When exactly was Mike Tyson's prime?

i think people confuse prime with peak.
Tysons peak was '88 against Spinks, he was still in his prime vs Douglas but not at his peak

 

The fight was such a one sided demolition job Douglas would have beaten any version of Tyson with the mindset he had in Tokyo.

 

Since Clay/Ali is at the core for the fame of the other 70's boxers, namely Norton and Frazier, who'se entire credibility is based around Muhammad Ali wins/close fight with, let's take a close look at this masterful performers career and try to understand WHY he is hailed as the "greatest"

You see it seems pretty clear to me that much of Ali's career, is based largely on luck!

In officiating controversies,
In getting rematches,
And in odd circumstances all which favoured him.

This occurred right throughout his career.

George Logan: Corner threw in the towel when George was strongly fighting back.

Sonny Banks: Stopped on his feet at the start of the round with hardly a punch thrown. Clay was decked in this fight previously with a left hook!

Doug Jones: Sub-Cruiser bum 30-10 Doug Jones gives Clay a hiding, gets robbed, crowd boos and throws peanuts at Clay. Clay couldn't beat Jones convincingly.

Henry Cooper: 185lb sub cruiser 27-8 bum, 8 years older than Clay also decks Clay badly from which his corner pulls a split glove buying recovery time and using illegal smelling salts. Could have been KO, could have been DQ.

Sonny Liston: In his 40's, never fought a proper HW with a good record who wasn't coming off losses, retires with even scorecards via injury, takes a dive in the rematch. Pre-existing injury confirmed by doctor.

Oscar Bonavena: 5'10", 210lbs, earned shot by beating 3 bums (Piries, Woody, Ramos). Ali never went to a neutral corner for any of the knockdowns, and basically stood over Oscar as he was getting up, allowing him to score 2 more quick knockdowns and win on the 3 knockdown rule. The scorecards were also farcically one-sided.

Joe Frazier: 5'11" 210lbs Beat Ali in the 1st, Ali clinched over 150 times in 12 rounds in the 2nd, as he did in the 1st, yet never had a point taken away. In Manila Futch pulled the plug on Frazier just as Ali was getting ready to quit. Most analysts give Frazier 2 of the 3 matches, Frazier should have won the trilogy.

Ken Norton: Ali never bested Norton in the ring and didn't win more than a handful of rounds in any of the fights. The rubbermatch at Yankee Stadium was particularly egregious, and a hugely controversial result at the time. With fair judging Norton would be 2-1 against Ali at the very least, and ought to be 3-0. Foreman thinks Norton won all three, as do many others. As Norton put it, and I quote, Ali was 5 rounds ahead before the opening bell. Ali never really beat Norton.

George Foreman: Where to begin? Foreman was effectively held prisoner in a stockade (Ali was put up in the presidential suite) and couldn't spar for a month beforehand because of a cut eye. What with that, the setting in a thuggish third world police state, the loose ropes and the quick count, a very strange fight with odd circumstances that benefitted Ali. He was also reluctant to rematch, in spite of Foreman campaigning for one.

Ron Lyle: Ali spent most of the first the first ten rounds covering up on the ropes and should have been warned/DQ'd for not fighting. Lyle was ahead on the cards and stopped on his feet by the ref the only moment Ali was in the fight. Very weak stoppage for that era and again controversial. Ali was hurt worse in other fights (Frazier I, Norton I) and allowed to continue. Compare with Lyle-Foreman, a non-title fight which carried on through multiple knockdowns and was only ended with a ten count. Very fishy for a lot of people or, as Lyle's trainer Chick Ferrara put it, "it wasn't kosher".

Jimmy Young: 17-4 at fight, 34-19 bum, 209lb virtual cruiser. Ali didn't land a good punch in 15 rounds. Pitiful decision greeted with loud boos, and again controversial at the time.

Earnie Shavers: Robbed against Ali, again, many analysts have Shaver winning!

Leon Spinks: Whips Ali in the 1st, could have done it in the 2nd too if he'd bothered to take his 26-11 bummy 195lb career seriously!

THIS^ and the full low down on the quality of the rest of his opponents should give the OTNB something concrete to mull over for awhile.

So before my credentials are attacked again by LAced Up, Billeau and the crew, first investigate WHY this guy should be considered the greatest in the first place?

All in all a rather doubtful record. That's what I would say. Even against the criteria of the day (which is another story!)

So hopefully you begin to see that when guys like Norton and Frazier etc are rated because they faced the "greatest", it just might not be as great as it seemed!

 

If I missed it earlier, sorry. I’m curious why someone would think Tyson was under rated?

 

His reputation is based on the spectacular way he won and a disregard for how he lost and whom he lost to. A lot of mythology. Just a polarizing figure when it comes to ranking him. He's a little like LeBron James in that regard but LeBron has accomplished much more in his chosen sport than Tyson did in his.

 

Mike began his prime against Holmes. Bruno was the beginning of the decline. I think his celebrity might have got to him...too much crazy stuff. Getting rid of Rooney was tantamount in stupidity to Bowe taking Newman's advice to trash his championship belt.

 

prime lasted until Jail... i think at that point afterwards his body may have looked good.. but i think he no longer had the right mentality

 

stylistically guys like Tyson prime earlier and lose it quicker. I think his prime was near Tony Tubbs or Spinks.

 

Right up to Douglas.

 

Thomas/Biggs

 

What do you mean by ‘stylistically like Tyson’?

Floyd Patterson is the most stylistically like Tyson fighter in history — same trainer, same methods — and while he had a good first act of his career (at a young age too) he also aged well.

Just coming forward doesn’t mean ‘live fast/die young’ in terms of career. JC Chavez was a come-forward pressure fighter and he had a long career (even though he was also successful from his early years).

Joe Frazier is a guy I think of who was destined for a meteoric rise and fast decline … but it’s because he in many fights took as much punishment as he gave. Tyson’s style didn’t lend to him getting beat up even in wins — the only fight he got beat up in was Douglas as far as the first act of his career. That wasn’t after a series of wars or anything.

 

I like this post and I agree with your thinking on Smokin Joe. Now that dude was constantly in motion and constantly going to war. I believe Tyson's career would've lasted as long as his interest didn't wane. He was well preserved before getting locked up. Now could he adapt when his reflexes declined? Sure, but how well is the question.

Mike Tyson's prime: 1987-1991. Mike Tyson's peak: 1988. Mike Tyson's decline: 1989 against Frank Bruno. Mike Tyson's career ending: 1996 against Holyfield.

 

Exactly in 1988. Mike '88, had three fights: Larry Holmes, Tony Tubbs, Michael Spinks.
- Larry Holmes former HV champion; only time knocked out in 75 fights.
- Tony Tubbs - another routine win for Mike Tyson.
- Michael Spinks former HV champion and still lineal champion, destroyed in 90 seconds.
When exactly Mike peak was, I leave it to the readers to judge.

 

And all 3 fights were in the first 6 months, or as some professionals like to say the end of the fiscal year. Imagine if you will a modern fighter, heavyweight even, that could've conceivably fought 6 times in a one year!?

 

a fighter who relies on youthful energy and power to win.. A fighter like Leonard h as a little longer life, and Holmes a lot since he had a jab, yet that does not mean they keep beating everyone, but the decline seems to be less.