Was Prime Mike Tyson Unbeatable?

Jesus, another ecxuse. We should make lists of threse. I think he could have even Duran beat. He's more unbeatable in this regard.

 

It's not an excuse. Tyson himself said so in his book.

 

Most of the worst excuses come from the fighters themselves, so that isn't really surprising.

 

Well you claimed in your comment that Tyson "Almost lost to Tillis" which was shortly before Berbick fight. Basically suggesting that Tyson was near enough in his prime, and the way you worded it and i apologize if i'm wrong, but it seemed like you were using the Tillis fight to discredit Tyson somewhat. Even suggesting "Many people had Tyson losing the fight" which isn't really true is it ? i think pretty much most boxing fans had Tyson winning 6-4 with the knockdown.

Tyson had only been a pro for 1 year and was still learning his trade, he'd be knocking out everyone left right and centre. And the Tillis fight was a much needed learning experience. Kind of like Foreman another KO puncher when he fought Peralta had only been a pro for 1 year, and was extended the distance in a competitive fight which he learnt from.

 

As I wrote in another post: No shame in struggling with a seasoned vet when on your way up. Just about all have or worse

But arguably losing to an unranked fighter is not something you should do If you're about half a year from being unbeatable.

 

That would be in reference to my comments re the Tyson vs Tillis fight which is fine.

I can accept that Mike wasn't at his "very" best but he wasn't as far off as some suggest and the real point I was trying to make is the convenient cropping of Mike's "prime" at either end and all the excuses made for this, that and the other Tyson performance including the fight vs Tillis and otherwise.

Mike was 19-0, 19 KOs going into the Tillis fight. What were the odds? I can't find them. I'm sure Mike was a heavy favorite with a KO win forecast. Sure, Tillis fought well but he'd still only won 1 fight out of his last 5, 3 losses going in. Here we have the problem again where, going forward, we could nominate several fighters who didn't fight as well as Tillis did yet Mike's obliteration of said fighters was "supposed" to have shown improvements in Mike and reflect his increasing dominance over the rest of the field??

The Tillis fight is very much relevant as a forecast of some chinks in Mike's physical and mental armor that could later be taken better and maximum advantage of. In Tillis, there was movement, there was the speed, there was the jab, there was the durability, there was the stoic resistance and the ACTUAL desire to beat Mike.

Cooper had a streak of wins before losing by KO to Zora Folley and then added another 4 wins going in against Ali. Ali's main failing vs Cooper was complacency and lack of focus for a very brief moment in time - resulting in a hard KD, which went against the grain of the fight otherwise. Remember, Ali made predictions and was trying to push the fight to his forecast. Sure, Ali went on to beat Liston in his next fight, looking that much more impressive. BUT Ali also re-matched Cooper. But for the KD Ali previously suffered in their first fight, the dynamic in the rematch was little different between he and Cooper. Ali didn't hurt Henry and Henry still proved an awkward customer.

As to Louis' loss to Schmeling. Max had 3 wins going in. I don't see similar excuses proffered for Joe who was more or less in his prime. He simply had a flaw (not returning the left to guard position on recoil) which Max cleverly and consistently took advantage of. Max still copped some heavy licks throughout but bravely saw his master plan through. The Bomber beaten fair and square. He regrouped, modified and went on to further successes. If you want to push Joe's prime back further, there were other later fights in which Joe had some issues but still prevailed - and where rematches were involved, we know Joe improved himself. So even in his prime Joe was making adjustments.

 

The flaw was just one part of it tho Pug. Perhaps the bigger problem was that Joe's success had gone to his head and training for the aging Schmeling saw him womanizing and playing loads of golf vs preparing properly. His trainer actually stated before the fight he had concerns as Joe had been slacking it. He ended up thinking it basically a blessing in disguise as Joe was at the stage where he needed a wake up call.

Leading into the second fight Chappie stated he wasn't worried this time as Joe had trained as he should.

Max definitely didn't beat the best Louis and I've stated this for years. It's actually commonly accepted. The flipside is that it was the loss Louis had to have to become what he did. The same can be said of the Lewis loss to McCall.

 

Can you definitively prove that Schmeling was prime, at his very best in the rematch. He’d already accumulated some losses and now he’s got the entire weight and pressure of the Nazi party and Hitler using him as an example of supremacy, which had to take a toll.

So I guess we can throw out both results since neither is the 100% absolute best version of himself by your reckoning. In short, it’s like they never fought.

As for Tyson, by the standards @Entaowed and @White Bomber, I don’t think prime Mike Tyson ever beat a prime version of any fighter, so how good really was he even?

Neither has put a strict parameter on exactly when Tyson’s prime is but apparently he’s post-prime as soon as the Spinks fight ends and his wins before claiming his first title are pretty inconsequential (if you want to say he beat a prime Marvis Frazier have at it lol). That leaves us with:

Berbick probably never had a prime. If he did, it was as a gatekeeper type who happened to win a title but not really a meaningful one in an era where a bunch of average guys traded out on a fight to fight basis.

James Smith wasn’t prime. Already had five losses. Wasn’t prepared to let his hands go. He did not fight a prime fight.

Pinklon Thomas had serious drug problems that degraded his condition.

Tony Tucker had a broken hand. Thus not prime.

Tyrell Biggs was another guy with drug problems. Like Pinklon, well documented.

Larry Holmes was well past prime, coming out of retirement on short notice with no tuneup.

Tony Tubbs was overweight. His best fighting weight was in the upper 220s. He’s almost 240 here.

Michael Spinks had bad knees. And his prime was at light heavyweight.

So by the standards of this thread that Tyson was already past prime by 23, he never actually beat a prime fighter of note in his entire career. So I guess he wasn’t all that, right?

 

I said nothing about Schmeling being prime for the second fight. He was certainly past his best. He was past his best during the first fight.

It's not like they never fought at all. They fought twice. Schmeling a bit past his best and a bit more past his best and Louis below his best then somewhere around peak.

People can extrapolate what they see fit from the encounters. At their finest i like Louis to stop him reasonably early. Others will differ. Therein lies the fun.

 

No. I don’t think any human being whoever lived is unbeatable in a sport, fight or any event.

 

I don’t think it’s that simple. Yes he was 24 years old. Yes he was undefeated and undisputed. Yes he appeared to be in great shape and yes he was heavily favored to win. But he was also having a lot of problems outside the ring. Experienced a complete overhaul in management. Went from fighting multiple times per year to only seeing 93 seconds of ring action in the 17 months leading up to Douglas. Ad to that some in competent corner work and I think a lot of champions could have been dethroned that night. Does he have some responsibility for that loss ? Absolutely. But I don’t think it was either a matter of him being “ past prime or “ just not that good. “ I think it was a perfect storm of bad management and personal problems

 

No. We already saw him lose in his prime so this is a strange question. Douglas was in a far worse predicament being emotionally compromised after his mother died, and an often rarely discussed factor is that he had issues with his dad as well. Not to mention the fact he was completely written off and expected to lose. Unlike Tyson, Douglas rose to the occasion. He simply wanted it more. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Tyson physically, it was all mental. Tyson was obviously in good shape to be able to last more than half a dozen rounds punching the entire time, he wasn't fat, nor was he wheezing running out of gas.

I don't subscribe to the idea Tyson is 50/50 with any other HW. Holyfield would have always whooped his ass. I think Foreman vs Tyson is 60:40 in Foreman's favor at worst, it's a horrible matchup. Tyson ain't beating Fury either. 60's Ali would give him all kinds of hell. Mercer and Vitali may drag him into deep waters and drown him.

 

Buster was dealing with the death of his mother, which is a lot more than Tyson was dealing with. On the one hand we have ‘Tyson’s in turmoil, how could he possibly concentrate on training’ and on the other we have ‘Tyson was stacking up ladies of the night in Tokyo’ so he must not have been too broken up.

Whenever Tyson has lost there’s (for some) and asterisk and ‘it wasn’t his fault.’ Who hired those cornermen? Mike Tyson. He chose them. He didn’t WANT trainers who would make him do what he wanted to do. That’s on him.

He doesn’t get to say ‘well I wasn’t my best for that fight so it’s not my real prime’ unless we do that for every other fighter in the history of boxing. The rules don’t bend for him.

He was 23 years old in the peak of youth. Every other fighter in history is considered to be in physical prime at 23 — heck, eveyr athlete in any sport — but somehow the laws of physics don’t apply to Tyson? SMH.

Ali spends 4 years in exile and rushes into a fight with Frazier and loses and what do we say? Wow, Joe was at his peak, trained to a fine-tuned instrument, all credit to him. Tyson changes his team (not suddenly right before this fight btw) and he’s supposed to be a shell of himself, no credit to Douglas.

 

I agree with alot of what you say but i've seen you mention Mercer a few times, for me he would simply get beat up by Tyson and lose a wide decision. If Mercer is having a back and forth war vs Bert Cooper, and struggling to beat Jesse Ferguson. Even in the 2nd fight when he was in shape he's not beating Tyson IMO. And despite Mercer having a great chin he could still be hurt, i remember when Holyfield floored him he was pretty shaken up from that left hook, so it's not out of the realms Tyson could stop him.

Overall i just don't think Mercer has the right style to beat Tyson, nor is he a smart enough boxer to do so.

 

1. Tyson didn’t fire his old crew and hire a new one. Don King did because he wanted full control of Tyson’s career. Tyson didn’t choose anything. 2.Douglas indeed lost his mother leading up to the fight, but Tyson had lost virtually his entire family in the previous four years including the people who cared for him and developed him since he was 13 years old.
3 Again I’m not claiming he was past his prime in a physical sense. But poor management, personal problems and an opponent who was well prepared to take advantage of these things could lead to anyone losing.
4. There have been many who have credited Ali’s loss to his exile and inactivity.
5. Critics were noticing problems with Tyson as early as the Bruno fight which was when Jay Bright and Aaron Snowel began training him. Also got floored in sparring with Greg page. On the night of Tokyo, they were treating his swelling with a dissolved bag of water.