak would have created a super intense fight. Well said. :good

 

Tyson would've blown Bowe out of the water. Way too porous defense, and not enough power.

 

That's actually closer to what I was trying to say