What would Tyson's career look like if he had more discipline?

i think mike had(and has) legit mental issues and weakness, remove all that and you might have the greatest hw ever, but you also might have a guy who never had the drive to make it at all.

with these issues(and i don't say that as an insult, there's been many times ive felt real bad for him) he would always be flawed and not far from a loss, but with decent discipline, no coke/booze and competent trainer and management he wouldn't have lost to douglas and wouldn't have gone to jail so would have had a longer prime and better career even if holy and lewis still got their w's(holyfield would always have had an advantage in that matchup imo).

 

If I'm not mistaken Tyson was highly praised for his victory against Bruno, infact either Leonard or Merchant said it was the best performance of his career. Tyson didn't come into the ring with a different mindset in any fight, he never had a plan B. His aim was to get the knockout ASAP, he couldn't adjust like a Joe Louis, doesn't bode well for a rematch. IMO Douglas beats Tyson even quicker in a rematch.

 

Tyson adjusted just fine to out-boxing an undefeated Tony Tucker (who had just stopped Douglas) when he couldn't get the early knockout. But Tyson's bad habits clearly had an effect on him. It is ridiculous to argue that constant boozing, chasing *****s all night, and doing cocaine on a regular basis would not have a negative impact on a professional athlete. The fact that he was getting knocked down by an old Greg Page in sparring while preparing for Douglas tells us all we need to know about Tyson's lack of focus before that fight. Not taking anything away from Buster, he fought an amazing fight that night. But, there is no question Tyson was somewhat less than 100% vs Buster.

 

It is well documented that Tyson stopped roadwork after the Spinks fight, he still hit the bag/mits and sparred but cardio was very low on the list, he also gained extraordinary weight because of his partying, poor food habits and lax training which he crash dieted off before fights.

Contrary to revisionism he got plenty of flak for the Bruno fight because he looked sloppy, wild and got buckled hard. Everybody was surprised that Tyson was not setting the KO up anymore but just walked in trying to land the big shot.

Larry Merchant started to severely criticise Tyson for his poor out and in the Ring habits and he was on of the reason Tyson left HBO, funny thing Merchant used to be one of his biggest fans.

It is also on record while doing a Ring interview when he was in the can Tyson admitted that it even surprised him that he went undefeated after Spinks til Douglas. His words were " Bruno and Williams should have beaten me, I was ripe for the picking."

 

Tyson didn't need to adjust, it wasn't exactly an inspired performance by Tucker now was it?? Like I've always said, where's the evidence of these all night coke binges that keep getting brought up as an excuse? So Tyson's victories against the likes of Thomas and Biggs are void because they were substance abusers??

 

Yeah, this could go on forever. I'll just add that I was around at the time and saw Bruno-Tyson live on TV (but didn't read any boxing mags tbf) and that I see the first Ruddock fight as one of Tyson's finest performances. Perhaps the first time he managed to stop a top opponent that was there mainly to hold on. And that there really isn't any signs of anything like decline (but a bit lack of concentration at times, though, as you would expect for someone used to crushing opponents without breaking a sweat) in his fights against Williams, Stewart etc.

But I've already said much of this haven't I?

 

Well let's say he somehow beats Douglas, or stays out of prison and harpoons the whale in the rematch.

There's no way he beats Holyfield. Holy had a great chin and was able to take Mike's shots. He was able to back him up and match punch for punch inside.

So he loses to Holy, loses the rematch and I assume his career pans out the same.

The one benefit would be he almost certainly beats Douglas given a rematch, but prime for prime Douglas always smokes him.

 

Lets assume that you are right here, and Holyfield always beats him.

Wouldn't loosing his title to Holyfield have been a lot less damaging than loosing it to Douglas?

You would be able to say "OK but Holyfield was an all time great, who might have beaten some of the other all time greats".

Holyfield's stock would also go up, because he would be the first guy who beat Tyson, and presumably the only person who could have done it.

All Tyson had to do to keep his end of the deal, was get past Douglas.

 

There wouldn't be as many excuses to make if he lost to Holyfield in 1990, especially not if he lost a rematch as well. Of course, some would still say he was in decline after Spinks, but there wouldn't be as much conviction in it. The suspicion would be strong that he just lost, plain and fair.

 

Fair enough.

 

I think several things gets muddled here a bit in several posts. So to clarify:

Did Tyson, after his almost instant and fantastic success, lose a a bit of concentration in the ring and in training for several of his fights? Yes.

Was he in decline - i.e. had he irrevocable lost something? Definitely not imo.

Had he beat Douglas if he had been well prepared? Very far from certain seeing the dominating fashion of Douglas's win.

Would he, well prepared, have beaten Holy (in 1990 if not for the Douglas loss, in 1991 if not for the **** case)? Also very far from certain given that Holy empathetically beat him later on.

So my best bet is that he would have lost to either Douglas or Holyfield, and there's a fair chance he would have lost to both, even if he had kept the focus from his early days. And that would actually diminish his standing in the eyes of many, since there wouldn't have been any "what ifs" like this one.

 

Could be the case.

 

But then there's always the need for more humility than what is usually expressed on this board (and that probably goes for me as well ). There are after all of cases were a loss has been turned into a dominant victory in the rematch. Louis-Schmeling being the prime example.

There are so many factors coming into it that one fight sometimes tells far from the whole story. And I won't categorically state that this can't be the case with Tyson-Douglas or Tyson-Holyfield (which was two fights, but still).

 

History is history. The result was Douglas KO 10 Tyson. It is what it is..

 

Yes a lot less damaging.

But so would the Douglas defeat were he afforded an opportunity to avenge it.

The biggest issue with the Douglas loss isn't that it was Douglas, it's the implication that Douglas had Mike's number.

Lewis lost to two opponents of a similar calibre but avenged both and hence gets massively more credit than he would had he just beaten them straight up.