Was Prime Mike Tyson Unbeatable?

Ok @White Bomber you say Magoo is right and there it is in his own words. So you’re conceding that Tyson was prime when he lost to Buster and thus your whole thesis is blown up and this thread is now pointless.

Thanks for your admission. It takes a big man to admit when he’s wrong.

 

Jesus Christ you’re still including the Douglas fight as one of the fights Tyson had prior to meeting Douglas himself as if this actually HELPED his inactivity going into THAT fight. That’s like saying the Chicago bears played twice inside of a week including against the Green Bay packers who they’re not even scheduled to play until tomorrow…. You need to find better things to do with your saturdays

 

So a guy fighting for the third time in 365 days is hopelessly rusty. Got it.

Well, it turns out Buster Douglas also had only one fight between 2/25/1989 and 2/11/1990 (they fought on the same cards, including Spinks if you want to count back) so I guess he was a complete rust heap himself.

It’s even worse that Tyson lost to a guy who was so rusty. Man, that’s a bad look for Iron Mike.

Now you’re going to tell me that a guy who goes 10 rounds in 351 days is absolutely sharpened to a point and tuned up like a Stradivarius while a guy who was so sharp he took his guy out in one is like a bicycle that’s been left in the rain for 10 years, right? Because nine rounds of work in 351 days is like a complete front-to-back engine rebuild but three world-class training camps are not, haha.

 

Yes I’m aware that Douglas only had the McCall fight in the last year. And Not THREE of them including the Tyson fight as you annoyingly keep insisting. I still can’t figure out why the F@&$& you’re doing that. And my response is exactly what I told you before :

1. Tyson was the type of fighter who’s success relied heavily on his activity and he was well accustomed to being active.
2. His decreased activity was not the ONLY problem he had going as has been covered add nauseum through out this thread and many others .

 

See Douglas’ activity in my post above. He had the EXACT same fighting schedule as Tyson. Some excuse.

And you really don’t understand how boxing works, do you.

Let me explain:

A fighter schedules a fight. He sets up a training camp. He trains and he spars to be sharp for that fight. So when he steps into the ring three times in the span of less than one calendar year, he’s had three training camps in that span. For a world heavyweight champion, those generally last 8 weeks or more. So that’s six months out of 12 that he’s either training or in the ring.

The rust doesn’t come off when the first bell rings. You don’t get rusty when you’re on a regular training and fight schedule.

That’s not the same as a year layoff which is what you want to make it seem.

He trained leading up to each of those fights. You’re saying ‘he was only fighting once a year’ and ignoring the training camps and that three fights scheduled in one year means three training camps scheduled in one year to keep him sharp.

Jeez.

 

See my response and then get back to me on how boxing works. And if you’re going to include the Bruno training camp, that would have happened in the months prior and leading up to February of 1989 and NOT within the 351 days prior to the Douglas match. And as you said yourself, Tyson didn’t train for Douglas !!!! He was slipping his pork into prostitutes !!!!

 

And do you have any evidence that Tyson was chaste before all of his other fights, the ones he won? He wasn’t a virgin from what I understand.

Now you say Tyson was the type fighter who had to fight very frequently, which means he wasn’t cut out to be champ because he was never going to be able to fight every three weeks as champion.

And if Tyson’s success relies so heavily on being super active in the ring, how did he ever win fights (much less regain a championship) after years in jail? That’s proof that he didn’t have to stay active to be successful against world-class opposition.

But that aside, what makes you think Buster wasn’t also exactly like that? He was off nine months before losing to Tony Tucker and he was off 11 months before losing to Evander Holyfield (and didn’t train hard) so why would you suppose he’s any different? In fact, we should put an asterisk by those two losses too and consider him undefeated from 1986-1997, right?

 

Is the argument that inactivity caused Mike Tyson to lose to Buster Douglas?

 

Douglas was only off 8 months prior to losing to Evander. And that had more to do with him coming into the fight looking like Barry white and facing an ATG. Tyson did fine as long as he was working with his original team and fighting 3-4 times per year ( as champ. ) after he fired his whole team ( as prescribed by Don King ) it only took TWO fights before he lost the crown. I think the evidence is pretty clear as to what worked for him and what didn’t. Life is too short for this argument

 

what you have to give Tyson credit for is he never backed up, he always kept coming forward, he took serious damage in this fight, imo he was out on the ropes for a second and still had the ring IQ and heart to launch a big left uppercut

This content is protected

 

You’re right, Eight LONG months. No wonder he was so rusty vs. Holyfield. So we’re not going to count that loss, right?

Oh, and it was his third fight after firing Rooney (canned after Spinks), he managed to defend his title twice successfully without him before he ran into a challenger with the physical and mental skills to manhandle him.

He lost when he fought Buster Douglas. You’re looking for every excuse in the book to not credit the guy who completely manhandled Tyson — his team, his ‘inactivity’ of only fighting three title fights in one year lol, him not being a virgin … I heard he had a nasty hangnail too, might as well throw that in there.

But if you want to stick to your guns, admit that Tyson must have indeed been a very limited guy if he could only win when he had a specific trainer, a specific manager and not have a specific promoter. Lots of fighters have become ATGs while (a) not having Kevin Rooney in their corner, and changing trainers mid-career, (b) not having Cus D’Amato, Jimmy Jacobs or Bill Cayton managing them, and changing management mid-career, and (c) fighting for Don King. It’s a shame Mike was so fragile.

Sad how some people will lock in on a narrative and simply not look at actual facts that don’t agree with it.

 

What is your point? Foreman won and he got off the floor to do it which is something Tyson never did. This is why tyson fans are hilarious, you make a huge deal out of fights a boxer WON but make a trillion excuses for fights Tyson LOST.

Foreman hits harder than Douglas and KOs Tyson. This is a lazy argument.

If you don't like me using the Douglas fight then stop using the Lyle fight.

Tyson was a robot who couldn't adapt.

Good thing Ali is better than Tyson than. Of course you don't think heart means anything, it's Tyson's worst quality.

Ali has a better chin, faster feet, better stamina, and is much more intelligent. You're only focusing on the dazzling qualities of Tyson.

 

Tyson’s prime lasted till he lost. He was the greatest he could be anyone when he was in his prime. The Soviet Union collapsed cause the USA threatened to send a prime Tyson over there. Prime Tyson was Prime Time before Deon Sanders was in High School. As anyone mentioned Tyson was beatable- ring rust? Yeah right?

 

Hey JT

I know there was some backstory for Louis leading into Schmeling 1 and there was likely complacency on Joe’s part at any rate.

As to it being being commonly accepted as the major cause to Louis’ downfall - no, I haven’t read that so much. No, I’ve it read it mainly being about the stylistic flaw that Max brought into focus and magnified with accent on the repeated, well timed counter right hands.

Now Louis might’ve been somewhat below his best at any rate but was still in his prime.

I guess the accent on fighters being in there prime (whilst perhaps not being at their best) is to avert claims that they were somehow pre or post prime when they didn’t necessarily perform up to scratch.

Maybe it was Mike Tyson’s career that placed the greatest controversy on the question (and perhaps associated definition) as to when is a fighter prime and when he is not. LOL.

I’m not too heavy into factoring backstories - everyone has them it’s just that some are well promoted/publicised while others are not.

Usually you’ll hear more about the woes of the better/greater/more popular fighters than their not so glorified counterparts.

Generally, the opposing negative contexts for fighters might cancel each other out or at least both sides need to be considered, not just one and therefore it’s best to leave them out altogether.

Interestingly when you take away excuses or heavily qualifiers for sub par performances out of the equation, Louis’ manifest career and performances (including bouncing back from defeat and/or less than stellar performances) stands up so much better than Mike’s.

Allowing for excuses stands Mike in better stead but then you would have to factor in all the equal and opposite excuses for other fighters, excuses that were not promoted or even thought of as legitimate qualifiers to a sub par performance.

 

1. Yes we’re going to count it. Because he was a fighter with a checkered track record going in with a fighter of Of proven greatness and lost accordingly. And with no real plausible issues stopping him
2. Yes that’s what I meant TWO title fights ( Bruno and Williams .) before losing to Douglas. Thought you had me there ?
3. See this is BS on your part. I already gave Douglas credit. I already said Tyson was in his prime. The only thing I’ve been trying to illustrate here this whole time is your failure to ad context to the idea that even though Tyson was prime there were other factors at works. Ones you automatically ignore.
4. I’ll correct this for you yet again… Mike Tyson fought ONCE between February of 1989 and February of 1990 before facing Douglas. Repeating over and over that he fought three times in one year and including the Douglas fight as part of that activity going INTO the Douglas fight is no rebuttal and makes you look foolish. I’ve been following boxing since the 80’s and have posted on this forum for over 15 years and I’ve NEVER seen this tactic used. Was Larry Holmes supposed to use his fight with Tyson as a tuneup for his fight with Tyson ? Thats really how ridiculous you sound.
5. Here is the one time I’ll agree with you ( unimaginable as that is. ) Tyson’s pathway to success was very narrow and relied on very critical components. He wasn’t a fighter like Holyfield who could jump from trainer to trainer or recover easily from illness or injury or inactivity to still go out and be great. This is true. But when he was hot he was hot