Why was Tyson's prime so early?

Dont agree

Dont agree.
atsch

 

Check out all Rooster C's posts on Tyson. They're all a joke. Not even worth responding.

 

Louis, Ali, Marciano, Liston, Frazier etc.

?

Most of Louis's work was done before the war. He made 21 successful defences in 1937 - '42. Just 5 years.

The talent pool was weak when Tyson arrived. The amount of gyms and fight club venues and professional fighters in Tyson's day compared to Louis's was far less. And Tyson came along when a load of wasters and left-overs were around. Something that everyone seemed to know - and accept - at the time, but has somehow been forgotten and re-written on ESB in recent times.

 

short heavyweights often have short primes. it takes such exceptional conditioning to overcome lack of height, that they burn out young. they also tend to take a lot of punishment in order to deal it out. Frazier while a great fighter, had a fairly short prime. Marciano retired at 31 years of age and it is possible he would have had a short prime.

 

OK.

:good

 

Because it continued to decline which in turn made people rethink their assessment of the 80's comparably speaking. Pretty common accross the board in all divisions and throughout boxing history.

 

I agree.
The HW division has become worse since the 1980s.

 

Would the real Foreman Hoooook please stand up, please stand up?

 

Because he didn't face real adversary until Holy.

 

Tyson is still sometimes chastised for demolishing Holmes because he was supposedly ancient. However, Holmes was absolutely fresh compared to the majority of victims in Marciano's reign, as was proven by Holmes' success half a decade after he fought Tyson. Then you add the real-sized heavies that Tyson fought (not a group of cruisers masquerading as heavies)... Smith, Tubbs, Tucker, Thomas, Berbick, Ribalta, Biggs, Bruno... No soft touches in the bunch. But Marciano struggles to put away stumpy butterballs like Cockell without notice from the Classicists. Joe Louis' defenses get christened at "the bum of the month club" only to be ascribed as a line of superskilled giants by revisionism. Sonny Liston erases a pathetic group of contenders, for which he gets credit, and then has the most ignominious reign in title history. I don't see any of these stretches of performances being as deep and consistent in their performances than Tyson's 86-89 run.

Tyson arrived in the wake of the great Ali inspired and sponsored talent of the late 70's, Dokes, Tucker, Tubbs, Thomas, Holmes... some serious talent there and real sized heavyweights. Not a bunch of breadline cruiserweights here trying to get off the dole, but real pro's, groomed from a young age during an era where heavyweight boxing in the US had its most popular champion. Granted, it was probably the swan song for US heavyweight talent but it was also an apex.

 

Often times, people will sharply dismiss 'would've' and 'could've' if it's at all used in a way to elevate Tyson. They want fact based reality. I don't think it'd be fair to deviate from that standard here. It's still Tyson's accomplishment, and one worth mentioning.

 

Agree, and Tyson went way past the expiration date. He was in absolutely impeccable condition from 1995-97, but nary used the same facets in the ring that had made him successful during his title run.

As far as his height, film and photography can at times be misleading or create illusions. In this video here, he looks amazingly short - although fast and powerful - in stature:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2rpfX7Gi6Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2rpfX7Gi6Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

 

Couldnt agree more! :good A point that seems to be overlooked on this board by a lot of people that dont take into account stylistic matchups. They might have been underachievers, but how many came uninspired and lazy to fight for the undisputed title? How much harder is it for a fighter of Tyson's style to beat guys that were mobile and boxed from the outside?

 

I strongly disagree with the notion that Tyson's opponents were somehow more "real pros" than the fighters of, for example, Joe Louis's era.
If anything, the opposite is true.
Some of the guys Tyson gets credit for beating probably spent more time at all-night cocaine parties in the years in question than in the gym. They certainly didn't fight and train full-time like Louis's opponents did.
Even well-conditioned Frank Bruno was a TV celebrity and pantomime attraction as much as he was a fighter, in preparation for Tyson.

Also, some of those guys just weren't very good. It's revisionism of the highest order to deny that Tyson had his own "bum of the month" era too. Glorifying mediocre contenders, has-beens and drug-addled under-achievers is ridiculous.

 

How are you that familiar with Louis's opponents training habits and careers?