Was Prime Mike Tyson Unbeatable?

Depends on if the bwack is bwoken and even if it is bwoken, as long as it isn't spthinal, he's Alexander the Great, Sonny Liston, Jack Dempsey. Stomper of your offspring's balls, eater of the hearts of the defeated who dare step to his impregnable defense, his powerful realm of pugilistic magnificence ... The first of his name.

 

Fixed.

 

Mike looked very beatable in some of his fights

 

1) Tyson indeed choose Rory Holloway and John Horne. Holloway was a friend of his dating back to his teenage years with Cus D’Amato. Horne was a friend of Holloway’s. They were in his camps dating back to 1988. When he hired them, They weren’t longtime King associates — the contact they had with King came from working with Tyson, not the other way around.

Don King didn’t fire Kevin Rooney. Mike Tyson did, because Rooney spoke to the press about his wife and his marriage, something Tyson had warned him not to do. It’s all available in testimony from Rooney’s failed lawsuit after being fired.

Tyson sued to get out of his contract with Bill Cayton because he didn’t trust him. One of those poeple you claim Tyson lost was Jimmy Jacobs, who set it up so Cayton would take over complete control of Tyson upon his death (he knew he was dying) and he never said a word to Tyson about it. Tyson had no real relationship with Cayton and felt betrayed by Jacobs.

2) In those four years where you say Tyson lost people (most of them because he fired them lol), he never lost a fight until Douglas. Those changes in his life were not recent nor looming big when he fought Douglas. Cus had been gone for quite a while. Buster lost the mom who raised him right before the fight. To equate those is just not reality.

3) Losers make excuses. Winners adjust. Nothing happened right before the Douglas fight that changed anything in Tyson’s picture. He wasn’t weeping about his team changing when he was knocking out Carl Williams, etc. He was in his prime. He made his own choices AND he was lighter for Douglas than he was for Berbick and Tucker … yet no one says he wasn’t in shape for those fights.

4) Frazier gets praised for beating Ali. Douglas gets dismissed, as you’re doing here by making up excuses for Tyson.

5) Jay Bright was a Tyson-picked Cus D’Amato guy. Aaron Snowell trained a ton of world champions, including Frankie Randall when he beat JC Chavez. Tyson didn’t look great against James Smith or Tucker or Tillis or some other guys and was already becoming a guy who either got his opponent out quickly or became a one-punch headhunter for the rest of the fight. It’s choosing evidence to fit a narrative. I can show you all the flaws you see later in fights before Spinks if you care to see them.

Again, he was 23 years old when Douglas beat him. In his absolute physical prime. He wasn’t some faded, washed-up shell of himself. This is less than one year after he destroyed Michael Spinks. People were not saying Tyson was declining … they said he looked sloppy vs. Bruno. They darned sure didn’t say it when he whacked out Carl Williams.

 

I almost forgot about this Douglas interview I watched somewhat recently, after watching it I remember thinking Buster is a hard ass mofo and 100% kicked Tyson's ass fair and square no excuses

"just like any other punch he's only like 5'10"

This content is protected

 

You said the key word ""Almost". He almost but didn't. This is boxing so there will always be an almost at one point or another.

 

a lot of this is inaccurate but have it your way. If you think that incompetent management, problems outside the ring and inactivity can’t lead to a loss even in the midst of one’s prime and that Douglas would have won regardless of circumstances then run with it. I’m tired of this 30+ year old argument.

 

The judges could have given it to Tillis without any real basis for complaint. Leaving it that tight is not "unbeatable".

 

And what often fails to get mentioned is that Tyson didn't lost a tight decision. Or even that Douglas cautiously pecked himself to a clear decision without doing any real damage, as for example prime Fury did to an ageing Wlad. He beat Tyson up and stopped him. This in the middle of three first round KO's scored by Tyson against good comp (the worst of them having been a really good amateur). The case is pretty solid that Douglas was the main issue here, not Tyson's life style.

 

So your angle is to discredit Tillis so you can discredit Tysons win over Tillis? Tyson was only 19yrs old in that fight and Tillis was a game opponent. And "Unbeatable" means he wasent beaten so yes Tyson was unbeatable.

 

Tyson was only 19yrs old when he fought Tillis.

 

Yes a month or so shy of 20, but he was apparently unbeatable half a year later. Doesn't add up.

 

Is it just me, or is the ratio newcomers/die hard Tyson fans very high?

 

No fighter is unbeatable.

 

Is it just me, or is the ratio of Tyson haters on this thread very high?