Tyson- What if?

Saying he never lost when he was at his best would excuse too much.

Prime Tyson lost to Douglas.

1989 Tyson would probably have beaten Holy and Bowe.


I think Lennox would always have had his number.

 

Yes we should analyze the fight and what happened before and after the fight to put it in proper context.

I said he never said that he was 'prepared.' That quote you gave me was before the fight happened. Every fighter says that they're ready before a fight.

Tyson in an interview with HBO sometime later after the fight said he wasn't at his best. And most recently he said it in his documentary that he didn't train and that he had "had no desire."

But lets look at this situation seriously. You have one fight to prove your point which is the Williams fight (which lasted less then 2 minutes against a poor opponent). Okay that's one fight vs. two: Bruno - Tyson's worst performance up to that point and Douglas, which was an even worse performance. Then you have Aaron Snowell stating on record that Tyson was uncooperative and not training properly. You have Tyson stating most recently that he had no desire and that he didn't train. There's Tyson getting knocked down in sparring by Greg Page. Then there's all of the "speculation and hearsay" (as you call it) at the time about Tyson not taking the fight seriously and fooling around in Japan.

It looks like there's more evidence on my side then yours.

In any case, don't you think we should at least consider the fact that Tyson may not have been at his best, instead of just saying "welll.. its just speculation and heresey.. Tyson and Snowell is lying... bla bla." That seems like an incredibly narrow minded point of view of the situation.

Why would Snowell want to make an excuse for Tyson so long after the fact? And it's not making an excuse for your fighter to say that he was "uncooperative" .. that actually makes Tyson look bad (which kind of defeats the purpose).

Anyway, I'm starting to find this topic rather pointless since all your coming back with is "well there just saying that.. or there's an ulterior motive.. or this.. or this." It's kind of ridiculous since you could use that response to just about anything.

Show me some contrasting statements they've made AFTER the fight, and I'll listen to you. Meanwhile, you can go on youtube right now and listen to Tyson and Snowell stating plainly that Tyson wasn't prepared.

The footage shows Tyson using a jab sparingly, not moving his head as much as he did previously, and throwing a lot of sloppy punches. No one's saying he didn't use a jab or didn't move his head, obviously that's an exaggeration. We're talking about the method of his attack and the effectiveness and consistency of those things.

Anyway so are you saying that Tyson looked good in the Bruno fight? There was a clear consensus at that point that he looked bad. He was nagged about it in the post-fight press conference, where Tyson even acknowledged that he felt rusty.

There's plenty of basis. Just look at his face, and the way he fought. After the first round, he practically did nothing but stand in front of Tyson and let himself get hit. He was scared as hell in that fight and you know it.

Which is exactly what your doing. And I already said we can use other examples too - Berbick, Holmes, Spinks, Biggs, etc.

The criticisms you have about Tyson in the Thomas fight "missing and swingly wildy" aren't the same as the inconsistencies in the Bruno fight. The punches that Tyson missed in the Thomas fight were very quick, sharp punches. They missed, but they were very fast and Tyson was weary of any counter punches being thrown. It's a distinction in the Bruno fight where Tyson comes barreling in with slow, sloppy, telegraphed hooks and rights, with no consideration of being counter-punched. That's why he got hit with that left hook from Bruno. Notice he was countered off of a sloppy left hook that he threw himself.

Yes he used the jab in the Bruno fight.. how many times? And how effectively? It's basically non-existant compared to his earlier bouts. How many times does he throw more then a two punch combination? How many counter punches does he throw? How much head movement does he exhibit (compared to his earlier fights)? I can extend these questions to the Douglas, Tillman, Stewart and Ruddock fights.

I'm not gonna comment on each individual thing you posted. And your doing exactly what you excused me of doing earlier (picking small segments out of a fight).

If your honestly telling me that you don't see the difference between what he was doing in the Bruno fight and most of his 87/88 fights (or even going back to 85), you just aren't watching his fights close enough.

Tyson's MO post 88 was: load up SLOPPY telegraphed left hooks and rights, headhunt, de-emphasize the jab (ill use the word de-emphaize to make it clearer for you), don't throw more then a 2 punch combination, barrel straight in and de-emphasize head movement and countering.

Tyson MO PRE 89 was: use and work behind a consistent, effective jab (singles to tripples), counter-punch, throw 2-6 punch combinations , lead in with fast, accurate, sharp punches, use lots of head movement, and work the body.

No, there's a clear distinction in the way he took out Spinks compared to Williams, Stewart or Tillman. The way he took out Spinks, or any of his pre-89 opponents, was very methodical. He didn't just walk in throwing huge bombs, like he did against Bruno, Stewart and Tillman.


Anyway, I'll just end this just by saying that you need to watch his fights and look at his METHOD of fighting his opponent. We're not talking about the KO, how quick he got the KO, or the fact that he was using head movement or using the jab. Yes, we know he used the jab and moved his head post-88, obviously. But how EFFECTIVELY and OFTEN did he do it, compared to his earlier bouts? There's a clear distinction. If you can't see it you're not watching his fights close enough or you don't understand his style. I know that may sound arrogant but it's really simply, the truth. If you don't agree, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

No, assessing him based on everything he did during the breadth of his prime would mean NOT applying "contexts" to individual fights. That's how a fighter's quality is normally assessed.

So?

And "every" fighter makes excuses afterwards, just like I said at the outset.

Bruno was not his worst performance to that point, as has been said and shown already; he had others that were at least as "bad".

No, only more talk and speculation on your side (maybe).

You could "consider" that for every fighter that ever fought in every fight in history. What would that prove then?

No, the purpose of excuses is usually to not own up to a fighter's limitations; and that particular excuse serves that purpose well.

That's because you could apply those kinds of excuses to just about anything.

You ALREADY said you'd listen to me if I showed you any contrasting statements, and I've done that twice. First you said they weren't specific enough, now you're saying that because they were made before that fight, that somehow means they "don't count" in your view.

So does the footage of the Thomas fight.

Yes, YOU did - TWICE.

Apparently it's not "obvious" because others in this thread have raised you on this as well.

And it's not an "exaggeration", it's an outright falsity. If he used head movement, then he used head movement; if he used a jab, he used a jab. There's a clear difference between saying "He didn't do those things at all" and "He didn't do those things quite as much as he could've/should've." The latter may be true, but the former simply isn't.

Actually, you were the one who initially claimed that the fight the fights with Thomas and others couldn't qualify as "bad performances" based purely on the decisiveness of the wins.

No, I only said he looked no worse than a number of other subpar performances he had previously had.

And he received the same criticism for previous performances.

No I don't "know it," and neither would anyone else just from those points. That could just as well be attributed to Tyson overwhelming him with his speed & power and not giving him the opportunity to get off.

Ironically, you're claim that Bruno was "scared shitless" directly contradicts the very same "clear consensus" that you just referred to in your previous point, which roundly gave Bruno credit for fighting a gutty fight.

No, they were often very wild and telegraphed just like they were against Bruno.

Tyson left himself open to being countered a number of times in that fight (and actually was countered), as I've shown.

His punches against Bruno were not "slow" by any stretch of the imagination.

What I posted is at the entire crux of the matter.

Which is exactly my point, as I said.

You keep saying things like this, yet you're the one who refuses to acknowledge or address the close aspects of fights that have been plainly shown to you (not just by myself but others). Instead, you keep repeating mythical notions of the fights while claiming that no one else is "watching them closely". The facts don't lie, and they've been clearly shown to you.

 

My2Sense, why do you think Lennox Lewis lost to Hasim Rahman in South Africa?

 

This:

This content is protected

 

This is why I didn't continue with this thread. I knew it would get no where knowing how strongly both sides felt on the subject. The real truth is as a fighter Marciano deteriorated physically more so from 1951 to 1955 than Tyson did from 87-88 till 89-90. I know the argument is more so about Tyson declining due to his lack of sharpness, focus, and his skills being as honed as they once were. However, I find it incredibly ironic people use Spinks as a peak Tyson performance. He just barrels right in with zero respect for Spinks power and just goes blasting away. Yes, he had pretty solid timing with the KO but in reality he wasn't setting up his jab nor moving his head in a way shape or form for it to be his defined peak performance. More proof that his fall in 89-90 with the Bruno/Douglas fight is how Tyson was so declined in terms of sharpness/skills. I'm not going to say he didn't lose focus, nor am I going to say he was at his peak but he like My2Sense said he had poor performance previously that probably can be matched equally to the Bruno performance. Anyway, The Marciano was an example on someone declining in reality more so than another young strong champion, but, there's no real notice or detection by this from any analysis or non-fans. Even the Frazier was way past it by the Foreman fight gets overstated, but is far more valid than Tyson being an absolute peak in 87-88 and a totally different animal the next year in 1989. Heck, check Frazier in the fight against Chuvalo than check him in his fights with Foster, then Stander, then Foreman. The digression is obvious - it's noticeably. And there are people here talking about what Tyson said, as if that really holds any true meaning. You know what he said? He said his best performances in an interview with John Madden were in his fights with Marvis Frazier and Alex Stewart. That was "Tyson" at his best. Yep...

Sorry for doing what I said I wasn't going to. It can be hard to resist...

 

My2Sense the whole point is that Tyson post Spinks started to get away from some of the things that got him where he was.

Yes he moved his head, yes he used a jab (obviously it's an exaggeration when someone says he didn't use head movement - if you can't see that, that's your fault), but there's a difference in how effectively he moved his head, and how consistently he used his jab, post Bruno. There is a difference. I know because I know Tyson's style too well. I used to study his fights religiously.

Bruno was Tyson's worst performance up to that date in terms of Tyson not doing the things stylistically that he was taught by Cus and Rooney - using the jab consistently, giving lots of head movement, combination punching, counter punching.

When did you see Tyson post Spinks throw those signature 3-6 punch combos that he was known for? When do you see him counter-punching as effectively or consistently? When do you see him moving his head (bobbing and weaving) in succession 2-4 times instead of just once? When do you see him doubling or tripping the jab?

Counter-punching, along with head movement, is the essence of the peak-a-boo style. It's not about running in with huge bombs, as Tyson did in most of his fights post-Spinks.

As far as Tyson's other 'bad' performances, I'll agree with you Tucker was definitely not one of Tyson's best nights - he was a bit passive and lazy in that fight and he expressed disappointment in the post-fight interview about his performance. With that said, he was still 10x better then he was in the Bruno fight simply because of those things that I mentioned earlier (doing the things he was taught). His other so-so performances were Tillis, and I guess Bonecrusher though that was more due to an opponent hugging him all night.

Talking about what Tyson said or didn't' say or what Aaron Snowell said is a pointless discussion and ultimately irrelevant, because the evidence is in the fights. If you don't see that, then like I said we'll just have to agree to disagree.



btw it seems I'm just restating stuff I've already said countless times, and that's why I'm getting tired of discussing this. I think it's obvious me and Lefthook see things in Tyson's fights that you aren't seeing. In which case it makes debating this really pointless.

 

:deal :deal :deal

You heard it here from My2Sense.

 

He didn't barrel into Spinks. He worked behind a jab, and caught Spinks with a flush right counter punch that sent Spinks sprawling backwards and that's when he moved in for the kill.. Everything Spinks did Tyson countered. That KO at the end was masterful (another counter punch btw).

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2cOtzA64ns[/ame]




Tyson -Biggs or Holmes could be considered his peak performances too.

 

I always thought Tubbs was a good fight, Tubbs was a skillful fighter who gave Bowe a good fight and defeated Page and Bonecrusher.

 

Yeah I know what happened. I also think Lewis was not focused, had little respect for Rahman and was under prepared. Lewis was being very lazy in that fight and not fighting with his usual intensity. Even Lewis called Rahman the Buster Douglas of his generation, because he knew like most, Douglas and Rahman were not the killers the media spun them into. Reality was they were good solid contenders in their respective eras that came to win and caught their champions sleeping.
Had Tyson had an immediate rematch clause in his contract like Lewis had, (which became standard procedure after the Douglas fight), Im sure Douglas wouldnt have been elevated to the standards that some believe on this forum.

 

All fighters go through stylistic changes throughout their career. Whether it be from a change in trainer, age, or a physical setback. Sometimes as in the case of Holyfield, through a good trainer, a fighter can learn to use his physical deficits to his advantage.

Holyfield became more flat footed and less of a combination puncher and boxer as he got older under Duva and Benton. He tweaked and perfected a new style under Tommy Brooks, and then detracted again under Don Turner.

Lewis became more of a well balanced boxer who improved his jab and distance under Emanuel Steward.

Bowe went from a solid technician who worked behind a great jab to a looping righthand head hunter due to his laziness and poor conditioning.

Tyson had less head movement and emphasis on the jab and combinations to more of a stationary head hunter.

Ali used the ropes as his defense, as his footwork deteriorated.

Its just a definite factor in boxing, and in most cases fighters get worse. In the case of Lewis, and Holyfield they were able to improve themselves.

 

You've got to be kidding. What does SRL say in the beginning "Watch Tyson jump right into Spinks chest." And he does, he just has zero respect for his power and ferociously goes after him. You talk about him doing things against Bruno, but not effectively. There's nothing really smart nor affective but Tyson knows Spinks is a zero threat. His timing was great for the KO but this peak performance doesn't differ very much from the other ones later on. My post about the other fighters hits true but there's less of an excuse or reason to sort of dramatize someones decline. It happens for Tyson very much so. Did you ever compare to one point Tyson from 87 to 89-90 from Ali of pre to post exile? That's absolutely crazy, this is why people feel Tyson fans go way to far in defending Tyson.

 

Thats kind of the difference right there Pete. You're right, the slip that Tyson made before lowering the boom on Spinks was pretty spectacular, but as you said, his lack of respect for Spinks carried onto to performances after Spinks (who wasnt a big guy), and that was Tysons mistake, and the reason why he started getting hit more, as was the case in the Bruno fight, and the Ruddock fights.
The defensive emphasis started to disappear, and defense was what setup those openings for counter shots that Tyson could land much better, and without getting nailed.

 

Yes, he caught Spinks who posed no real threat, and Spinks really just tried landing one big punch. Nothing else... so why is this so revered performance? Because of the result. If this is a peak Tyson than all arguments about the Bruno fight and 88 onwards are complete out the window and invalid as far as I'm concerned. It's especially exaggerated, especially if you use this performance as your ideal Tyson.