Tyson- What if?

Chris, no offense, but there are plenty of differences. Again, those little things that he got away from put Tyson on a decline. Sure he could get away with it in certain fights, but consistently he wouldnt. Tyson may have shown vulnerablities when he got off track, but it was corrected within a fight.
Ill use Lennox Lewis as an example because he always seems to get a pass for his improvements well into his pro career. His fight against Frank Bruno as well was one of his most devastating KO's but overall it was a sloppy performance. He was often off balance and delivering his punches without calculation and technique and more on raw power.
When Steward corrected his balance, and made his jab a pumping piston, rather than a flicking meausring stick, he became a more consistent fighter at the top level. These fighters are on the top level of boxing. Their talent is better than most, but not good enough to consistently make technical mistakes and win every fight against the upper echelon of the division
As far as these two particular fights, look at how Tyson usess his jab in the Thomas fight. He doubles it, uses it with authority, and throws five and six punch combinations behind it.
Look at his stance against Bruno, its more straight up, hes not bending his knees and moving side to side.
Look at the combination punching, its more consistent in the Thomas fight, more in the context of the fight and not only used as a finishing series.
Look at Tyson's balance, although hes throwing wild shots, for the most part he maintains his balance, not falling in, not as susceptible to counters and getting hit as much.
Listen to his corner. Tyson always wanted to fall back on his power, always. Rooney is constantly heard yelling in the corner, use your jab, use your jab, move your head, move your head. Rooney's cackling voice can always be heard over the largest crowds, and you often, such as the case in the Thomas fight, see Tyson responding to his commands.
Just like Lewis, when Tyson got away from using his jab, and started telegraphing big power shots, not using any type of technique to set them up, he started getting hit more and being less effective.
As far as the Tucker fight, Tucker found one opening the entire fight, but Tyson's excellent balance allowed him to shrug it off a lot easier than in the Bruno fight. Tyson also didnt allow Tucker to get off anything because of his elusiveness. He couldnt hit Tyson, and Tyson was countering everything he offered, putting him in a shell and causing him to hold. Tucker had a very similar game to Douglas, and Thomas for that matter, and those fights are good examples of what happened when a fighter held to make it the distance (Tucker), or put his ass on the line and tried to fight, (Thomas), against a well focused Tyson.

 

Thread closed.

 

Like Josak Ill retract that statement.

 

Good post lefthook.

:deal This is also a great point.

Against Bruno, Douglas, and Ruddock Tyson was hit more then he'd ever been in his entire career up to that point. This was against opposition that wasn't any better (except for Ruddock maybe) then his pre 89 opponents.

Another thing I want to mention about Tyson is the age factor. I think what people have a problem with is the fact that he was only 21 when he lost to Douglas. The thing with Tyson is that he peaked very early (only 2 years into his pro career). He was also very active, fighting 37 times between 1985 and 1990. If he would have spread his fights out more and expanded that timeframe to 10 years, I don't think anyone would be making an issue out of this.

 

I'm not the one calling you a "dick rider", but you haven't always been telling the facts. You've been using others' claims in place of known facts, and putting your own personal spin on facts (ie: saying Tyson had "no stamina" or that "Don King fooled everyone").

No, it would take actually being in his training camp and seeing what was going on first-hand. Beyond that it's only accepting what others claim about what went on.

According to you, Tyson was at his best vs. Spinks, despite the many problems that were reported about him at the time. So according to you, Tyson either never really had those problems, or wasn't affected by them - correct?

"Even though"?? Because it's rare that a fighter and his camp make excuses after a fight?

No, people at the time speculated about the situation. Just like they speculated about it before he fought Spinks, in fact even moreso.

No, I'm just not interested in speculated excuses.

"Tyson strode in wearing a T-shirt and jeans. He declared himself in perfect condition, and then stunned both his manager, Don King, and the audience by responding to a question about his mental preparation by saying:

''If you can't fight, you're. . . .'' "
-James Sterngold, NY Times, February 9, 1990.

I don't know. I don't know if they're telling the truth either. Just like no one else who wasn't actually there knows the truth, or knows the truth about what goes on in any fighter's training camp.

Do you normally believe every fighter/trainer who makes excuses after a fight. or is this just an exception you make for Tyson? Would you believe every fighter/trainer Tyson beat if they made excuses for his wins over them (as many of them did) ?

No, I didn't. I said right from the beginning that accepting people's words for what goes on is questionable at best. I only pointed out that Snowell had denied before the fight that there was anything wrong to show that his making post-fight excuses is even more questionable.

YOU were the one who insisted there was actual evidence to substantiate the stories about his training camp rather than just people's claims. But instead, you've only just continued to post more and more people's claims without any of the actual evidence you said was there.

Which is only evidence that he SAID those things, not that those things actually happened.

Both fights clearly show him getting sloppy and undisciplined. He had a big first round against Thomas, but then followed him around while mostly head hunting, walking into clinches, eating occasional lefts and rights as he walked in, and let Thomas off the hook after the trouble he had him in in the first round. He showed similar flaws against Bruno, but was at least more intense with his attack, did more to keep Bruno on the defensive and didn't walk into punches as much.

As I said earlier, neither one of those among his technically better performances. I just don't see what the case is for saying one "clearly shows a decline" while saying the other shows no flaws at all.

Besides which, one fight doesn't show a decline if the next fight shows his skills are still there (as the Williams fight did). That contradicts the whole definition of a decline.

Not true. I was just posting yesterday about how impressive his win over Spinks was.

You'd only know something like that if you posted regularly in this forum, which you don't.

 

delete

 

Prove it. Let's see the punchstats for all Tyson's fights up to and including Bruno.

So you're saying he took more punches against Bruno, a fight he never lost a round in, than against Tillis, who fought him competitively for 10 rounds and probably did enough to win at least 3 rounds, and against every other pre-Bruno fight he had put together - correct?

You actually agree with that??

 

M2Sense you know that statement was over stated, but its also pretty clear to most that Tyson certainly started getting hit easier and more frequently.
It is possible one cant see it. It would take a close look at a fighters career and a good understanding of the technical side of boxing to see the differences, whether subtle or major.

 

It's not "overstated", it was a flat out LIE and frankly just stupid. Tyson had a few fights before Bruno in which he looked as open and/or was hit with as much or more frequently. Even the Thomas fight that was referenced above as one of his "better" or "prime" performances actually shows him getting hit with fair regularity. I'll admit, I didn't actually count the number of times he was hit in both fights, but it looked to me like Tyson actually walked into more punches against Thomas than he did against Bruno (not counting Bruno's rabbit punches in the clinches of course); and indeed, Thomas did land often enough to actually win a round or two, unlike Bruno.

Either way, the Bruno fight was typical of a number of subpar performances that Tyson had in his career. It's only because it happened to be his most recent supbar performance before losing to Douglas that it's given so much focus.

 

It is possible one cant see it. It would take a close look at a fighters career and a good understanding of the technical side of boxing to see the differences, whether subtle or major.

 

There are definite signs in the first Bruno fight.

Tyson gets rocked the hardest he ever had up until that point, and he was also showing signs of headhunting.

The strong focus on defense was clearly not the same.

 

So if we can't believe Tyson or Snowell, all of the media chatter and reporting at the time, then what do we go on? We just assume Tyson was at peak condition and was the same guy?

So should we make that same assumption with other fighters as well who've ever been on the slide, and never consider circumstances or the context surrounding a win or a loss?

Well I congratulate you. But Tyson has said on way more occasions that he wasn't prepared for the fight.

And as for Aaron Snowell... why would he lie? That video that lefthook posted (Legendary Nights) was filmed probably in the late 90's or 2000's. What would be Snowell's motive at that point for lying and making up all that stuff up about Tyson's being uncooperative and not training properly?

They speculated about chaos in his personal life, which there was , but there was no speculation of his skills declining, which there was AFTER Spinks.

Name we one subpar performance in 87/88 on the level of Bruno. If you say Bonecrusher, that was a guy who refused to fight, holding on for dear life for 12 rounds. If you say Tucker, that was not a subpar performance. Tyson fight a very live opponent who was undefeated, and he went on to outbox and clearly outpoint him. Thomas? I can't believe how can you claim that Thomas was not a good performance. Yes Tyson had some passive rounds in that fight, but he had one of the most impressive looking first rounds ever, and he ended the fight in one of the most brutal knockouts of his career. Thomas was also one of the best opponents he ever fought in that period, and a better win then Bruno.

So that's your three "sub-par" performances right there. No one in their right mind, even if they believed they were sub-par, could put those on the level of Bruno.

So who did he look better against? Thomas or Bruno? I really can't believe you if you say Bruno.

And there are major differences in the performances, some subtle some not. We're not talking about the KO or how quick he got the KO. We're talking the way in which Tyson broke down his opponents.

In the Bruno fight, Tyson has no jab. He stands straight up, barreling in with loaded up hooks and right hands. Against a better opponent or had Bruno not been scared shitless, Tyson would of gotten caught with a lot punches that night.

In the Thomas fight, Tyson is working behind a jab, sharp shooting Thomas with accurate punches and combinations, and counter punching effectively. He does get a little lazy in rounds 3, 4, 5, until he picks it up and Round 6 and finishes the job.

And if Thomas isn't a good example, lets use Berbick, Biggs, or Holmes, or even Tucker, who is a better win then Bruno, and yet got outboxed and clearly outpointed by the smaller guy with a shorter reach.

The Williams fight is fair point, but that was a fight that lasted less than two minutes against a pretty poor opponent. It was a good knockout, but it doesn't reveal much. He blew out Stewart and Tillman too in a similar manner, but that didn't make him any less of a head hunter at that point (which he was).

Then you have the Ruddock fight where Tyson's walking in straight up with no headmovement, no jab, and rushing in with his head wide open and getting caught with some really silly punches. You saw the same thing in the Bruno fight, only Bruno was too scared to capitalize on it.

What he did against Bruno (head hunting, loading up big bombs) worked against Bruno, and it worked against guys like Carl Williams, Stewart, Tillman and even Ruddock. But against the right opponent that strategy would get him in trouble, and it got him in trouble against Douglas. That NOT the way Tyson pre 89 went about fighting his opponents. He broke them down methodically, through sharp counter punching, slipping punches, quick flurries/combinations, etc.

 

It doesnt matter what Tyson said or declared himself as. That was one of Tyson's biggest shortcomings. He was too foolish to realize he wasnt the same fighter without Rooney, and he was too stupid to realize that his lifestyle was not conducive of a disciplined elite fighter. He was also too stupid to realize what was creating so many problems in his personal life, and the reason he kept going back to jail, Don King, and the people that told him what he wanted to hear and not what was in his best interest, (a very typical problem with celebrities).
Tyson never wanted to train either, and went through a laundry list of trainers always looking for that one that would equip him with the skills without him having to put the time in the gym.:blood The stories of Tyson leaving teams of trainers at the gym waiting on him for hours is very true.
I saw it first hand. Ive been in both Lennox Lewis' training camp, and Mike Tyson's training camp, big difference. Tyson's camp was like a bunch of adults waiting on a spoiled child. Thats why Tyson became soft later in his career, because if he didnt feel like going that extra round in sparring, or putting that extra mile into his roadwork, the right person wasnt there to push him to do it. That type of behavior ultimately transfers to his peformances in fights, when the going gets tough.

 

Why do you repeat this lie? I already pointed out on the previous page, with numerous examples, that Tyson made extensive use of the jab, upper body movement and good defensive maneuvers. Face the facts.

 

We never really knew what his condition was for most of his fights to begin with; or what most fighters' condition is for most of their fights, for that matter.

His quality should be assessed like all other fighters - on the full body of what happened and what he did in the ring in and around his prime, both his wins and losses.

But that's not what you said. You said he NEVER said he was in shape for the fight, period. And that's not true; over the years, he's made a number of conflicting statements about what his condition was at that time.

The same motive(s) plenty of other trainers have for making excuses after their fighter loses.

Besides, it's a moot point. If he and Tyson have made completely contrasting statements on different occasions, then they technically have to be liars to some extent, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

That would only make it an impressive performances if those two rounds comprised the entire fight; but the fight went six rounds, and in the four rounds between the first and the last he gave a shaky performance.

That's a very questionable statement. Thomas was coming off an embarrassing upset loss to Berbick, and then a rather poor performance against some tomato can on one of Tyson's undercards. Compared to guys like Berbick(obviously), Bonecrusher, Tucker, or Spinks, he was actually one of Tyson's lesser opponents and less significant fights from that period.

Pontius has already shown, point by point, how this is simply untrue. The footage is right there and shows it.

There's no basis for saying Bruno was "scared shitless". He got up from a first-round knockdown and fired right back to wobble Tyson briefly in that same round.

You're selectively choosing what to highlight in each fight.

As Pontius already showed, you can find him doing those same things against Bruno too. Likewise, he showed the same sort of technical mistakes and bad habits against Thomas that he did against Bruno, which you criticized him for then, but here you are apparently overlooking them.

Here's a clip of rounds 2-3 of the fight:

[yt]gYwwdLKKqz0[/yt]

-At 1:38 - 1:43, Tyson walks in swinging wildly to the head with single shots, and misses several times.

-At 2:17, Tyson is simply walking forward and leaves himself open for a quick flurry of punches by Thomas.

-At 2:39 - 2:44, Tyson walks straight in, throws and misses another wild head shot, and then walks into a couple jabs and then another quick flurry by Thomas.

-At 3:38, Tyson walks in throwing another wild flurry of head shots, most of which miss.

-At 3:59, Tyson walks in, only slightly crouching, and moves straight into a body shot by Thomas, after which he allows Tyson to tie him right up. Meanwhile, Rooney keeps screaming from ringside, "Don't look for one shot!"

-At 4:05, Tyson walks in straight up and leaves himself open for a couple of jabs.

-At 4:16, as Tyson continues to stand straight up and walk in, he is hit by a right hand to the neck by Thomas.

-At 5:04 - 5:08, Tyson continues to just walk in swinging wildly and missing.

-At 5:21, as Tyson rather lazily ducks, he moves into another quick combo by Thomas, then right into a clinch.

-At 5:44 - 5:51, Tyson walks in swinging wildly again, misses a punch or two and then walks into a jab and then a right hand by Thomas.

I could go on, but this pattern continues through the next few rounds.

In general, Tyson only occasionally uses head movement, instead tending to stand straight up and just walk straight in, using occasional jabs and bodyshots but also swinging wildly for the head from the outside and often missing. He's actually leaving himself even more open than he did against Bruno and probably getting hit with more regularity as well. He's also walking into clinches and allowing Thomas to tie him up and smother him on the inside.

These are exactly the sort of things you would rip him apart for doing against Bruno, but here you are choosing to downplay or overlook them and instead only highlighting the better parts of his performance.

But you could just as well argue that the Spinks win (or any of his quick blowouts for that matter) was too brief to fully assess how much skills/conditioning he had at those points either.