Tyson- What if?

That to me is the appeal of Marciano in many ways - he made absolutely the most of what he had.
Tyson lacked the focus and the discipline to do the same.

 

This is probably the single most important factor that separates Tyson from being at the top. Skillwise he had it, mentally he didnt. If Tyson would have had Bowe, Holyfield, and Lewis on his radar during the time he was a well focused fighter, things could have been different, but coming from where he came from, it was inevitable that the train was going to come off the tracks, and his handlers knew it, thats why they kept him so active in the early part of his career.
When the shackles were lifted and all the discipline disappeared, he quickly fell apart.

 

And for me that is part of what makes Tyson so fascinating. For a brief moment in history, the shackles were on, and we got to see all of that energy and raw talent channeled into the boxing ring. But it was a recipe that was too volatile to last... You can't have one side without the other.

 

I sometimes think that even if he had fulfilled his utmost potential, his lack of height and reach would have always caused many boxing historians, professional and amateur alike, to place a ceiling on how high he could rank on an all time basis. There would have always been somebody deriding him as a "midget," like Frazier and Marciano.

 

If he beat Bowe and/or Lewis, though, it would have been a big help.

In an alternate universe involving an early 90's Tyson/Holy, though, Bowe may not have had the Holy trilogy and may have imploded without legacy wins. But a world in which Tyson beats a mid-90's Lewis, it would be a very significant "big man" win (or a Lewis/Bowe winner).

 

Yes but at his best, his ability to come forward, slip punches, and counterpunch was something that Ive never seen in another fighter let alone a heavyweight. His speed and timing were as close to perfect as one could get for an offensive fighter. You rarely saw Tyson get hit cleanly during his best, and that combined with a solid chin and good power could have brought him far, not to mention he was considered physically a fairly large heavyweight at 220 pounds during his prime.

 

But there is the other side to that coin.

I think a part of what made Tyson so intimidating was that he made his height a non-factor. The fact that he overcame this "deficiency" made his other skills seem that much more impressive. As his opponent, you could not feel confident about being taller. You couldn't judge him based on the numbers, and that is scary. As Bob Sheridan said (in reference to the much larger Frank Bruno) "Tyson has all the disadvantages of a lion going against a zebra."

And considering that he had other very impressive physical characteristics--huge neck, huge back, huge legs, and legitimate heavyweight poundage, I don't think his physical stature has ever been much of an issue.

 

You could say the same about Bowe, Lewis, or Holyfield if you wanted.

No one knows when Tyson was or wasn't at his best for fights except the people that were right alongside training with him. There was speculation all over the place that he was "not at his best" for the Spinks fight, and yet after he knocked him out everyone said that must've been him at his best. There was a lot less speculation about his training going into the Douglas fight (while Douglas himself was known to be not at his best, because his mother had just died), and yet afterward people assumed he must not have been at his best just because he lost.

No he wasn't. He was past his peak, but not nearly as old or faded as Holyfield was.

Bowe, maybe. Lewis, not likely. Holy, no.

 

What if Eric Crumble had a chin like Oliver McCall, and punch power like Julian Jackson?

All ifs, buts, and maybes.

More excuses for Tyson :-(

 

The people that were with Tyson, trainers and managers have openly commented about his career all along, its not speculation. Kevin Rooney has had many interviews stating how poorly Tyson performed against Douglas, and also stated how poorly he looked against Frank Bruno because of the things he was sure Tyson had gotten away from in his training.
Even his close friend Mark Breland told Tyson he was headed for an ass wooping. It was no secret Tyson wasnt as serious about his career as he once was after the Spinks fight. Tyson actually said it himself during the Oprah interview yesterday.

 

Rooney wasn't working with Tyson at the time of those fights, so his commenting on his training at that time is still his speculation. On top of that, given that he was now Tyson's ex-trainer, his agenda for questioning his subsequent work with other trainers is questionable at the very least. Either way, Tyson had some so-so performances under Rooney as well, and there was plenty discussion of "disorganized training camps" or "managerial problems" during Rooney's stay as well.

Unless any of us was actually there watching Tyson train, none of us actually know how he trained for any of his fights. Instead, it's just, "I heard this story" or "This person said this," etc.

 

This was Tyson getting beaten 9 out of 10 rounds and knocked out against a fighter who wasnt considered to be anymore of a threat than Tony Tucker who had beaten Douglas already. What about Aaron Snowell his trainer for the Douglas fight? He said it in the Tyson Douglas documentary on HBO. There was also footage that was broadcasted during the fight of Tyson getting knocked down in sparring? There was a lot more media chatter regarding Tyson's behavior after he separated from Rooney.
Which would provide more discipline for a 21 year old fighter?
Having a serious boxing team in Bill Cayton and Kevin Rooney, which kept Tyson active and secluded in Catskill New York, or moving to Vegas and having your best friend manage you, and a former roomate and aspiring actor, training you?