View Full Version : The Myth Of Mike Tyson


Pages : [1] 2

SABBATH
05-11-2006, 09:13 PM
How Good Was/Is Mike Tyson?

By Frank Scoblete
30 January 2000

Now that Mike Tyson's career is almost over, it might be of interest to take a cold hard look at just how good he was at his best to get some idea of where he stands in the rankings of the great heavyweight champions.

It is not a stretch to say that much of the fearsome Tyson persona of a decade or more ago was media hype and was little related to what he actually accomplished in the ring or against whom he accomplished it.

We can make a case that Tyson fought "never-wases" and "nothing-lefters" in his early career culminating with his knockout over an intimidated former light-heavyweight champion Michael Spinks, whose only real claim to fame was "winning" two controversial decisions against an aging and distracted Larry Holmes.

Other than the light-hitting, terrified Spinks and the out-of-shape, intimidated, comebacking, former great Larry Holmes, who did Tyson actually fight in his pre-prison days who was truly any good in absolute terms? If we measure competition based on who Ali faced, then who of all Tyson's pre-prison opponents was as good as Jerry Quarry, Oscar Bonavena, Ken Norton, Ron Lyle, Ernie Shavers, Joe Bugner, Mac Foster, Floyd Patterson, Zora Foley, Cleveland Williams, Jimmy Ellis, Bob Foster or Ernie Terrell, not to mention the awesome likes of all-time greats Sonny Liston, George Foreman or Smokin' Joe Frazier? Would you classify Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick or Frank Bruno with any those other fighters? Only if you never saw them fight!

The only real fight the pre-prison Tyson ever had was against the only decent heavyweight fighter he fought, a determined, well-conditioned Buster Douglas -- and Tyson was roundly beaten, battered and knocked out! That was Tyson in his prime, against a fighter who went on to "extinguish" himself by being knocked out in three rounds by Evander Holyfield.

If the pre-prison Tyson's boxing worth must be looked at with some skepticism, then the post-prison Tyson must be looked upon with scorn. Often in boxing, the true greatness of a fighter is not actually known when he is in his prime as he defeats opponent after opponent rather convincingly. It is only after he ages, slows down, and gets himself into wars are we aware of just how good the fighter is -- and was!

Certainly that was true of Ali. Before he made his comeback from an almost four-year forced layoff, there were all sorts of questions about his ability. Could he take a punch? Had he been beating up washed-up fighters? Did he have courage? Would he dog it if he were ever in a real fight? The layoff slowed Ali down, made him more vulnerable. What's more, great fighters appeared in that time, fighters better than any he had previously fought!

So a somewhat diminished Ali met each and every challenger -- starting with a comeback fight against highly ranked Jerry Quarry and then a second fight against vicious number-one contender Oscar Bonavena. His first career loss to Joe Frazier in his third comeback fight proved he could take a punch and that he had mountains of courage. That fight was the first of several "wars" Ali would fight in this second part of his career.

His next loss was to Ken Norton. Fighting 11 rounds with a broken jaw, Ali merely proved again that he was as courageous as any fighter who ever lived. His great victories against these very same fighters and his upset win over the god-like Foreman, showed what a great fighter he was -- and how much greater he had been before his layoff!

Not so with Tyson. His "layoff" was heralded with a return to the ring against a rank amateur, Peter McNeeley, whom Tyson "destroyed" with a wild flurry in round one. This same McNeeley was later knocked out by the bloated Butterbean in one round and has since lost just about every real fight he's had! And what of Buster Mathis, Jr., Bruce "I was knocked out by a gust of air" Seldon, Francois Botha, or Julian Francis? Are they credible opponents? Only if elephants can fly.

The only real fight the post-prison Tyson had of any significance was against Evander Holyfield, who was selected because he appeared to be a shot fighter, having lost two out of three to the disappointing Riddick Bowe. Had Tyson known that Holyfield was not a shot fighter, but actually the only great heavyweight of the 1990s, I'm sure he would have selected a different fighter to beat, perhaps a third go-round with the overrated Razor Ruddock who proved himself a worthy Tyson contender by being knocked out in one round by the otherwise cautious Lennox Lewis.

So here we have a very simple yardstick for measuring the greatness of Mike Tyson. He fought two hard fights, one pre-prison and one post-prison -- both of which he lost (subsequently, he ate his way to a third loss and fouled himself into a no-decision). The rest of his victories, pre-prison and post-prison, were over fighters who couldn't make the "C" list during Ali's tenure. So where does that put him on the list of all-time greats?

It doesn't. He doesn't belong. He's not even in the top 20!

If you think of the very few good heavyweight fighters who have plied their trade in the late 1980s and 1990s, it is a short list: Evander Holyfield, George Foreman (oh, yes, the Big George who fought Holyfield would have rocked Iron Mike just as he did Smokin' Joe), Riddick Bowe, and maybe Lennox Lewis and Michael Moorer. Tyson only fought one of them, and lost. The others he avoided.

I do not, as some writers do, lament the fact that Mike Tyson never lived up to his potential. In fact, I believe he did live up to it, fully, completely. His potential just wasn't all that great and that's what he became -- not all that great.

Brassangel
05-11-2006, 09:55 PM
Just listing the names of Ali's opponents doesn't make Ali's opponents great. The fighters were in better condition in the 80's and 90's, their training regiments were different, diets were different, etc. Even the rules of the ring were slightly different. While I'm not saying that Tyson faced better competition than Ali, perhaps the truth is that Ali was vastly over-hyped and he faced average journeymen who gave him a good run. This is very similar to your Louis thread and, while we know you hate Tyson, this thread will probably see little responses other than my own.

Furthermore, watch Ali's matches against some of the opponents he had trouble with (Cooper, Jones, Folley, even that German guy whose name I can't remember, Frazier, etc.), and honestly say that Tyson couldn't do what those guys did...only better. Dumbass.

SABBATH
05-11-2006, 10:11 PM
Just listing the names of Ali's opponents doesn't make Ali's opponents great. The fighters were in better condition in the 80's and 90's, their training regiments were different, diets were different, etc. Even the rules of the ring were slightly different. While I'm not saying that Tyson faced better competition than Ali, perhaps the truth is that Ali was vastly over-hyped and he faced average journeymen who gave him a good run. This is very similar to your Louis thread and, while we know you hate Tyson, this thread will probably see little responses other than my own.

Furthermore, watch Ali's matches against some of the opponents he had trouble with (Cooper, Jones, Folley, even that German guy whose name I can't remember, Frazier, etc.), and honestly say that Tyson couldn't do what those guys did...only better. Dumbass.Interesting comments from a poster I obviously over estimated. Neither of these two articles were written by myself. I clearly stipulated that at the beginning of the Louis thread (name of the original authour went by the pseudonym 'REVOLVER') while this article if you had actually taken the time to read and notice was written by sports journalist Frank Scoblete.

As a sports journalist, Scoblete is entitled to formulate and put his opinions to print, that is what he is paid to do. I fail to see how posting an article written by a professional journalist qualifies me as a 'dumbass'. Maybe the closed-minded individual who refuses to consider the opinions of others when drawing his own conclusions is the actual 'dumbass.'

By the way his name was Karl Mildenberger. If you had more than a passing interest and knowledge of boxing you would have known that.

Heckler
05-11-2006, 10:40 PM
Just listing the names of Ali's opponents doesn't make Ali's opponents great. The fighters were in better condition in the 80's and 90's, their training regiments were different, diets were different, etc. Even the rules of the ring were slightly different. While I'm not saying that Tyson faced better competition than Ali, perhaps the truth is that Ali was vastly over-hyped and he faced average journeymen who gave him a good run. This is very similar to your Louis thread and, while we know you hate Tyson, this thread will probably see little responses other than my own.

Furthermore, watch Ali's matches against some of the opponents he had trouble with (Cooper, Jones, Folley, even that German guy whose name I can't remember, Frazier, etc.), and honestly say that Tyson couldn't do what those guys did...only better. Dumbass.

Tyson would not do what Frazier did at all. Would tyson win the FOTC in 1971? i really ****en doubt it.

The fighters in the 80s and 90s were in better condition? You wont find too many fighters that were in better condition then a prime Joe Frazier.

SABBATH
05-11-2006, 10:44 PM
Tyson would not do what Frazier did at all. Would tyson win the FOTC in 1971? i really ****en doubt it.
Larry Merchant comparing Frazier and Tyson. He said the difference between Frazier and Tyson is, "Frazier was a mile wide and a mile deep, Tyson is a mile wide and an inch deep".

LondonRingRules
05-11-2006, 10:44 PM
=====It doesn't. He doesn't belong. He's not even in the top 20!======

** IBRO historians ranked Tyson 13th, Lewis was 12th, and Holy was 14th.

You seem to have a proclivity for making stupid, insipid posts.

There was no 21 yr old fighter in the history of the planet that boxing oldtimers ever proclaimed was the best they had ever seen until Tyson came along. Not even Dempsey, Louis, and Ali in their primes got respect by boxing oldtimers.

Anyone with brains knows Tyson never reached his full potential, but still was briefly the most dominating and destructive heavy in history and still has a great record.

SABBATH
05-11-2006, 10:55 PM
** IBRO historians ranked Tyson 13th, Lewis was 12th, and Holy was 14th.

You seem to have a proclivity for making stupid, insipid posts.

There was no 21 yr old fighter in the history of the planet that boxing oldtimers ever proclaimed was the best they had ever seen until Tyson came along. Not even Dempsey, Louis, and Ali in their primes got respect by boxing oldtimers.

Anyone with brains knows Tyson never reached his full potential, but still was briefly the most dominating and destructive heavy in history and still has a great record.In 1985 Tyson went 15-0 with 15 KO's. Only one novice opponent would retire with a winning record (6-1). Not one of these 15 opponents ever beat a world class opponent and they accounted for 154 KO losses. ****ing incredible! The glass jaw brigade! Of particular note is opponent Larry Sims who is stopped by wonderboy in 3 rounds. Two fights later it takes 42 year old Ernie Shavers who hasn't had a fight in 4 years only 1 round to KO Sims.

1986 isn't much better and this is the year Tyson fans will tell you his prime started.

David Jaco KO'd in 1 retires with a losing record and is KO'd 18 times.

Mike Jameson KO'd in 5 retires with a losing record and is KO'd 4 times.

Jesse Ferguson was probably one of Tyson's best opponents although his only notable wins were against Ray Mercer and Buster Douglas while he retired having been KO'd 6 times. Even still he finished the fight with Tyson on his feet and was only floored once in 6 rounds before the referee disqualified him for holding.

Steve Zouski retires with a losing record and is KO'd 9 times. In his 2nd fight after getting KO'd by Tyson in 3, 267 lb George Foreman who hasn't fought in 10 years takes only one round more than Tyson scoring a KO in 4.

James Tillis past his prime and now a decent journeyman loses a close decision to Tyson. Tillis never beat a top 10 heavyweight in his career and was KO'd 11 times.

Mitch Green. Here's a switch. A Tyson opponent who doesn't have multiple KO losses on his record. Green who never defeated a ranked fighter and retired 19-6 goes the distance with Tyson and is never floored.

Reggie Gross KO'd in 1. A confidence booster for Tyson who has failed to stop his last 2 opponents. Fought the first half of his career as a light-heavyweight and was KO'd 5 times in compiling an 18-8 career record.

William Hosea KO'd in 1. Another winning record! Retires 11-7 and is KO'd twice.

Lorenzo Boyd. KO'd in 2. Retires with a losing record. Incredibly Boyd suffers 41 KO's in 54 career losses!

Marvis Frazier KO'd in 1. Soft puncher with a weak chin but holds a decision win over Bonecrusher Smith, the only top 10 opponent win on his resume. KO'd in 1 in both career losses.

Jose Ribalta TKO'd in 10. On his feet, clear-eyed and complaining when the referee stops it. Retires with a winning record but still suffers 9 KO's in 17 losses and like most Tyson KO victims never beats a top 10 heavyweight.

Alfonso Ratliff KO'd in 2. A cruiserweight. KO'd by every world class heavyweight he ever fought. Retires with a winning record but is KO'd 6 times in 9 career losses.

That's 25 of Tyson's 44 Career KO's right there

Oh yeah, one other thing. Tyson's 27 fight pre-title opposition?

268 CAREER KO LOSSES !!!

Those were the tomato cans your 21 year old wonder boy built his reputation on Tex. Put that in your 10 gallon hat cow poke...

kjellho
05-12-2006, 12:24 AM
In 1985 Tyson went 15-0 with 15 KO's. Only one novice opponent would retire with a winning record (6-1). Not one of these 15 opponents ever beat a world class opponent and they accounted for 154 KO losses. ****ing incredible! The glass jaw brigade! Of particular note is opponent Larry Sims who is stopped by wonderboy in 3 rounds. Two fights later it takes 42 year old Ernie Shavers who hasn't had a fight in 4 years only 1 round to KO Sims.

1986 isn't much better and this is the year Tyson fans will tell you his prime started.

David Jaco KO'd in 1 retires with a losing record and is KO'd 18 times.

Mike Jameson KO'd in 5 retires with a losing record and is KO'd 4 times.

Jesse Ferguson was probably one of Tyson's best opponents although his only notable wins were against Ray Mercer and Buster Douglas while he retired having been KO'd 6 times. Even still he finished the fight with Tyson on his feet and was only floored once in 6 rounds before the referee disqualified him for holding.

Steve Zouski retires with a losing record and is KO'd 9 times. In his 2nd fight after getting KO'd by Tyson in 3, 267 lb George Foreman who hasn't fought in 10 years takes only one round more than Tyson scoring a KO in 4.

James Tillis past his prime and now a decent journeyman loses a close decision to Tyson. Tillis never beat a top 10 heavyweight in his career and was KO'd 11 times.

Mitch Green. Here's a switch. A Tyson opponent who doesn't have multiple KO losses on his record. Green who never defeated a ranked fighter and retired 19-6 goes the distance with Tyson and is never floored.

Reggie Gross KO'd in 1. A confidence booster for Tyson who has failed to stop his last 2 opponents. Fought the first half of his career as a light-heavyweight and was KO'd 5 times in compiling an 18-8 career record.

William Hosea KO'd in 1. Another winning record! Retires 11-7 and is KO'd twice.

Lorenzo Boyd. KO'd in 2. Retires with a losing record. Incredibly Boyd suffers 41 KO's in 54 career losses!

Marvis Frazier KO'd in 1. Soft puncher with a weak chin but holds a decision win over Bonecrusher Smith, the only top 10 opponent win on his resume. KO'd in 1 in both career losses.

Jose Ribalta TKO'd in 10. On his feet, clear-eyed and complaining when the referee stops it. Retires with a winning record but still suffers 9 KO's in 17 losses and like most Tyson KO victims never beats a top 10 heavyweight.

Alfonso Ratliff KO'd in 2. A cruiserweight. KO'd by every world class heavyweight he ever fought. Retires with a winning record but is KO'd 6 times in 9 career losses.

That's 25 of Tyson's 44 Career KO's right there

Oh yeah, one other thing. Tyson's 27 fight pre-title opposition?

268 CAREER KO LOSSES !!!

Those were the tomato cans your 21 year old wonder boy built his reputation on Tex. Put that in your 10 gallon hat cow poke...


So much hate :) It's actually quite funny that you did take the time to look ALL those things up.
I've read your posts and you truly are a real class act. I don't mind you disliking Tyson, it's your choice - but ftlog - WHY do you pollute EVERY single thread with your Tyson hate? Your fancy writing obviously impresses some (Yogi for example), but it doesn't impress me. As a matter of fact, I think that you know very little of boxing. Any dumbass with internet access can post exactly what you post. You must spend very much time looking these things up on the internet. Are you really that keen on impressing people on this forum? Posting your findings here and have the non-brighties (read Yogi) hugging your nuts :)Why?

Oh, and the fact that you feel the urge to share your Tyson-hate in a Tyson appreciation thread is just sad. Start a Tyson hate-thread if you need to express yourself and stop polluting every other thread with that ****. Is it just to piss people off? ANd in that case - Why would you want to do that? Seriously, I want to know.
Your fancy writing (cudos) does not really reflect your level of maturity. I would've expected more from someone who has little problems in expressing himself efficiently. Not trying to be rude or anything here but come on man..

Abe Attell
05-12-2006, 12:37 AM
If you rip Tyson, you have to rip Marciano:

at least Tyson fought one of the best lightheavyweights near their prime...lets not forget Michael Spinks was a great fighter, that was a naturally huge lightheavyweight, more of a small heavyweight/crusierweight...and if I remember correctly, only one of those wins against Larry Holmes was controversial, but that said, Larry wasn't really in his prime either, but Larry, nor anybody else, was able to knockout Spinks, and in dramatic fashion.

Tyson was also the only person to knockout Larry Holmes, though old, Larry would have another career after the Tyson fight...a career which included close fights to really good opponents.


All that said, Tyson never lived up to his potential, nor was he able to fight a great fighter in his prime.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 12:41 AM
Any dumbass with internet access can post exactly what you post.
The poster I was responding to was LRR who stated that at 21 years of age Tyson was an All Time Great. I followed Tyson's career since the 1984 Olympic Trials and own copies of almost all of his fights. I've seen my share of Tyson, certainly enough to debate anyone on these threads. I did my leg work, you know my position and I backed it up.

I'm waiting for you to back up your rebuttal, unless you are not up to the intellectual capabilities of "any dumbass with internet access."

Abe Attell
05-12-2006, 12:42 AM
Tyson would not do what Frazier did at all. Would tyson win the FOTC in 1971? i really ****en doubt it.

The fighters in the 80s and 90s were in better condition? You wont find too many fighters that were in better condition then a prime Joe Frazier.

Well it didn't matter how great conditioned Joe was, he was blown out by Foreman both times

kjellho
05-12-2006, 12:43 AM
Don't avoid the questions. Keep this on a mature level.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 12:49 AM
Don't avoid the questions. Keep this on a mature level. What questions? Name me any fighter considered a top 10 All Time Great heavyweight who built his reputation on the backs of 27 fighters with 269 career KO losses. Tyson's reputation was based on probably the weakest pre-title competition of any heavyweight champion. Only George Foreman is comparable but at least he wasn't considered a top 10 ATG at 21 years of age.

Abe Attell
05-12-2006, 12:52 AM
Have you seen the opponents Rocky Marciano fought before winning the title?

and how many of thes guys would actually be considered true heavyweights?

kjellho
05-12-2006, 01:01 AM
What questions?

The ones with a question mark at the end.

Heckler
05-12-2006, 01:26 AM
Well it didn't matter how great conditioned Joe was, he was blown out by Foreman both times

Your point being? Should we discredit Frazier for being beat convincingy in a bad style matchup? against a fighter (in his prime) that would probably clean up the divisions in both the 80's and the 90's

Heckler
05-12-2006, 01:29 AM
If you rip Tyson, you have to rip Marciano:

at least Tyson fought one of the best lightheavyweights near their prime...lets not forget Michael Spinks was a great fighter, that was a naturally huge lightheavyweight, more of a small heavyweight/crusierweight...and if I remember correctly, only one of those wins against Larry Holmes was controversial, but that said, Larry wasn't really in his prime either, but Larry, nor anybody else, was able to knockout Spinks, and in dramatic fashion.

Tyson was also the only person to knockout Larry Holmes, though old, Larry would have another career after the Tyson fight...a career which included close fights to really good opponents.


All that said, Tyson never lived up to his potential, nor was he able to fight a great fighter in his prime.

He beat spinks, spinks was terrified and put up next to NO FIGHT. Didn't Marciano beat a great LHW near his prime.. Archie Moore? No your probably right he didn't. Bob Foster was a great fighter, but a natural LHW. Muhammad Ali demolished him but we don't use that win as a base for praising Ali do we?

worldbfree
05-12-2006, 02:16 AM
your measuring stick has a flaw...there's no one thing that measures greatness...sometimes it's not just who you fought, but also where, when, the way you fought. Sometimes the record can't even measure greatness.

Its so laughable that one would attempt to claim Mike Tyson is the lesser for fighting those he fought, without also examining the greater context. He fought the man in front of him...and in boxing it is well documented that the figurative David and Goliath is only one split second worth of carelessness from becoming a historical event. But Tyson was better than just good, not only did he consistently win, but he demolished men who were on the brink of fame if they could only find that careless moment to exploit...the fact that those moments never happened during Mike’s reign was no accident of fate...he was great. He obliterated man with all the motivation in the world. He instilled fear both in and outside the ring, and his power was not just that of a good puncher, his defense was not just that of a good fighter, his accuracy was not just that of a good fighter. Mike Tyson was great...and like those who were great before him...he separated himself from the pack.

Attempting to diminish the accomplishments of Mike Tyson by comparing him to those of the past is a worthless argument. It is impossible to ascertain whether or not Ali would have defeated a prime Mike Tyson or visa versa. What is apparent is that both were great. Attempting to judge one athlete by comparing him to athletes of a different era is an impossible task. It's like the Jordan vs Chamberlain debate. Not only was the competition different, but they were different.

Using your argument I could say Michael Jordan was "over hyped." If you'll recall there was no other great players during his dominance...furthermore, most teams would not dare have their "star" guard MJ for it would be exhausting and therefore the task was handed to some "C" player whom Mike would dominat and therefore he never played against anyone. But Jordan's performance should not only be judged based on who was guarding him (ie John Starks), but instead on the way in which he performed. He seldom failed to win. He scored at will. He instilled fear in opponents. He forced his will over that of those who studied him relentlessly. He was hunted and his position at the top of the mountain was coveted, but he rarely fell. Spare me the numbers. Ask me if Arturo Gatti is great though his record is stained. Ask me if RJJ dominated multiple divisions toying with opponents who are still fighting competitively amongst the top fighters in their divisions. Ask me if Ricky Hatton would have been a failure had he not come to America. Better yet ask yourself. Chump!

ps. you can send that to Frank Scoblete

realheavyhands
05-12-2006, 02:18 AM
Larry Holmes at 40 something alsmost beat holyfield and dominted ray mercer he fought tyson in his 30s . In 1985 He had just turned pro of course he is going to fight easy opposition early , he also was still fighting southpaw in some of those fights so he never even had his style developed completely at that time. Its sad I cant see how someone can deny tyson until 1988 MIGHT have been the greatest fighter that had ever lived. He was devopled by cusdamto, there was no fighter like tyson at that time. if you watch floyd mayweather he and tyson fought alot alike. After 1988 tyson was a swarmer no longer a boxer

RockyMarcianofan00
05-12-2006, 02:18 AM
Have you seen the opponents Rocky Marciano fought before winning the title?

and how many of thes guys would actually be considered true heavyweights?
I hate ppl like u
i always post links giving Marciano's opponents credit.
Some of Marciano's good pre-title fights
Carmine Vingo
Roland Lastarza
Rex Layne
Joe Louis
etc

the point is with this thread and many other fighters is that ur always going to have to fight bums on ur way to the top. Not all of ur opponents are gunna be top contenders. You gotta fight who they give u and not duck anyone.Honestly how can u say mike tyson is a myth the guy dominated everyone until buster douglas. and even after taht (pre-prison) he still dominated. The guy was hella strong, Fast, good footwork, defense, head movement, he had it all. He's definitely a great

ricecrispi
05-12-2006, 02:27 AM
every champ uses bums as a stepping stool. Not every fighter would want to face tyson if they saw what he could do.

Tyson did fight many tomato cans to get his shot but for that 2-3 years he was hungry and dangerous fighter that demolished many good fighters of the 80's fighters. Then he to for granted what he developed and overestimated how good he truly was and let all the fame get to his head. Didn't have the mental focus and stability to make a great champ

Yaman
05-12-2006, 03:41 AM
Now i know Tyson raped someone close to Jack sabbath. Joe Louis not great, Tyson a myth, whats next? Sam Langford a bum? Go back to jacking off to Ozzy from the 70s.

sleazyfellow
05-12-2006, 04:44 AM
ozzy is a myth all hisself,he cant sing for anything and shoulda stopped making music after sabbath since all the songs made by him sound the same, kinda like robbie zombi!! and tyson would phuck him till he loves it ***got!

mgkirkpatrick
05-12-2006, 05:11 AM
yep of all fighters tyson exclusively fought bums early in his career. o no hang on.. everyone did. and marciano is the only boxer of all time who won his first 20 fights quicker. i hate this tyson is a myth ****. u discredit his demolition of spinks because spinks was scared of him? i say further praise to the him for making a good boxer **** himself. trot out all the statistics you want but a picture is worth a thousand words and some of us would prefer to acknowledge what we saw of the prodigy that was iron mike tyson rather than construe a tyson hate thread from as many pieces of circumstantial evidence we can find on the net.
btw this is not a **** u sabbath thing this is a conflict of opinion. speakin for myself i would take greater notice of critical evaluation of his ability as a fighter, and not the integrity of his record.

uve picked apart the paper work, now pick apart his power, his irrefutable ability to throw loaded, quick silver combinations with deadly accuracy. dispute his handspeed, dispute his ability to work the angles, dispute the intense and evasive head movement that he utilised combined with the ferocity he deployed. (obviously im talking prime here)

im serious man, im reasonable and i will listen to an objective critque of tysons boxing ability. let rip.

Smashing
05-12-2006, 05:31 AM
"i have all Tyson fights on tape",why have you all his fights, there must be something you like about Tyson
Tyson was a phenomenon, youngest heavyweight champ and prolly one of the most exciting heavyweights ever regardless
thats what puts him in the top list

LondonRingRules
05-12-2006, 05:41 AM
The poster I was responding to was LRR who stated that at 21 years of age Tyson was an All Time Great. I followed Tyson's career since the 1984 Olympic Trials and own copies of almost all of his fights. I've seen my share of Tyson, certainly enough to debate anyone on these threads. I did my leg work, you know my position and I backed it up.

I'm waiting for you to back up your rebuttal, unless you are not up to the intellectual capabilities of "any dumbass with internet access."
** Sho nuff Hoss, we see what's dribblin' down your legwork with the "career KO losses" of Tyson's opposition. That's a pretty serious fetish you got for Tyson, but it ain't healthy.

Tyson never fought anyone as bad as Jimmy Robinson who lost almost every bout he ever had, and lost it by KO. Tyson never defended against a "Lion of Flanders" Coopman or lost his title to an amateur LH with no teeth and a glass jaw.

At an age when Tyson started winning belts and defending titles by brutal KOs, Ali was being deposited on his rump by Banks and Cooper in controversial wins and squeaking out close decisions over Doug Jones. Only one fighter in history had a comparable run of dominance and destruction before being derailed than Tyson and that was Wilfredo Gomez.

Every fighter has his weaknesses, even the great Rock, but you publishing some tabloid trash by some knucklenoggin who was beat up every day of his jr high life and had to run from the room everytime Tyson showed up to fight shows what fetid winds blow up your skirt missy.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 08:07 AM
Tyson never fought anyone as bad as Jimmy Robinson who lost almost every bout he ever had, and lost it by KO. Nice try Boss Hogg. Jim Robinson was a last minute substitute when Clay's original opponent Willie Guelat (who had a winning record) failed to appear. Jim Robinson is THE ONLY OPPONENT MUHAMMAD ALI FACED WHO HAD A LOSING RECORD.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 08:38 AM
1) WHY do you pollute EVERY single thread with your Tyson hate?

2) Are you really that keen on impressing people on this forum?

3) Why?

4) Is it just to piss people off?

5) Why would you want to do that?

Here are my answers just for you kjellho.

1) I don't. I post on selected threads.

2) No.

3) Not applicable.

4) No.

5) Not applicable.

Now no more interviews please.

Yaman
05-12-2006, 08:45 AM
You got owned jack. Now please, no more ''Tyson's opponents got KO'd the most'' fetish please.

LondonRingRules
05-12-2006, 10:20 AM
Nice try Boss Hogg. Jim Robinson was a last minute substitute when Clay's original opponent Willie Guelat (who had a winning record) failed to appear. Jim Robinson is THE ONLY OPPONENT MUHAMMAD ALI FACED WHO HAD A LOSING RECORD.
** What nitwit you have Mr. Piggy.

When Ali was 20, he was facing the likes of Don Warner who not only finished with a losing record and lost most of his bouts by KO, but only won one more bout in his career after Ali.

Tyson was busy starting to blow out the heavyweight contenders, champs, and former champs at age 20.

How's Mrs. P doin'?

mgkirkpatrick
05-12-2006, 12:09 PM
Here are my answers just for you kjellho.

1) I don't. I post on selected threads.

2) No.

3) Not applicable.

4) No.

5) Not applicable.

Now no more interviews please.


um.. could u answer my post please.

BSD
05-12-2006, 01:11 PM
The poster I was responding to was LRR who stated that at 21 years of age Tyson was an All Time Great. I followed Tyson's career since the 1984 Olympic Trials and own copies of almost all of his fights. I've seen my share of Tyson, certainly enough to debate anyone on these threads. I did my leg work, you know my position and I backed it up.

I'm waiting for you to back up your rebuttal, unless you are not up to the intellectual capabilities of "any dumbass with internet access."

SABBATH, you have entirely too much time on your hands. I take it you don't think guys like Bruno, Botha, and Ruddock are good fighters. Your point of view will have more merit when you can knock those guys out.
Some people think Tyson did not live up to his potential. I think he did fulfill his potential and was the most dominant heavyweight of the 80s. The problem is that fans would have liked to see more and those that dislike him and make stupid threads do so because they don't like his character.

Yaman
05-12-2006, 01:29 PM
Well, thats his fetish so you cant blame him.
I know who you are. You're Smasher.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 02:00 PM
u discredit his demolition of spinks because spinks was scared of him? I re-read your post and this was the only question mark I found.

In any event that is a statement, not a question so I'm unsure what you want me to answer.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 03:02 PM
When Ali was 20, he was facing the likes of Don Warner who not only finished with a losing record and lost most of his bouts by KO, but only won one more bout in his career after Ali.

Tyson was busy starting to blow out the heavyweight contenders, champs, and former champs at age 20. Well Dag Gummit! I do declare! You know son, if I didn't know ne better I'd swear youse a regulah Jackass! Now I reckon that boy Clay opened up a dang 50 gallon drum of whoop ass on that there Warnar fellah, cus he wouldn't shake Clay's hand at that there weigh-in. Dang Warner wasn't the same after. Feller did have a winning record though, 12-6 I do believe. Finished his career 13-14, well by golly I'll be a horned tooth craw daddy.

Now son, I'm about fixin do be all over you like piss ants on a snow cone. That there yankee boy Tyson won his title 'gainst the Berbick feller in his 28th fight. Now let me tell ya somethin' there pardner. That Clay feller? In his 28th fight he was whippin that 'Ole Octopus Terrell up there in yer neck a the woods Houston I recall.

When Clay was givin' 5 knuckle introductions and stoppin' heavyweight champs like that Big Ugly Bear and The Rabbit, your yankee boy was fightin' Tillis, Green and Gross. Sounds kinda like a law firm my my wife Lula Belle used ta work fer down there in Galveston. Yee Haw, I'll be fit ta be tied if them first two fellers didn't go the distance. ****, Tillis dang near won the hootin' match.

Now by my reckonin' Clay was the Champeen and that there fight was Clay's 8th defence. So any comparin' between that dirty yankee Tyson and country boy Clay should just about end right about there if yer understandin. If yer hard headed son, let one ole' country boy spell er out to ye in plain ol' english. Clay already had the better career 28 fights in boy. What's that? Yer hard a hearin' are ya?

If them two fellers ever did fight I figure Clay would hit that yankee boy so much his kids be borned dizzy, by god. Probly wipe the floor with Tyson then whup his yankee ass again fer not gittin in them corners.

Y'all come back now y'hear.

Dempsey 1919
05-12-2006, 03:50 PM
Well Dag Gummit! I do declare! You know son, if I didn't know ne better I'd swear youse a regulah Jackass! Now I reckon that boy Clay opened up a dang 50 gallon drum of whoop ass on that there Warnar fellah, cus he wouldn't shake Clay's hand at that there weigh-in. Dang Warner wasn't the same after. Feller did have a winning record though, 12-6 I do believe. Finished his career 13-14, well by golly I'll be a horned tooth craw daddy.

Now son, I'm about fixin do be all over you like piss ants on a snow cone. That there yankee boy Tyson won his title 'gainst the Berbick feller in his 28th fight. Now let me tell ya somethin' there pardner. That Clay feller? In his 28th fight he was whippin that 'Ole Octopus Terrell up there in yer neck a the woods Houston I recall.

Now by my reckonin' Clay was the Champeen and that there fight was Clay's 8th defence. So any comparin' between that dirty yankee Tyson and country boy Clay should just about end right about there if yer understandin. If yer hard headed son, let one ole' country boy spell er out to ye in plain ol' english. Clay already had the better career 28 fights in boy. What's that? Yer hard a hearin' are ya?

If them two fellers ever did fight I figure Clay would hit that yankee boy so much his kids be borned dizzy, by god. Probly wipe the floor with Tyson then whup his yankee ass again fer not gittin in them corners.

Y'all come back now y'hear.

yes, this is true. tyson may have won the title quicker than ali did, but ali won the title in much fewer fights than tyson did. :)

Mike Tyson77
05-12-2006, 06:20 PM
Hey SABBATH, maby you should tell the 52 guys that Tyson demolished this load of crap.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 06:24 PM
Hey SABBATH, maby you should tell the 52 guys that Tyson demolished this load of crap.
Well Tyson only had 50 wins and 4 of them were against 2 guys (Bruno, Ruddock) so that makes 48 different guys he defeated. I'll chalk you up as another Tyson fanboy who doesn't have his facts straight.

LondonRingRules
05-12-2006, 06:59 PM
yes, this is true. tyson may have won the title quicker than ali did, but ali won the title in much fewer fights than tyson did. :)
** Hey, kid, after scares against Banks, Cooper, and Jones, it's no wonder they held him back from fighting more frequently. As it was, it was his lousy performances combined with his big mouth that secured him a title shot against Liston. Had he showed tougher earlier, he would have been put off a long time like Tyson was.

That's OK kid, your heart is in the right place, and when Sabbath can no longer change his Depends himself, why you can pitch right in and help him with the job and earn good karma!

catskills23
05-12-2006, 07:24 PM
Alis comp in the 60's such as cooper, mildenberger, folley, terell , liston, patterson, london was no better than tysons comp of berbick, thomas, tucker,tubbs, spinks,holmes . Was alis win for an old liston who was between 35 and 40 when he fought ali and was undertrained and taking ali lightly , who just fought 3 rounds in the previous 3 years any better than tysons win over a 38 year old holmes who was just coming back from a 2 year lay off . ali demolished liston but if your being objective you cant give ali any more credit in demolishing a washed up liston than tyson demolishing a washed up holmes .

Yaman
05-12-2006, 07:42 PM
Alis comp in the 60's such as cooper, mildenberger, folley, terell , liston, patterson, london was no better than tysons comp of berbick, thomas, tucker,tubbs, spinks,holmes . Was alis win for an old liston who was between 35 and 40 when he fought ali and was undertrained and taking ali lightly , who just fought 3 rounds in the previous 3 years any better than tysons win over a 38 year old holmes who was just coming back from a 2 year lay off . ali demolished liston but if your being objective you cant give ali any more credit in demolishing a washed up liston than tyson demolishing a washed up holmes .

The question in that is, was washup Holmes better than washed up Liston?

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 07:48 PM
The question in that is, was washup Holmes better than washed up Liston?
Sonny Liston hadn't lost a fight in 9 years was coming off two 1 round KO's of a former heavyweight champion was 32 years old and undisputed heavyweight champion of the world.

Holmes hadn't won a fight in 3 years, hadn't fought in 2 years, was coming off two losses to a former light-heavyweight champion and was 38 years old.

Is that simple enough for you?

catskills23
05-12-2006, 07:51 PM
[QUOTE=SABBATH]Sonny Liston hadn't lost a fight in 9 years was coming off two 1 round KO's of a former heavyweight champion was 32 years old and undisputed heavyweight champion of the world.

Holmes hadn't won a fight in 3 years, hadn't fought in 2 years, was coming off two losses to a former light-heavyweight champion and was 38 years old.

listons age was unknown its believed that he could of being anything between 35 and 40 there was way he was 32 .

Yaman
05-12-2006, 07:51 PM
Sonny Liston hadn't lost a fight in 9 years was coming off two 1 round KO's of a former heavyweight champion was 32 years old and undisputed heavyweight champion of the world.

Holmes hadn't won a fight in 3 years, hadn't fought in 2 years, was coming off two losses to a former light-heavyweight champion and was 38 years old.

Is that simple enough for you?

Oh, as usual, reading articles and boxrec. You might wanna check out footage for once. But yeah, Liston was a little beter, thats why he was KO'd in 1 by a phantom punch.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 07:57 PM
Oh, as usual, reading articles and boxrec. You might wanna check out footage for once. But yeah, Liston was a little beter, thats why he was KO'd in 1 by a phantom punch.
At my age son, I've spent more time watching boxing than you've spent breathing. I've got more fights in my library than you have brain cells, that's for sure.;)

Yaman
05-12-2006, 08:05 PM
At my age son, I've spent more time watching boxing than you've spent breathing. I've got more fights in my library than you have brain cells, that's for sure.;)

Good one. Keep avoiding the question.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 10:15 PM
Good one. Keep avoiding the question.
And your question is what?

mgkirkpatrick
05-12-2006, 10:22 PM
I re-read your post and this was the only question mark I found.

In any event that is a statement, not a question so I'm unsure what you want me to answer.


funny, i actually gave u credit before this. u know perfectly well what i called into question but if you want to be a ****stain and would rather avoid the issues i raised just say it. you act like an intellectual giant and then u pretend not to understand what i questioned. keep up the regurgitation ozzy, you're impressing yourself if no one else.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 10:41 PM
funny, i actually gave u credit before this. u know perfectly well what i called into question but if you want to be a ****stain and would rather avoid the issues i raised just say it. you act like an intellectual giant and then u pretend not to understand what i questioned. keep up the regurgitation ozzy, you're impressing yourself if no one else.
GIVE-ME-THE-****ING-QUESTION-AND-I-WILL-ANSWER-IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Smokin'
05-12-2006, 10:45 PM
LOL, Sabbath is copping his information from another source. Cyberboxinzone forums. What a loser.

SABBATH
05-12-2006, 10:49 PM
LOL, Sabbath is copping his information from another source. Cyberboxinzone forums. What a loser.
That's pretty funny because I've never been on that site. Boxingscene is the only exclusive boxing site I go on. Link it to me and let me see for myself..

Smokin'
05-12-2006, 10:50 PM
Yeah, ok big shot. Stop pawning off other people's ideas. Thanks.

kjellho
05-13-2006, 09:16 PM
At my age son, I've spent more time watching boxing than you've spent breathing. I've got more fights in my library than you have brain cells, that's for sure.;)

What a huge load of crap!
We should all kneel in front of the all-knowing Sabbath! He's old and has a lot of life experience and therefore he knows more than anyone on these forum's about boxing ;)
Your attempts on placing yourself above everyone here with that intellectual facade is just embarrassing. Any idiot can see through that. "At my age son"? Jeesus, patronising others just because you're older than them, tss...

Man, quit trying to make yourself out as the god of boxing. You're a fraud. If I tell you that you are important, will that make you happy? Haha.

mgkirkpatrick
05-14-2006, 08:42 PM
uve picked apart the paper work, now pick apart his power, his irrefutable ability to throw loaded, quick silver combinations with deadly accuracy. dispute his handspeed, dispute his ability to work the angles, dispute the intense and evasive head movement that he utilised combined with the ferocity he deployed. (obviously im talking prime here)

im serious man, im reasonable and i will listen to an objective critque of tysons boxing ability. let rip.


now i know there isnt a question mark there but here it is. discredit his skills without mentioning his record.

SABBATH
05-15-2006, 01:58 AM
now pick apart his power, his irrefutable ability to throw loaded, quick silver combinations with deadly accuracy. dispute his handspeed, dispute his ability to work the angles, dispute the intense and evasive head movement that he utilised combined with the ferocity he deployed. im serious man, im reasonable and i will listen to an objective critque of tysons boxing ability. let rip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlfs2SjVxqw&search=larry%20holmes

I have chosen a random but prime Mike Tyson fight (1988 vs Larry Holmes) and broken it down regarding your above comments, which by the way is a challenge not a question. As I stated before, Holmes hadn't won a fight in 3 years, hadn't fought in 2 years, was coming off two losses to a light-heavyweight making his heavyweight debut and was 2 months shy of 39 years old. Still with Kevin Rooney training him, this fight should give Tyson a chance to really shine.

Rounds 1-3: For the most part Holmes does very little but reach out at Tyson then clinch when Tyson moves in. Larry basically walks around the ring flat footed and occasionally places an outstretched left hand on Tyson's head. Larry changes directions but is not up on his toes, moving in and out or punching other than trying the odd right hand powershot. Larry displays no foot speed or his patented left jab. Larry appears to be a complete shell of the prime 1978-81 Holmes.

Tyson tries jabbing his way in but is short most of time. In the 2nd round Tyson lands 3 jabs. Perhaps instructed by Rooney, Tyson throws many more jabs in the 3rd round but is short with the majority of them.

Tyson appears slightly frustrated at times, waving Holmes towards him after missing from out of range and in the 3rd when Tyson hits Holmes low and is warned for it by referee Joe Cortez.

Tyson attacks primarily straight on and only at brief times displays his foot speed or aggressive pressure.

Tyson usually has some bounce in his legs for the first 20-30 seconds at the beginning of each round before going flat-footed. Tyson usually walks and follows Holmes often lunging with power shots then falling into a clinch.

On the inside Tyson does not try and punch his way out or break free. Tyson seem content to lock arms with Holmes. Tyson lands the odd singular body shot in these clinches. Tyson does no effective work on the inside.

Tyson is unable to pin Larry to the ropes to land anymore than one punch at a time and never catches Larry in a corner.

Tyson does display good side to side head movement in the first two rounds but since Holmes throws so few punches it is unecessary as a defensive tactic. Tyson does use it to feint before punching but by the 3rd round is doing it noticeably much less.

Tyson lands the odd solid singular bodyshot but misses some roundhouse head shots in the 2nd round and misses a big left hook in the 3rd. At the bell Tyson lands his best 2 head shots so far with a solid left hook which came after a right hand. Holmes is not hurt by these punches and talks and gestures to Tyson as they walk back to their corners.

After 3 rounds I have not seen Tyson land any combinations with 'pinpoint accuracy'. Tyson's loaded punches have been wild and missed their mark, he has not given Holmes angles, instead attacking head-on which is how Holmes is able to just reach straight out and hold Tyson off. The side to side head movement is not as suited on the inside as a bob weave style which would have allowed for Tyson to come up and under Holmes outstretched arms.

The side to side head movement was there in the 1st but has diminished by the 3rd. Tyson has not appeared particularly ferocious on the inside and is content to wait for the referee to break. Tyson's pattern by the 3rd round is to attack Holmes flat footed straight on throw short jabs that ususally miss their mark and load one power punch at a time. His handspeed looks good but he is landing few punches of any substance so his accuracy is off. Commentator Bob Sheridan mentions that this is shaping up to be another Tyson-Bonecrusher Smith fight.

Round 4: Tyson comes out faster while Holmes decides to dance on his toes and jab. About half land and Tyson slips the other half. Holmes hands are at his waist and he looks like what he is, an old Holmes trying to impersonate a young Holmes. Tyson lands a good left hook to the head with Holmes on the ropes and Holmes is off immediately. Tyson throws a left jab and a hard, accurate right hand to the head and Holmes goes down. Tyson is able to duplicate what Kevin Issac, Ernie Shavers and Renaldo Snipes did and that's drop Holmes with a right hand over a low left. The knockdown comes at the 1:24 mark and Holmes looks very hurt.

Holmes is up and Tyson misses a left, lands a left, misses a right and misses a right and a still legless Holmes tumbles down. (1 punch out of 4 lands)

Tyson lands a right to the shoulder then misses 3 lefts and 2 rights as Holmes stumbles to mid-ring.(5 punches in a row miss Holmes head)

Tyson has Holmes badly hurt and is headhunting throwing wild roundhouse hooks in sequences of alternating hands ie: L-R or R-L but throwing no body punches, no jabs, no straight punches and no uppercuts. Tyson is missing at least half of these punches.

Holmes backs to the ropes and Tyson lands a right, misses a left, lands a right hand to the body and misses a left (lands 2 out of 4, predictable sequence of R-L-R-L).

Holmes attempts a right uppercut but his arm gets caught in the second rope strand and Tyson lands two very hard rights. Holmes is down and the fight is over.

POOR/SATISFACTORY/AVERAGE/GOOD/VERY GOOD/EXCELLENT


ONE PUNCH POWER............................EXCELLENT
PUNCHING ACCURACY........................SATISFACTORY
CUTTING OFF THE RING.......................POOR
COMBINATION PUNCHING...................AVERAGE
IN FIGHTING......................................POOR
HANDSPEED......................................VER Y GOOD
JAB............................................... ...SATISFACTORY
KILLER INSTINCT................................EXCELLENT
BODY PUNCHING................................AVERAGE
HEAD MOVEMENT...............................VERY GOOD
ADAPTABILITY...................................GOO D
FOOT SPEED.......................................AVERAG E

Tyson's excellent one punch power and killer instinct bails him out from what was shaping up to be a ho-hum boring fight with a past his prime, rusty, albeit ringwise, experienced and at one time great former champion.

As you can see from my rating system, in this fight Tyson is top heavy in one punch power and killer instinct (excellent) while deficient in in-fighting and cutting off the ring (poor).

Tyson misses alot of loaded power shots, more than half. Tyson is not able to put together combinations of even 3 punches where each punch lands. Tyson always misses at least half the punches if not more within a combination or series of punches. (average and satisfactory)

Tyson does throw several jabs in round 3, but it is used more as a diversion weapon than a scoring punch (satisfactory).

I'm going to give Tyson credit by thinking he may have been using the diversion jab to set up the first right hand knockdown which is why I gave him a good in adaptability. I did see him try it once earlier in the fight. Up until the knockdown, Tyson really had no definitive answers for Holmes survival fight strategy.

Tyson is able to score more than one punch with Holmes on the ropes prior to the knockout when Larry retreats there when he is hurt and legless. Before this, Tyson never corners or traps Holmes escape routes at any time in the fight up to that point, which is why Holmes survives as long as he did while being flat-footed and throwing very few punches at Tyson. For this reason I scored Tyson low in cutting off the ring (poor) and foot speed (average).

Tyson lands a few solid body punches in the fight but never concentrates an attack that will wear an opponent down later in the fight (average).

Heckler
05-15-2006, 02:20 AM
K for sabbath.

SABBATH
05-15-2006, 12:13 PM
K for sabbath.K appreciated.

BSD
05-15-2006, 04:47 PM
Someone has a Tyson fetish. You spent all that time writing your critique of the fight and the bottom line is still the same. Tyson knocked him out.

SABBATH
05-15-2006, 05:06 PM
You spent all that time writing your critique of the fight and the bottom line is still the same. Tyson knocked him out.
I stepped up to the plate and answered the challenge of mgkirkpatrick and specifically critiqued what he requested. Now we will see how reasonable and willing to listen to an objective critique he is.....

K-DOGG
05-15-2006, 05:30 PM
I have chosen a random but prime Mike Tyson fight (1988 vs Larry Holmes) and broken it down regarding your above comments, which by the way is a challenge not a question. As I stated before, Holmes hadn't won a fight in 3 years, hadn't fought in 2 years, was coming off two losses to a light-heavyweight making his heavyweight debut and was 2 months shy of 39 years old. Still with Kevin Rooney training him, this fight should give Tyson a chance to really shine.

Rounds 1-3: For the most part Holmes does very little but reach out at Tyson then clinch when Tyson moves in. Larry basically walks around the ring flat footed and occasionally places an outstretched left hand on Tyson's head. Larry changes directions but is not up on his toes, moving in and out or punching other than trying the odd right hand powershot. Larry displays no foot speed or his patented left jab. Larry appears to be a complete shell of the prime 1978-81 Holmes.

Tyson tries jabbing his way in but is short most of time. In the 2nd round Tyson lands 3 jabs. Perhaps instructed by Rooney, Tyson throws many more jabs in the 3rd round but is short with the majority of them.

Tyson appears slightly frustrated at times, waving Holmes towards him after missing from out of range and in the 3rd when Tyson hits Holmes low and is warned for it by referee Joe Cortez.

Tyson attacks primarily straight on and only at brief times displays his foot speed or aggressive pressure.

Tyson usually has some bounce in his legs for the first 20-30 seconds at the beginning of each round before going flat-footed. Tyson usually walks and follows Holmes often lunging with power shots then falling into a clinch.

On the inside Tyson does not try and punch his way out or break free. Tyson seem content to lock arms with Holmes. Tyson lands the odd singular body shot in these clinches. Tyson does no effective work on the inside.

Tyson is unable to pin Larry to the ropes to land anymore than one punch at a time and never catches Larry in a corner.

Tyson does display good side to side head movement in the first two rounds but since Holmes throws so few punches it is unecessary as a defensive tactic. Tyson does use it to feint before punching but by the 3rd round is doing it noticeably much less.

Tyson lands the odd solid singular bodyshot but misses some roundhouse head shots in the 2nd round and misses a big left hook in the 3rd. At the bell Tyson lands his best 2 head shots so far with a solid left hook which came after a right hand. Holmes is not hurt by these punches and talks and gestures to Tyson as they walk back to their corners.

After 3 rounds I have not seen Tyson land any combinations with 'pinpoint accuracy'. Tyson's loaded punches have been wild and missed their mark, he has not given Holmes angles, instead attacking head-on which is how Holmes is able to just reach straight out and hold Tyson off. The side to side head movement is not as suited on the inside as a bob weave style which would have allowed for Tyson to come up and under Holmes outstretched arms.

The side to side head movement was there in the 1st but has diminished by the 3rd. Tyson has not appeared particularly ferocious on the inside and is content to wait for the referee to break. Tyson's pattern by the 3rd round is to attack Holmes flat footed straight on throw short jabs that ususally miss their mark and load one power punch at a time. His handspeed looks good but he is landing few punches of any substance so his accuracy is off. Commentator Bob Sheridan mentions that this is shaping up to be another Tyson-Bonecrusher Smith fight.

Round 4: Tyson comes out faster while Holmes decides to dance on his toes and jab. About half land and Tyson slips the other half. Holmes hands are at his waist and he looks like what he is, an old Holmes trying to impersonate a young Holmes. Tyson lands a good left hook to the head with Holmes on the ropes and Holmes is off immediately. Tyson throws a left jab and a hard, accurate right hand to the head and Holmes goes down. Tyson is able to duplicate what Kevin Issac, Ernie Shavers and Renaldo Snipes did and that's drop Holmes with a right hand over a low left. The knockdown comes at the 1:24 mark and Holmes looks very hurt.

Holmes is up and Tyson misses a left, lands a left, misses a right and misses a right and a still legless Holmes tumbles down. (1 punch out of 4 lands)

Tyson lands a right to the shoulder then misses 3 lefts and 2 rights as Holmes stumbles to mid-ring.(5 punches in a row miss Holmes head)

Tyson has Holmes badly hurt and is headhunting throwing wild roundhouse hooks in sequences of alternating hands ie: L-R or R-L but throwing no body punches, no jabs, no straight punches and no uppercuts. Tyson is missing at least half of these punches.

Holmes backs to the ropes and Tyson lands a right, misses a left, lands a right hand to the body and misses a left (lands 2 out of 4, predictable sequence of R-L-R-L).

Holmes attempts a right uppercut but his arm gets caught in the second rope strand and Tyson lands two very hard rights. Holmes is down and the fight is over.

POOR/SATISFACTORY/AVERAGE/GOOD/VERY GOOD/EXCELLENT


ONE PUNCH POWER............................EXCELLENT
PUNCHING ACCURACY........................SATISFACTORY
CUTTING OFF THE RING.......................POOR
COMBINATION PUNCHING...................AVERAGE
IN FIGHTING......................................POOR
HANDSPEED......................................VER Y GOOD
JAB............................................... ...SATISFACTORY
KILLER INSTINCT................................EXCELLENT
BODY PUNCHING................................AVERAGE
HEAD MOVEMENT...............................VERY GOOD
ADAPTABILITY...................................GOO D
FOOT SPEED.......................................AVERAG E

Tyson's excellent one punch power and killer instinct bails him out from what was shaping up to be a ho-hum boring fight with a past his prime, rusty, albeit ringwise, experienced and at one time great former champion.

As you can see from my rating system, in this fight Tyson is top heavy in one punch power and killer instinct (excellent) while deficient in in-fighting and cutting off the ring (poor).

Tyson misses alot of loaded power shots, more than half. Tyson is not able to put together combinations of even 3 punches where each punch lands. Tyson always misses at least half the punches if not more within a combination or series of punches. (average and satisfactory)

Tyson does throw several jabs in round 3, but it is used more as a diversion weapon than a scoring punch (satisfactory).

I'm going to give Tyson credit by thinking he may have been using the diversion jab to set up the first right hand knockdown which is why I gave him a good in adaptability. I did see him try it once earlier in the fight. Up until the knockdown, Tyson really had no definitive answers for Holmes survival fight strategy.

Tyson is able to score more than one punch with Holmes on the ropes prior to the knockout when Larry retreats there when he is hurt and legless. Before this, Tyson never corners or traps Holmes escape routes at any time in the fight up to that point, which is why Holmes survives as long as he did while being flat-footed and throwing very few punches at Tyson. For this reason I scored Tyson low in cutting off the ring (poor) and foot speed (average).

Tyson lands a few solid body punches in the fight but never concentrates an attack that will wear an opponent down later in the fight (average).

Yup. That's as well as it can be said. WEll DISECTED, SABBATH. I'd give you K; but I gotta spread it around.


Note to other posters....Sabbath knows his ****.

Mike Tyson77
05-15-2006, 11:29 PM
Well Tyson only had 50 wins and 4 of them were against 2 guys (Bruno, Ruddock) so that makes 48 different guys he defeated. I'll chalk you up as another Tyson fanboy who doesn't have his facts straight.


48. funny. He had two wins taken form him over some BS. He never loss to the "Buster". OK so 50.

Why do hate Iron Mike? I guess your the type of person who thinks just because he's got into some trouble the last half of his career that he's nothing. He you really think ALL of the "greats" could have weathered the storm against a PRIME and MOTIVATED Tyson, then youre nuts.....

mgkirkpatrick
05-16-2006, 12:01 AM
appreciated the effort. i still think u chose a pretty convenient fight. what about v. spinks?

SABBATH
05-16-2006, 12:41 AM
appreciated the effort. i still think u chose a pretty convenient fight. what about v. spinks?
mg,

Thank you for your appreciation for my effort.

I think I chose one of Tyson's better performances from his apparent prime of 1986-89.

I could have chosen a lesser performance against a guy that went the distance such as Tillis, Green, Smith, or Tucker (only 1 knockdown scored in the 4 fights combined and Tyson was frustrated in those fights).

I didn't want a post Rooney fight (Bruno) in which Tyson was rocked and supposed to have been showing signs of declining.

I didn't want a blow-out (Spinks, Williams, Berbick) because you can't learn alot about a fighter's strengths/weaknesses in such fights other than a fighter's punching power which in Tyson's case I give him full marks for in the Holmes fight anyway. For the stylistic breakdown you requested, I needed at least a few rounds for an objective assesment.

That left Thomas, Biggs, and Holmes. I felt Tyson was better against Holmes (scored a quicker KO, won every round and was hit less). Holmes in this fight also threw less punches and offered less adversity than the other two guys which would allow Tyson to better show off the skills you wanted me to critique.

mgkirkpatrick
05-16-2006, 01:18 AM
ok i get u. but i think the blowouts are what made the myth.. and i think that they would showcase accuracy combinations handspeed etc. but yeah not as many. u wouldnt be a lawyer by n e chance? u manipulate facts to your own design very efficiently.

SABBATH
05-16-2006, 02:12 AM
In response to your question, no.

Yogi
05-16-2006, 11:45 PM
what about v. spinks?

I don't know why you'd want anybody to look at the Spinks fight considering, you know...Tyson was already past his prime by that point.

Yaman
05-17-2006, 09:21 AM
I don't know why you'd want anybody to look at the Spinks fight considering, you know...Tyson was already past his prime by that point.

He was fully trained by Rooney for that fight. AFTER that fight, he was past his prime SKILLSWISE. My Tyson knowledge is inferior to yours.

Heckler
05-17-2006, 11:02 AM
When was Tyson's prime. According to Tyson fans: 85-86 he was inexperienced and green, 87-88 he wasn't as hungry and in the process of going off the rails, 89-90 didn't have rooney and apparently was a mere shadow of his former self?

Opinions please.

Yaman
05-17-2006, 11:05 AM
When was Tyson's prime. According to Tyson fans: 85-86 he was inexperienced and green, 87-88 he wasn't as hungry and in the process of going off the rails, 89-90 didn't have rooney and apparently was a mere shadow of his former self?

Opinions please.

When was Ali's prime? according to ali fans: 60-65(?) he was inexperienced and green, so he was only prime for 2 fight before his layoff? Even though his biggest wins came later..

Now i'd like to have your opninion on this please.

Yaman
05-17-2006, 11:07 AM
When was Tyson's prime. According to Tyson fans: 85-86 he was inexperienced and green, 87-88 he wasn't as hungry and in the process of going off the rails, 89-90 didn't have rooney and apparently was a mere shadow of his former self?

Opinions please.

But to answer your question, he peaked in the Berbick fight imo, and was never the same after the Spinks fight. So thats like 8 fights.

K-DOGG
05-17-2006, 12:41 PM
Tyson's prime performance was against Spinks....he was still in his prime until he went to prison. The reason he didn't "look as good" agasint Bruno, Douglas, & Ruddock was the fact that Rooney wasn't in his corner and he wasn't as diligent in his training as he'd been under Rooney's watch. Having the skills is one thing, utilizing all of them is another.

Mike wasn't past it until he got out of prison. He lost his hunger behind bars.

Don't believe me...compare the fire in Mike's gut against Stewart and Ruddock with the second Bruno fight and Buster Mathis Jr. Mike was going through the motions after prison, fighting for the money, not the love of the game.

The Mike that was looking for a way out against Holyfield is not the same animal that warred with Ruddock for 15 rounds or even the out of shape Tyson that lost to Douglas but kept trying till the end.

Mike is of the same class or style of fighter as Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, and Jack Dempsey; not exactly no, but the same type. And that type does not have a long career.

Joe Frazier was past his best at 29 when he fought Foreman.
Marciano retired at age 31 due to a bad back.
Dempsey retired at 32 after losing the second Tunney fight and after a three year layoff.

Tyson was 24 when he went to prison and 29 when he got out....he was on the down side when he walked out a free man. He wasn't the same type of fighter as Ali, who also had a 3 year absence. Ali was a boxer, Tyson, a technical slugger in the swarmer style....like Dempsey.

Dempsey was on the skids after his 3 year hiatus, of course Tyson would be...not to mention the psychological effects of being in prison.

Tyson never peaked in the ring. He was....and then he wasn't.

Yogi
05-17-2006, 04:59 PM
Posting your findings here and have the non-brighties (read Yogi)

Seeing as your just another one of those Tyson fanboys with hurt feelings, don't mind if I take that comment as a compliment rather than the insult it was intended as.

Yaman
05-17-2006, 05:19 PM
Seeing as your just another one of those Tyson fanboys with hurt feelings, don't mind if I take that comment as a compliment rather than the insult it was intended as.

You didn't hurt anyone's feelings, your posts were rather laughable. My(And the other guys here) Tyson knowledge is inferior.

Yogi
05-17-2006, 05:27 PM
He was fully trained by Rooney for that fight. AFTER that fight, he was past his prime SKILLSWISE. My Tyson knowledge is inferior to yours.

Nope, I wouldn't say he was "fully trained" because there were strong rumours that he was slacking off in training during the lead up to the fight, and judging by the fact that he wasn't as "cut" as he was for say the Berbick fight (the Tyson that fought Spinks physically looked not one bit different than the one who fought Douglas), I'd venture to say that there's some truth to that...Also consider all the out of the ring **** that was happening with Tyson at that time like, his marriage troubles, managerial problems, Jacob's death, his fragile mindset (assaulting parking lot attendants a year earlier, driving his wife's car into a tree shortly after the fight, ditto for the incident when throwing his furniture out of the windows of his home, etc., etc...Tyson was an admitted "manic depressive" previous to the fight), his drinking problems (which is something he says he gave up in an interview a couple of months before the Douglas fight), etc., etc...A whole bunch of stuff that would've made some very convient excuses for you Tyson fans had he lost.

Also watching the Spinks fight...where's this great head movement, jab, or combination punching that was supposed to be a great trademark of a "prime" Tyson (with Rooney). Don't see much of any of those things, and all I really saw was a fighter who only swarmed in throwing mostly singular power punches as he looked for a quick knockout...You know, the same things that are supposed to be a description of what Tyson fanboys say was an indicator that he was past his best.

i.e. I've heard the "on the night he beat Spinks he could've beaten anybody in history" statement so often over the years, and it's quite often made by those who are very quick to excuse his loss to Douglas as a depleted verison of Mike...

But what I want to know is...What the hell is the difference?!

Yogi
05-17-2006, 05:37 PM
You didn't hurt anyone's feelings, your posts were rather laughable. My(And the other guys here) Tyson knowledge is inferior.

The amount of little red bars that I've gotten from Tyson fanboys as of late indictates that some people aren't too happy with what I say about him.

And yes...Yogi > All, but that goes without saying.

RockyMarcianofan00
05-17-2006, 05:48 PM
Tyson's prime performance was against Spinks....he was still in his prime until he went to prison. The reason he didn't "look as good" agasint Bruno, Douglas, & Ruddock was the fact that Rooney wasn't in his corner and he wasn't as diligent in his training as he'd been under Rooney's watch. Having the skills is one thing, utilizing all of them is another.

Mike wasn't past it until he got out of prison. He lost his hunger behind bars.

Don't believe me...compare the fire in Mike's gut against Stewart and Ruddock with the second Bruno fight and Buster Mathis Jr. Mike was going through the motions after prison, fighting for the money, not the love of the game.

The Mike that was looking for a way out against Holyfield is not the same animal that warred with Ruddock for 15 rounds or even the out of shape Tyson that lost to Douglas but kept trying till the end.

Mike is of the same class or style of fighter as Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano, and Jack Dempsey; not exactly no, but the same type. And that type does not have a long career.

Joe Frazier was past his best at 29 when he fought Foreman.
Marciano retired at age 31 due to a bad back.
Dempsey retired at 32 after losing the second Tunney fight and after a three year layoff.

Tyson was 24 when he went to prison and 29 when he got out....he was on the down side when he walked out a free man. He wasn't the same type of fighter as Ali, who also had a 3 year absence. Ali was a boxer, Tyson, a technical slugger in the swarmer style....like Dempsey.

Dempsey was on the skids after his 3 year hiatus, of course Tyson would be...not to mention the psychological effects of being in prison.

Tyson never peaked in the ring. He was....and then he wasn't.

I've heard mixed reviews about his retirement. Its not completely known if that was the real reason. The two most likely are the bad back and the fact that he wanted to get away from his manager. When he was still an amateur he signed with a manager who took over 40% of his ring profits. He signed with him because Rocky really had little expierence with money. He was poor and and 400 dollars sounded like alot for a profight. He was supposed to make a comeback but his family urged him to stay retire. Even his last fight (Archie Moore) he said he was gunna make it 50-0.

Wikipedia-
Rocky had a professional record of 49-0 with forty-three knockouts. Some say that he was 50-0 (with forty-four knockouts), but that bout can not be proven as professional, yet. He was originally scheduled to fight Nino Valdez in his last fight on January 2, 1956 (or at a later date in June 1956), but that fight never took place. Originally planned for Miami, FL. Other possible contenders near the end of Marciano's career were Tommy Hurricane Jackson and Floyd Patterson; however, Patterson was not yet ready to take on Marciano and wanted to fight for light-heavyweight championship first for about one to two years.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Marciano

Yogi
05-17-2006, 06:15 PM
I've heard of that supposed 50-0 record for Marciano in the past, but I don't know...All I know that it was rumoured to have happened during March of 1956 while him and his wife were visitng Brazil. I know he got into the ring with one or two of the Brazilian heavyweights that were around then (like Dos Santos), but I haven't read anything that indicates that it was anything more than a simple exhibition of his fighting ability.

Valdes ****ed up what was basically his last chance at a shot against Marciano in Dec of 1955 when he lost to Bob Baker in a "dull ten-round match that probably eliminated both heavyweight contenders from any chance of a title shot with Rocky Marciano".

Some backers(Lefty Clark in particular) showed an interest in matching them up in Havana for the spring of 1956, but...that deal was squelched partly by Cuban officials who "frowned" at the idea.

RockyMarcianofan00
05-17-2006, 06:21 PM
I've heard of that supposed 50-0 record for Marciano in the past, but I don't know...All I know that it was rumoured to have happened during March of 1956 while him and his wife were visitng Brazil. I know he got into the ring with one or two of the Brazilian heavyweights that were around then (like Dos Santos), but I haven't read anything that indicates that it was anything more than a simple exhibition of his fighting ability.

Valdes ****ed up what was basically his last chance at a shot against Marciano in Dec of 1955 when he lost to Bob Baker in a "dull ten-round match that probably eliminated both heavyweight contenders from any chance of a title shot with Rocky Marciano".

Some backers(Lefty Clark in particular) showed an interest in matching them up in Havana for the spring of 1956, but...that deal was squelched partly by Cuban officials who "frowned" at the idea.
huh didn't know that
learn something knew everyday

K-DOGG
05-17-2006, 06:23 PM
Wasn't Marciano's 50th win against Jerry Lewis? :D

Yogi
05-17-2006, 06:31 PM
Wasn't Marciano's 50th win against Jerry Lewis? :D

Or maybe it was that fight he had on Jan 20th, 1970...

Where's Butterfly? :p

K-DOGG
05-17-2006, 06:33 PM
Or maybe it was that fight he had on Jan 20th, 1970...

Where's Butterfly? :p

:lol1: That was a 13th round TKO, if memory serves me correctly as Rock clipped the wings of the butterfly and took the stinger out of the bee. :D

Yogi
05-17-2006, 06:39 PM
:lol1: That was a 13th round TKO, if memory serves me correctly as Rock clipped the wings of the butterfly and took the stinger out of the bee. :D

Ah, watching Marciano & Ali in that "fight" they did is still one of the most embarrassing things I ever seen in this sport, if not THE most. Just...well, not a pretty sight.

RockyMarcianofan00
05-17-2006, 06:47 PM
Ah, watching Marciano & Ali in that "fight" they did is still one of the most embarrassing things I ever seen in this sport, if not THE most. Just...well, not a pretty sight.
i liked watching the documentaries of the fighters (on the Superfight DVD) and they had all the orginal radio broadcasts on it. I like Jack Dempsey v Rocky Marciano and others

catskills23
05-17-2006, 06:58 PM
Nope, I wouldn't say he was "fully trained" because there were strong rumours that he was slacking off in training during the lead up to the fight, and judging by the fact that he wasn't as "cut" as he was for say the Berbick fight (the Tyson that fought Spinks physically looked not one bit different than the one who fought Douglas), I'd venture to say that there's some truth to that...Also consider all the out of the ring **** that was happening with Tyson at that time like, his marriage troubles, managerial problems, Jacob's death, his fragile mindset (assaulting parking lot attendants a year earlier, driving his wife's car into a tree shortly after the fight, ditto for the incident when throwing his furniture out of the windows of his home, etc., etc...Tyson was an admitted "manic depressive" previous to the fight), his drinking problems (which is something he says he gave up in an interview a couple of months before the Douglas fight), etc., etc...A whole bunch of stuff that would've made some very convient excuses for you Tyson fans had he lost.

Also watching the Spinks fight...where's this great head movement, jab, or combination punching that was supposed to be a great trademark of a "prime" Tyson (with Rooney). Don't see much of any of those things, and all I really saw was a fighter who only swarmed in throwing mostly singular power punches as he looked for a quick knockout...You know, the same things that are supposed to be a description of what Tyson fanboys say was an indicator that he was past his best.

i.e. I've heard the "on the night he beat Spinks he could've beaten anybody in history" statement so often over the years, and it's quite often made by those who are very quick to excuse his loss to Douglas as a depleted verison of Mike...

But what I want to know is...What the hell is the difference?!

The tyson who did fight spinks did move his head and slip punches, he also threw combiations and worked the body . In the douglas fight he did none of those things you can even hear sugar ray leonard say through out the fight that tyson is just walking staight in and throwing just one shot . If you can see the difference bwteen the tyson who fought douglas and the rooney tained tyson then you know nothing about boxing .

K-DOGG
05-17-2006, 07:00 PM
Ah, watching Marciano & Ali in that "fight" they did is still one of the most embarrassing things I ever seen in this sport, if not THE most. Just...well, not a pretty sight.

Well, it was supposedly progressive for the time; but a 16 foot ring, using a computer to analyze what two men can do in the ring...

No computer can predict the emotion or the ebb and flow in a fight because each fight is unique unto itself; but, we'd just put a man on the moon.

It's a nice collector's piece, anyway.

Yogi
05-17-2006, 07:18 PM
The tyson who did fight spinks did move his head and slip punches, he also threw combiations and worked the body . In the douglas fight he did none of those things you can even hear sugar ray leonard say through out the fight that tyson is just walking staight in and throwing just one shot . If you can see the difference bwteen the tyson who fought douglas and the rooney tained tyson then you know nothing about boxing .

Tyson did throw a few combos against Spinks, but the vast majority of the time he was loading up on single powershots (not much of a jab, swarming in, etc.)...Also he didn't NEARLY move his head as much during the Spinks fight as he did for the first half of the Douglas fight, and that is plain as ****ing day. In fact, even against Bruce Seldon Tyson moved his head a bunch more in that short fight than he did against Spinks.

And during the broadcast of it, Leonard was also critical of Tyson (with Rooney) doing those similiar things when he faced Tony Tucker, so...look it up.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense, but that's not suprising.

Dempsey 1919
05-17-2006, 07:35 PM
Or maybe it was that fight he had on Jan 20th, 1970...

Where's Butterfly? :p

haha. :rolleyes:

Yogi
05-17-2006, 07:45 PM
haha. :rolleyes:

Haha. :rolleyes:

Now get lost.

Dempsey 1919
05-17-2006, 07:48 PM
Haha. :rolleyes:

Now get lost.

that's not nice. :(

SquareCircle
05-17-2006, 08:40 PM
Hes a dumbass for saying Holyfield was the only great Heavy in the 90's, a 40+ year old George Foreman was a better heavy than Evander in the 90's.

Dempsey 1919
05-17-2006, 09:31 PM
Hes a dumbass for saying Holyfield was the only great Heavy in the 90's, a 40+ year old George Foreman was a better heavy than Evander in the 90's.

then why do you have him in your avatar?

RockyMarcianofan00
05-17-2006, 09:39 PM
then why do you have him in your avatar?
PWND!!!!

No but i think that evander is an earlier 80's Crusier Evander because he looks smaller, which is why he specified better HEAVY then 90'S Evander

but if not PWND!!!!

Dempsey 1919
05-17-2006, 09:49 PM
PWND!!!!

No but i think that evander is an earlier 80's Crusier Evander because he looks smaller, which is why he specified better HEAVY then 90'S Evander

but if not PWND!!!!

the point is he's bad mouthing holyfield and he has him in his av. whether the pic was holy in the 80s or holy in the 30s it's still holy. if i said 70s ali wasn't that good, and i had a pic of him in the 60s, or even the pic i have of him now in the 90, it would be wierd, wouldn't it? but still you do have a point.

Heckler
05-17-2006, 11:08 PM
When was Ali's prime? according to ali fans: 60-65(?) he was inexperienced and green, so he was only prime for 2 fight before his layoff? Even though his biggest wins came later..

Now i'd like to have your opninion on this please.

Sure... 66-67. Before his layoff he was the champion with 29 fights under his belt and at the age of 25 had physically matured.

There's a large difference between Ali's situation and Tyson's... It's 3 and a half years. Ali is acknowledged as 'past his best' after 3 1/2 years of inactivity whereas Tyson is said to be past his prime 8 months after he reached it even though he continued fighting. This is why the situation is difficult to understand and thus i wanted some clarity from the all knowing Tyson fans on this board.

Yogi
05-18-2006, 01:19 AM
That's obviously a card of Holyfield when he was a part of the 1984 U.S. Olympic Team.

Heckler
05-18-2006, 02:16 AM
Ah, watching Marciano & Ali in that "fight" they did is still one of the most embarrassing things I ever seen in this sport, if not THE most. Just...well, not a pretty sight.

I agree, the casio calculator sitting on my desk is probably more advanced then the computer they used 36 years ago. Old man marciano who had to wear a hairpiece vs untrained Muhammad Ali in that amazing extravaganza.

LondonRingRules
05-18-2006, 05:59 AM
Sure... 66-67. Before his layoff he was the champion with 29 fights under his belt and at the age of 25 had physically matured.

There's a large difference between Ali's situation and Tyson's... It's 3 and a half years. Ali is acknowledged as 'past his best' after 3 1/2 years of inactivity whereas Tyson is said to be past his prime 8 months after he reached it even though he continued fighting. This is why the situation is difficult to understand and thus i wanted some clarity from the all knowing Tyson fans on this board.
** It's quite simple Einstein. There is more than a physical prime, there is a mental prime, which is why Joe Walcott and Archie Moore are so well known because their mental prime occurred after they passed their physical prime.

When Tyson stopped training and no longer had a professional corner or honest management behind him, he was not the same fighter. You can win on natural talent for a while, but if you ain't training you will be exposed.

How well would Ali have done half trained with King managing him and having Tyson's 3 stooges in his corner when he was blinded against Liston?

No need to answer. We already know.

Yaman
05-18-2006, 08:26 AM
Nope, I wouldn't say he was "fully trained" because there were strong rumours that he was slacking off in training during the lead up to the fight, and judging by the fact that he wasn't as "cut" as he was for say the Berbick fight (the Tyson that fought Spinks physically looked not one bit different than the one who fought Douglas), I'd venture to say that there's some truth to that...Also consider all the out of the ring **** that was happening with Tyson at that time like, his marriage troubles, managerial problems, Jacob's death, his fragile mindset (assaulting parking lot attendants a year earlier, driving his wife's car into a tree shortly after the fight, ditto for the incident when throwing his furniture out of the windows of his home, etc., etc...Tyson was an admitted "manic depressive" previous to the fight), his drinking problems (which is something he says he gave up in an interview a couple of months before the Douglas fight), etc., etc...A whole bunch of stuff that would've made some very convient excuses for you Tyson fans had he lost.

Also watching the Spinks fight...where's this great head movement, jab, or combination punching that was supposed to be a great trademark of a "prime" Tyson (with Rooney). Don't see much of any of those things, and all I really saw was a fighter who only swarmed in throwing mostly singular power punches as he looked for a quick knockout...You know, the same things that are supposed to be a description of what Tyson fanboys say was an indicator that he was past his best.

i.e. I've heard the "on the night he beat Spinks he could've beaten anybody in history" statement so often over the years, and it's quite often made by those who are very quick to excuse his loss to Douglas as a depleted verison of Mike...

But what I want to know is...What the hell is the difference?!

The Tyson who beat Spinks was ripped, fast, DID use headmovement but the point is, the fight only lasted 91 seconds!! What kind of moron could be able to see all of Tyson's ability's if he's going for the early ko and he ends it in 1 and a half minute. Man you are so biased. And he was motivated that night, even after Lewis tried to **** him up mentally when he came in his lockerroom. He was ready and Rooney pumped him up like usual. See, he LISTENED to his corner when he was with Rooney, when he was with Don King, he didn't give a **** about all the things that he thought because he thought he was superman and couldn't get hurt.

And like i said one time in another thread, sometimes things that happen before a fight can have positive effects on a fighter. You'd think that Buster Douglass' mother dying would be the worst thing that could happen to him before a fight right YOGI? No. The things that happened before the Spinks fight made Tyson more angry and gave him more determination, and it ended up in a 91 seconds destruction of a great fighter.

I know you never watch the Spinks, Douglass or any other Tyson fight, unlike me(I watch them nearly every day) but keep talking, you make no sence and it ends up with me owning you.

Oh yeah, dont worry about the bad karma, i'll give you more as soon as i can you sack of ****.

catskills23
05-18-2006, 09:25 AM
Tyson did throw a few combos against Spinks, but the vast majority of the time he was loading up on single powershots (not much of a jab, swarming in, etc.)...Also he didn't NEARLY move his head as much during the Spinks fight as he did for the first half of the Douglas fight, and that is plain as ****ing day. In fact, even against Bruce Seldon Tyson moved his head a bunch more in that short fight than he did against Spinks.

And during the broadcast of it, Leonard was also critical of Tyson (with Rooney) doing those similiar things when he faced Tony Tucker, so...look it up.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense, but that's not suprising.

You are obviously a moron who knows nothin about boxing . Yes tyson did move he head a bit against douglas but he was standing directly in front of douglas while doing so wheres against spinks he moved his head and moved from side to side and gave angles . All boxing experts from ray leonard, george foreman to teddy atlas who hates tysons guts admit that the tyson who fought douglas was not the same guy who fought under rooney . Even after the bruno fight which was tysons first fight after rooney experts noticed that tysons boxing skills were in decline and ring magazine for the first time in tysons career started looking at the heavyweight division to see what fighters could beat a declining tyson .

Yaman
05-18-2006, 11:22 AM
You're right, he knows nothing about boxing. If you disagree with the experts, then you can **** off.

Yogi
05-18-2006, 02:31 PM
The Tyson who beat Spinks was ripped, fast, DID use headmovement but the point is, the fight only lasted 91 seconds!! What kind of moron could be able to see all of Tyson's ability's if he's going for the early ko and he ends it in 1 and a half minute. Man you are so biased. And he was motivated that night, even after Lewis tried to **** him up mentally when he came in his lockerroom. He was ready and Rooney pumped him up like usual. See, he LISTENED to his corner when he was with Rooney, when he was with Don King, he didn't give a **** about all the things that he thought because he thought he was superman and couldn't get hurt.

And like i said one time in another thread, sometimes things that happen before a fight can have positive effects on a fighter. You'd think that Buster Douglass' mother dying would be the worst thing that could happen to him before a fight right YOGI? No. The things that happened before the Spinks fight made Tyson more angry and gave him more determination, and it ended up in a 91 seconds destruction of a great fighter.

I know you never watch the Spinks, Douglass or any other Tyson fight, unlike me(I watch them nearly every day) but keep talking, you make no sence and it ends up with me owning you.

Oh yeah, dont worry about the bad karma, i'll give you more as soon as i can you sack of ****.

Yeah, and the Tyson who beat Seldon was even more ripped, just as fast, and used a hell of a LOT more head movement than the one who faced Spinks (for the first minute and a half of the Lewis fight I also see a hell of a lot more head movement out of that Tyson than the one who faced Spinks, as I do with MANY different fights of Tyson's)...didn't throw as many punches versus Seldon (the use of his left jab was quite a bit more prevailant in that fight, though), but it's a comparable fight because both lasted about a minute and a half. And contrary to what this other guy with the foot fetish says, there ain't no impressive side-to-side movement or impressive punching angles shown by Tyson in that fight...He came straight at Spinks from the front (with very little head movement, side-to-side movement or punching angles, I add yet again) and loaded up on his powershots which were mostly singular in their deliverance.

"What kind of moron could be able to see all of Tyson's abilities if he's going for the early KO and he ends it in one and a half minutes?"

I don't know, but why don't you ask all of your fellow fanboys who have the opinion that the version of Tyson who defeated Spinks was the best & most complete Tyson there ever was, and also have the opinion that he beats or destroys any other heavyweight in history...You've read that plenty of times from your fellow fanboys, I'm sure, as have I.

And Tyson should have been somewhat motivated for the Spinks fight because he was fighting for the REAL heavyweight championship on that night, although unfortuntely for him, on that night he missed out on breaking Patterson's "youngest heavyweight champion ever" record by only a matter of a few weeks...

He also should have been somewhat motivated for the fight with Douglas because he was defending the title, and contary to popular belief amongst Tyson fanboys like yourself, he did in fact train for the Douglas fight, as there is in fact both video evidence and contemporary reports stating as such...Three weeks before the fight "Tyson has been sparring five or six rounds a day while preparing for his second title defense in Japan in two years" according to an AP report from eyewitnesses. A week and a half before the fight he was involved in some "three rounds of furious exchanges of heavy punches" with his sparring partners like Page. Heck, going by the prefight reports of their respective training camps, it was Douglas who was less impressive in training as evident by some of the "Douglas looked sluggish in abbreviated public workout" like comments made in the days leading up to the fight. Douglas was also reportedly "taking pain-killing penicillin shots from a nagging infection" in the days leading up to the fight, as well...

Oh, and I don't know about you see, but out of the two fighters in the ring that night, it certainly wasn't Tyson's man boobs that were bouncing up and down all throughout the fight.

And how do you know I never watch Tyson's fights?

Is video of him supposed to be some kind of great secret only made viewable by you Tyson fanboys or something?

Well, judging by the fact that I have a whole ****load of his fights, and also judging by the fact that the guy is on television just about every week up here in Canada...apparently not.

You are more than welcome to give me bad karma every chance you get, Yaman, and that's perfectly OK with me...As is the name calling.

P.S. Whether they said those comments or not...The last comments I've heard from Leonard was that he invented things similiar the bolo punch and the Ali-like shuffle, and the last words I can remember hearing out of Atlas' mouth was his opinion that Judah was going to beat Mayweather (Foreman says dumb **** all the time, so...)...Don't mind if I don't take those "experts" words as gospel or something like that, especially when the information is out there in ABUNDANCE when it comes to Tyson, and thus gives one plenty of material to enable them to have their own opinions.

Yogi
05-18-2006, 02:34 PM
Oh wait, Yaman...what's with this "great fighter" comment in reference to Spinks?

A great light heavyweight when he was younger and much more active, yes, but I sincerely hope you are not referring to him as a great heavyweight because he was anything but that at that weight and when he faced Tyson.

Yaman
05-18-2006, 04:34 PM
AGAIN, the tyson who fought Spinks was trained by Rooney and was the same as he was in 86/87. He was just a lot more aggressive and pissed off by the things that happened before the fight. Michael Spink froze before the bell rang and couldn't defend himself. If it was Berbick, no way would he have been able to walk trough him in 1 round. It was the same prime Tyson who fought Berbick. He didn't need to move his head(Even though he did move his head in the 91 seconds, but thats what he was trained for, i bob and weave my head even when i dont need to sometimes. Its just something you're used to) How many times did Spinks throw and land his jab? Never, he froze like i told you, so i dont see why he would have to move his head like he did against Jesse Ferguson.

I'll point it out again, he was simply allowed to blow Spinks away because he COULD. Berbick, Tucker, Thomas etc, were too strong. And what the **** were you talking about..his body not ripped? Im sure you've seen the replay of the ko, Yogi, when he flexed and looked as ripped as ever. I do not see anything diffirent about tyson's body.

But in the Douglass fight he wasn't ripped at all. Rooney said it(On several docu's like ''Legendrary Nights: Douglass vs Tyson) and this was the man who trained Tyson for years and years. Did you know Tyson starved himself to death to get to his weight for that fight? And Rooney was right, Tyson didn't look like he trained like a freak. He did it in the 80s with Rooney. With Don Kings team he became lazy and thought he was unbeatable, therefor, why need to train like crazy when you're gonna KO him in 1 round right? Well that was his downfall. Teddy Atlas hates Tyson, and he also said the same. Thats the diffirence between you and Atlas, you are biased. Im sure Atlas think Tysons a ''piece of **** in and sometimes out of the ring'' but atleast he's not blinded by hate. Im not blinded by love, you are blinded by hate.

Yaman
05-18-2006, 04:41 PM
Im not one of those biased ''Tyson fanboys''. I do not think he was unbeatable. I do not think the Tyson who fought Berbick or Spinks would have beaten anyone. In fact, i think fighters like Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Louis, Holyfield and some others could have beaten Mike. I see it like that.

But i'll never say Tyson was in his skillfull prime when he fought Douglass. I see it like this, if Tyson came in prepared bla bla bla, he would have a very tough fight and might have lost. I think it would have either been a decision win for Douglass or KO for Tyson. Douglass had a glass chin. Tyson could have cracked trough it at any round if he landed something cleanly. But i cant see Douglass KO a prime Tyson like that. He was a sitting duck the whole fight and it gave Douglass an open look and miracle 'right uppercut, left hook, right hook, left hook' that KO'd Tyson. So prime Tyson vs Douglass may have gone to Douglass for sure.

And dont take the ''red karma'' and name calling serious. Its all bull****.

Mike Tyson77
05-18-2006, 11:53 PM
Tyson against the greats.

W Ali TKO 4
W Johnson MD 12
W Marciano TKO 9
W Frazier UD 12
W Foreman TKO 7
W Louis KO 5
W Liston KO 2
W Dempsey MD 12
W Tunny KO 3

I strongly belive a motivated prime Tyson could have destroyed anyone.

RockyMarcianofan00
05-19-2006, 01:14 AM
Tyson against the greats.

W Ali TKO 4
W Johnson MD 12
W Marciano TKO 9
W Frazier UD 12
W Foreman TKO 7
W Louis KO 5
W Liston KO 2
W Dempsey MD 12
W Tunny KO 3

I strongly belive a motivated prime Tyson could have destroyed anyone.
No way Tyson would last 9 rounds with prime Marciano, thats not to say that tyson couldn't win, i'm just saying he'd do it in 5 because after that stamina issues would get to him and Marciano always wore opponents down.

Against Frazier I can't see him UD'ing Frazier. This is because once again against a fighter with Power and Stamina like Frazier (granted Tyson in his prime would only most likely have a solid 5-6 rounds with a fighter like Frazier) He's have to do it within those rounds. Though Frazier and Tyson fought similar I'd still give Frazier an edge.

Against Foreman, I think it would be similar to Foreman v Frazier, Tyson may not go down as much as Frazier because I think Tyson's chin was alittle better and his head movement would allow him to evade easier. Although the fact of the matter is no way Tyson would get up as many times as Frazier, Tyson just didn't have Fraziers heart. Also Tyson was afraid of Foreman so he'd be mentally shaken going into the fight.

Thats all i'm going to do because i don't feel like typing anymore

Granted though Prime Tyson did have a fighting chance with most greats.
:boxing: :boxing:

Yogi
05-19-2006, 06:57 PM
AGAIN, the tyson who fought Spinks was trained by Rooney and was the same as he was in 86/87. He was just a lot more aggressive and pissed off by the things that happened before the fight. Michael Spink froze before the bell rang and couldn't defend himself. If it was Berbick, no way would he have been able to walk trough him in 1 round. It was the same prime Tyson who fought Berbick. He didn't need to move his head(Even though he did move his head in the 91 seconds, but thats what he was trained for, i bob and weave my head even when i dont need to sometimes. Its just something you're used to) How many times did Spinks throw and land his jab? Never, he froze like i told you, so i dont see why he would have to move his head like he did against Jesse Ferguson.

I'll point it out again, he was simply allowed to blow Spinks away because he COULD. Berbick, Tucker, Thomas etc, were too strong. And what the **** were you talking about..his body not ripped? Im sure you've seen the replay of the ko, Yogi, when he flexed and looked as ripped as ever. I do not see anything diffirent about tyson's body.

But in the Douglass fight he wasn't ripped at all. Rooney said it(On several docu's like ''Legendrary Nights: Douglass vs Tyson) and this was the man who trained Tyson for years and years. Did you know Tyson starved himself to death to get to his weight for that fight? And Rooney was right, Tyson didn't look like he trained like a freak. He did it in the 80s with Rooney. With Don Kings team he became lazy and thought he was unbeatable, therefor, why need to train like crazy when you're gonna KO him in 1 round right? Well that was his downfall. Teddy Atlas hates Tyson, and he also said the same. Thats the diffirence between you and Atlas, you are biased. Im sure Atlas think Tysons a ''piece of **** in and sometimes out of the ring'' but atleast he's not blinded by hate. Im not blinded by love, you are blinded by hate.

First off, I'll take back my comments on how Tyson's physical appearance was versus Spinks, as he did look in very good shape. Not as "ripped" as he was say versus Holmes, but yeah, he did look a little bit better than he did versus Douglas...

I'll take that part back, but I won't take back my comments about his lack of head movement and such...I mean, you probably aren't the person to be talking to about this, but I just never understood those "the night he beat Spinks he beats everybody" comments...

"His techniques in the Spinks fight were not high level. If Cus D'Amato had watched the fight he would have commented that there was no slipping, no bobbing, no weaving, the trademarks of the D'Amato system." - Steve Lott

I'm in agreement with Tyson's cornerman for that fight, as I tried to point out earlier. That stuff wasn't really there in that fight against Spinks, and if judging that performance against other all-time greats at heavyweight, then it has to considered not there for those fights, as well. In fact, in that fight Tyson showed a style that many Tyson fanboys have been critical of and as some kind of indicator of what a past his prime Tyson does...A lack of head movement and a guy who's only looking for a quick knockout. A big win for Tyson (probably his biggest) because of the signifcance of him winning the real heavyweight championship. But the performance? Nah...all he did was go out there, go straight forward with very little head movement, and blast some guy that didn't look to have had desire to be in the ring on that night.

Moving on...

Againt Douglas he did have a tiny bit of extra around the trunk line, which was no different than he had for other fights of his earlier in his career (like the Ferguson fight you mentioned). But ****, the guy was still built like a brick ****house in that Douglas fight, and yeah, I'd say that he was ripped...

And you know, I could really care less what Rooney says about Tyson's career after he left him. I've read plenty of interviews from him in over the years, and all it seems he does is criticize Tyson's fighting abilities after he left, and I think that's his own personal way of trying to elevate himself as a trainer (has he done ANYTHING else of great note in boxing besides being Tyson's trainer). It's like he's constantly saying that "Tyson is nothing without me", and even over the last couple of years I've read his words stating that Tyson would be just as good as he ever was if only he returned to Rooney's training ways...Ridiculous!

To me his words on Tyson are all said with an agenda of elevating himself, like what he says nowadays about the first fight that Tyson had without him in his corner, which was against Bruno...Sorry Rooney, but I don't see a fighter in that fight whose skills were "greatly diminished", or "hadn't trained" or "wasn't using Cus' style anymore", and whatver else he said about that version of Tyson. In fact, I'd take that Tyson over the Rooney-trained ones that fought the likes of Nino Ribalta, Bonecrusher Smith, and maybe a couple of other ones (from mememory the performance against Tubbs wasn't overly impressive, besides the final few seconds of the fight).

And speaking about the Douglas fight, he had the opinion that Tyson "didn't want to win" that fight. Sorry, but that is also a load of crap, and if you can't see that by the way Tyson was fighting (showing he in fact had some heart by taking the ****kicking he did on that night and still trying to win), at least the post fight actions of Tyson (press conferance) shows that he very much wanted to win that fight. A fighter who "didn't want to win" doesn't show the emotion that Mike did after the fight, when he was very much pissed with what happened in that fight.

And no I didn't know that Tyson "starved himself to death" for the Douglas fight, nor does it look like he did when he was in the ring. But let me guess...more Rooney comments?

If so, how on earth would he know what the hell was going on in Tyson's camp for that fight, because he certainly wasn't speaking with Tyson or anybody else that was directly affiliated with Mike at that time (has he even spoken to Tyson since he was fired and responded by sueing?)?

K-DOGG
05-19-2006, 07:00 PM
First off, I'll take back my comments on how Tyson's physical appearance was versus Spinks, as he did look in very good shape. Not as "ripped" as he was say versus Holmes, but yeah, he did look a little bit better than he did versus Douglas...

I'll take that part back, but I won't take back my comments about his lack of head movement and such...I mean, you probably aren't the person to be talking to about this, but I just never understood those "the night he beat Spinks he beats everybody" comments...

"His techniques in the Spinks fight were not high level. If Cus D'Amato had watched the fight he would have commented that there was no slipping, no bobbing, no weaving, the trademarks of the D'Amato system." - Steve Lott

I'm in agreement with Tyson's cornerman for that fight, as I tried to point out earlier. That stuff wasn't really there in that fight against Spinks, and if judging that performance against other all-time greats at heavyweight, then it has to considered not there for those fights, as well. In fact, in that fight Tyson showed a style that many Tyson fanboys have been critical of and as some kind of indicator of what a past his prime Tyson does...A lack of head movement and a guy who's only looking for a quick knockout. A big win for Tyson (probably his biggest) because of the signifcance of him winning the real heavyweight championship. But the performance? Nah...all he did was go out there, go straight forward with very little head movement, and blast some guy that didn't look to have had desire to be in the ring on that night.

Moving on...

Againt Douglas he did have a tiny bit of extra around the trunk line, which was no different than he had for other fights of his earlier in his career (like the Ferguson fight you mentioned). But ****, the guy was still built like a brick ****house in that Douglas fight, and yeah, I'd say that he was ripped...

And you know, I could really care less what Rooney says about Tyson's career after he left him. I've read plenty of interviews from him in over the years, and all it seems he does is criticize Tyson's fighting abilities after he left, and I think that's his own personal way of trying to elevate himself as a trainer (has he done ANYTHING else of great note in boxing besides being Tyson's trainer). It's like he's constantly saying that "Tyson is nothing without me", and even over the last couple of years I've read his words stating that Tyson would be just as good as he ever was if only he returned to Rooney's training ways...Ridiculous!

To me his words on Tyson are all said with an agenda of elevating himself, like what he says nowadays about the first fight that Tyson had without him in his corner, which was against Bruno...Sorry Rooney, but I don't see a fighter in that fight whose skills were "greatly diminished", or "hadn't trained" or "wasn't using Cus' style anymore", and whatver else he said about that version of Tyson. In fact, I'd take that Tyson over the Rooney-trained ones that fought the likes of Nino Ribalta, Bonecrusher Smith, and maybe a couple of other ones (from mememory the performance against Tubbs wasn't overly impressive, besides the final few seconds of the fight).

And speaking about the Douglas fight, he had the opinion that Tyson "didn't want to win" that fight. Sorry, but that is also a load of crap, and if you can't see that by the way Tyson was fighting (showing he in fact had some heart by taking the ****kicking he did on that night and still trying to win), at least the post fight actions of Tyson (press conferance) shows that he very much wanted to win that fight. A fighter who "didn't want to win" doesn't show the emotion that Mike did after the fight, when he was very much pissed with what happened in that fight.

And no I didn't know that Tyson "starved himself to death" for the Douglas fight, nor does it look like he did when he was in the ring. But let me guess...more Rooney comments?

If so, how on earth would he know what the hell was going on in Tyson's camp for that fight, because he certainly wasn't speaking with Tyson or anybody else that was directly affiliated with Mike at that time (has he even spoken to Tyson since he was fired and responded by sueing?)?

Actually, I'd read that Tyson ate too much "pie" going into the Douglas bout. :D

Yogi
05-19-2006, 07:02 PM
Actually, I'd read that Tyson ate too much "pie" going into the Douglas bout. :D

Yeah, and there has to be at least a little protein taken in when doing that, don't you think?

K-DOGG
05-19-2006, 07:17 PM
Yeah, and there has to be at least a little protein taken in when doing that, don't you think?

:rofl: Among other things! :D

kmet14
05-24-2006, 05:55 AM
Hm reading this post I almost forgot what it was about. First I thought it was sabbath opinions vs. everyone else (or sabbath vs. tyson). Althought they made a very good effort of discrediting tyson no one here really made a good reply crediting tyson.

First of all I think that tyson from 85-88 was awesome. What was obvious from the start was his punching power and quickness. In 1985 he really fought "bums" but what was icredible it was the way he won those fights with unbelivieble knockouts and in the process he almost never got hit - his movement was great - because of this his chin was questioned in almost all of his 1986 fights, no one knew how he would react if he really got hit hard. In 86 he slowly started to box more gain and recognizable opponents. Two going the distance:

Lets quote sabbath here:
James Tillis past his prime and now a decent journeyman loses a close decision to Tyson. Tillis never beat a top 10 heavyweight in his career and was KO'd 11 times.

You think this was a close decision? Have you seen the fight? Tillis down in 4th and outboxed on every confrontation. Tyson was clearly dominating the first five rounds and then started pacing himself(not hitting the body) because it was his first 10 round fight. But still finished very strong. I also doubt tillis at 28 was past his prime and he came in superb shape (even the commentators commented on this).

Sabbath:
Mitch Green. Here's a switch. A Tyson opponent who doesn't have multiple KO losses on his record. Green who never defeated a ranked fighter and retired 19-6 goes the distance with Tyson and is never floored.

Yeah he wasn't floored but was struck so bad on so many occasions that it is a miracle that he survived. I think his mouth piece was knocked out three times and in my oppinion tyson winning every round.

That year he also defeated Ferguson who was a very gain opponent and got knocked down in the fifth (with a broken nose) althought he got up and was later disqualified for holding. Even Ferguson himself admitted that mike was incredible. The only other competitive fight was Ribalta who got destroyed in 10 rounds getting knock down three times and taking abnormal amount of punishment. All other 86 fights were no problem for mike. Especially his 1986 title fight with Berbick (who beaten the old Ali and went the distance with prime Holmes), I think we can all aggre that Berbick had no chance and got destroyed. And how about Tony Tucker was he a nobody too? Tucker had a 35-0 record at the time and got beaten by tyson I think this is the best tyson fight although not the most entertaining. Followed the total destruction of Biggs.Later followed the Holmes match and then the Spinks match. Being the only man who knocked them both out. I think if Mike would stay with Rooney (who is the only apropriate trainer for tyson because only he is the only one familiar with cus's style or maybe teddy atlas but they hate each other) he could of been the greatest heavyweith ever and could in his prime defeat any other champion icluding Ali, Louis, Marciano,...

Heckler
05-24-2006, 07:20 AM
It's a shame that Tyson, the most physically gifted, talented, and one of the most if not the most skilled heavyweight of all time lacked the mental component to be a truly great champ.

No i don't believe Tyson ever had the mental strength, the self-confidence, the intangible qualities required for a champ to be truly great and dig down when the going gets really tough. I think the lack of these intangible qualities is apparent at any time of his career. Sure his physical gifts alone would be enough to defeat 99% of the men who ever stepped between those ropes, but Louis, Marciano, Ali, Holmes? It's quite possible that Tyson would come up short.

Heckler
05-24-2006, 08:20 AM
Yaman referring to Yogi as biased? How is Yogi biased? What is your basis for this. Has he ever stated anything about Tyson without a logical basis for doing so? He thinks Tyson is a piece of ****, how could he be any more biased then you whom loves Tyson?

You throw around the word 'biased' too often, try throwing around logic instead.

kmet14
05-24-2006, 08:29 AM
Heckler: I agre with you completely. He lacked mental strength and self-confidence but those things happened after he fired Rooney and lost his hw championship to Douglas. Just look at his later trainers (especialy the fiasco with missing equipment in the douglas fight) that would never happen if Rooney was still his trainer, also you have take into consideration that Rooney was the only trainer familiar with tysons pick-a-boo technic. And Tyson was the only one using that techic. I am really wondering what went on when tyson was training with later trainers? Perhaps he first showed them how he trains?

Yaman
05-24-2006, 09:29 AM
First off, I'll take back my comments on how Tyson's physical appearance was versus Spinks, as he did look in very good shape. Not as "ripped" as he was say versus Holmes, but yeah, he did look a little bit better than he did versus Douglas...

I'll take that part back, but I won't take back my comments about his lack of head movement and such...I mean, you probably aren't the person to be talking to about this, but I just never understood those "the night he beat Spinks he beats everybody" comments...

"His techniques in the Spinks fight were not high level. If Cus D'Amato had watched the fight he would have commented that there was no slipping, no bobbing, no weaving, the trademarks of the D'Amato system." - Steve Lott

I'm in agreement with Tyson's cornerman for that fight, as I tried to point out earlier. That stuff wasn't really there in that fight against Spinks, and if judging that performance against other all-time greats at heavyweight, then it has to considered not there for those fights, as well. In fact, in that fight Tyson showed a style that many Tyson fanboys have been critical of and as some kind of indicator of what a past his prime Tyson does...A lack of head movement and a guy who's only looking for a quick knockout. A big win for Tyson (probably his biggest) because of the signifcance of him winning the real heavyweight championship. But the performance? Nah...all he did was go out there, go straight forward with very little head movement, and blast some guy that didn't look to have had desire to be in the ring on that night.

Moving on...

Againt Douglas he did have a tiny bit of extra around the trunk line, which was no different than he had for other fights of his earlier in his career (like the Ferguson fight you mentioned). But ****, the guy was still built like a brick ****house in that Douglas fight, and yeah, I'd say that he was ripped...

And you know, I could really care less what Rooney says about Tyson's career after he left him. I've read plenty of interviews from him in over the years, and all it seems he does is criticize Tyson's fighting abilities after he left, and I think that's his own personal way of trying to elevate himself as a trainer (has he done ANYTHING else of great note in boxing besides being Tyson's trainer). It's like he's constantly saying that "Tyson is nothing without me", and even over the last couple of years I've read his words stating that Tyson would be just as good as he ever was if only he returned to Rooney's training ways...Ridiculous!

To me his words on Tyson are all said with an agenda of elevating himself, like what he says nowadays about the first fight that Tyson had without him in his corner, which was against Bruno...Sorry Rooney, but I don't see a fighter in that fight whose skills were "greatly diminished", or "hadn't trained" or "wasn't using Cus' style anymore", and whatver else he said about that version of Tyson. In fact, I'd take that Tyson over the Rooney-trained ones that fought the likes of Nino Ribalta, Bonecrusher Smith, and maybe a couple of other ones (from mememory the performance against Tubbs wasn't overly impressive, besides the final few seconds of the fight).

And speaking about the Douglas fight, he had the opinion that Tyson "didn't want to win" that fight. Sorry, but that is also a load of crap, and if you can't see that by the way Tyson was fighting (showing he in fact had some heart by taking the ****kicking he did on that night and still trying to win), at least the post fight actions of Tyson (press conferance) shows that he very much wanted to win that fight. A fighter who "didn't want to win" doesn't show the emotion that Mike did after the fight, when he was very much pissed with what happened in that fight.

And no I didn't know that Tyson "starved himself to death" for the Douglas fight, nor does it look like he did when he was in the ring. But let me guess...more Rooney comments?

If so, how on earth would he know what the hell was going on in Tyson's camp for that fight, because he certainly wasn't speaking with Tyson or anybody else that was directly affiliated with Mike at that time (has he even spoken to Tyson since he was fired and responded by sueing?)?

Oh you take it back eh? See what miracles can happen IF YOU ACTUALLY WATCH THE FIGHTS? :) . And again about his head movement, he would move his head if he needed to . There was no need for Tyson to move his head for the full 91 seconds he lasted. Spinks was not a problem for Tyson that night, because you saw what happened. Tyson realised this, so he went for the quick knockout instead of the boxing with head movement. Spinks crumbled, he was scared, had no desire to go out there to beat Tyson, unlike Tucker Thomas etc, who were actually trying. And if Tyson NEEDED to move his head, he did. So maybe you didn't notice that.

THEN, in the Douglass fight in the mid rounds or so(And the first round, you're right, but Tyson always did that early in a fight, you should watch if he keeps it up for the whole fight) Tyson started to get back to his peek a boo style like the commentators of the fight mentioned, because he realised he needed it, but his head movement lasted very little and only on a couple of rounds, nowhere near as great as he did with fights like Furgeson or Tubbs etc(And dont mention Spinks, i explained it).

Now, that was a brilliant explenation on the whole Spinks-Douglass situation from yours truly.

What you think about Rooney may be right, but he is always on point about Tyson and knows what he's talking about. Ofcource he does, he made him the youngest HW champion. He knows more than you cause he's not blinded by hate. Like i said, im sure Teddy Atlas think Tysons a piece of ****, but he's not biased like you. I've seen about 3 interviews on docu's and read some articles of Rooney's opinion on the Douglass fight. He said he knew Tyson wasn't in shape and all of that, he could see it. Why wont you believe him? Because he hasn't done anything else in the boxing world like you say? What does that have to do with this? Same as you thinking he's tryin to elevate himself as a trainer, thats a weak way to try to disaprove Rooney's opinion, who has the best comments on Tyson..

Tyson said on Beyond the Glory ''I dont know i didnt really train for that fight, i didnt really take it serious. I was ****ing loads of Japanese girls'' etc, something like that. He was overweighed, and he starved himself to get back to his normal weight. I dont care who you are, if you aren't physically ready to fight, and have sex the night before and come back thinking you're invincible, you're not gonna be at your best. Thats really what i disagree with you, Yogi. I consider a fighter's ''prime'' when he is at his best. Tyson was young and everything, but he wasn't on his best that fight. George Foreman, he was young against Young, but was he at his best in that fight? No. Its the same thing.

Yaman
05-24-2006, 09:33 AM
And about Keving Rooney, he was not the only one that held Tyson together, it were guys like Steve Lott, Clayton and basicely his whole catskills team. You guys dont know ****, especially you Heckler. Go back to your Ali threads, you dont know **** about this.

SABBATH
05-24-2006, 09:57 AM
Lets quote sabbath here:
James Tillis past his prime and now a decent journeyman loses a close decision to Tyson. Tillis never beat a top 10 heavyweight in his career and was KO'd 11 times.

You think this was a close decision? Have you seen the fight? Tillis down in 4th and outboxed on every confrontation. Tyson was clearly dominating the first five rounds and then started pacing himself(not hitting the body) because it was his first 10 round fight. But still finished very strong. I also doubt tillis at 28 was past his prime and he came in superb shape (even the commentators commented on this).Firstly, I watched the Tyson-Tillis fight on television when it happened, taped it watched it several times and still have it in my fight library.

The fight was a close decision. Read the emphasis. Going into the 10th and last round Tyson had a one round lead on two of the judges scorecards. Had Tillis won round ten the fight would have been declared a majority draw.

Tillis was a familiar face to the general boxing public as he had fought on network television many times before. Here was the problem. Tillis had been soundly beaten in every other fight he had on network televison.

Pinklon Thomas KO'd by 8, Greg Page KO'd by 8, Tim Witherspoon KO'd by 1, Marvis Frazier L 10. Four months before fighting Tyson, Tillis had been used by ABC to showcase gold medal winning heavyweight Tyrell Biggs who had hammered Tillis all over the ring winning 7 rounds to 1. Add in his losses to Gerrie Coetzee and Carl Williams during this time frame (don't recall watching those fights on network television) and Tillis had lost 4 of his last 5 fights.

The Tillis fight was Tyson's second fight televised by ABC and he was brought in for no other reason than to showcase Tyson blowing out a name fighter that viewers would be familiar with. An impressive KO win over Tillis would establish him as the best young prospect. The only problem was that someone forgot to tell Tillis and he made a pretty good fight of it, a better fight I may add than he had made in any of his previous convincing KO losses on network television.

If you believe Tillis was not past his prime then he must have been one hell of a **** fighter. If you go back to 1984 (2 years before meeting Tyson) and count forward (which would exclude Tillis already being KO'd 3 times and losing a 4th fight by decision) he would only win 12 of 32 fights.

Heckler
05-24-2006, 11:06 AM
And about Keving Rooney, he was not the only one that held Tyson together, it were guys like Steve Lott, Clayton and basicely his whole catskills team. You guys dont know ****, especially you Heckler. Go back to your Ali threads, you dont know **** about this.

I don't know ****? Really because i don't watch Tyson obsessively i don't know ****? Ill be honest i don't know alot about the Tyson team dynamic, nor do i care. I have observed and analysed his fights and thus have every right to comment on Tysons strengths and Weaknesses. Im not part of this trivial debate on what went on behind the scenes... im merely analysing Tyson as a fighter, so your insults make no sense at all. Yogi has made you look like a fool, and i'll stay here, remain civil and have a good chuckle along with the rest of boxingscene as these guys own you.

Have a nice day :)

kmet14
05-24-2006, 11:12 AM
Sabbath: Yes I know all about the scoring but still if you watch the fight you can clearly see it wasn't that close(the third judge had seen that). You can also see Tyson holding back and preserving energy. And you must admit that Tillis was in great shape coming in seven pounds lighter than his previous fight against Biggs.

Heckler
05-24-2006, 06:34 PM
Hey Yaman your probably reading... why don't you contribute some more of your awesome logic... oh thats right YOUR BANNED... WHAT A DISASTROUS OCCURANCE! :)

enadeus
05-24-2006, 07:55 PM
A very insightful put together article with plenty to back it up. However, just on sheer popularity and world appeal, Tyson is an all time great. That, and he was only a 5'10 heavyweight, and still competed well with the real heavyweights. Comn now.

Dempsey 1919
05-24-2006, 11:10 PM
Hey Yaman your probably reading... why don't you contribute some more of your awesome logic... oh thats right YOUR BANNED... WHAT A DISASTROUS OCCURANCE! :)

oh, snap! he's banned? why did they ban him?

SABBATH
05-25-2006, 02:27 AM
http://www.thebeerstore.ca/chill/Issue1/bubbles2.jpg

Goodbye Yaman

Rest In Peace

We will miss you and your funny Tyson threads ;)

Dempsey 1919
05-25-2006, 02:38 AM
http://www.thebeerstore.ca/chill/Issue1/bubbles2.jpg

Goodbye Yaman

Rest In Peace

We will miss you and your funny Tyson threads ;)

You're smasher, aren't you? :D

Heckler
05-25-2006, 02:46 AM
He got banned because he's an idiot.

Dempsey 1919
05-25-2006, 03:00 AM
http://www.thebeerstore.ca/chill/Issue1/bubbles2.jpg

Goodbye Yaman

Rest In Peace

We will miss you and your funny Tyson threads ;)

you still haven't answered my question.

Mike Tyson77
05-25-2006, 06:58 PM
If Mike Tyson isnt great, than neither are these guys.....

Jack Dempsey
Jack Johnson
Sonny Liston
Lennox Lewis
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Joe Fraizer


Tyson had better records than these guys, and was more dominant than them. Everyone forgets HOW Tyson won fights, not that he just won the fight. Tyson was the greatest, people will understand that when our crap generation is gone. NO ONE beats an 87' Tyson.

Brassangel
05-25-2006, 09:22 PM
I don't know if it's safe to say that "NO ONE" beats '87 Tyson. Any fighter in their prime was still beatable...they were only men.

I think that as long as Yaman isn't here, this thread will go well. Yogi, Heckler, kmet14, SABBATH, keep it up. This is really interesting.

K to you guys.

ricecrispi
05-31-2006, 02:37 AM
not true. Tyson was beatable.

Tyson was good at 87' but beatable. This guy was scary good for his age. He didn't even reach his full potential and still had potential. Tyson never built that determination and heart that makes a true dominant champ. Tyson's mental state was his flaw like Ibeauchi and McCall and Foreman. Its like flaw much like for Bowe being lazy and out of shape or tToney eat and talking too much.

Dempsey 1919
05-31-2006, 04:37 AM
not true. Tyson was beatable.

Tyson was good at 87' but beatable. This guy was scary good for his age. He didn't even reach his full potential and still had potential. Tyson never built that determination and heart that makes a true dominant champ. Tyson's mental state was his flaw like Ibeauchi and McCall and Foreman. Its like flaw much like for Bowe being lazy and out of shape or tToney eat and talking too much.

Sure he' beatable, anybody is beatable, even the great Ali. But he was the biggest thing in boxing.

Yaman
05-31-2006, 05:32 AM
Sure he' beatable, anybody is beatable, even the great Ali. But he was the biggest thing in boxing.
Who, Tyson or Ali?

Dempsey 1919
06-01-2006, 12:03 AM
Who, Tyson or Ali?

I'm talking about tyson.

Brassangel
06-01-2006, 10:45 AM
He was the biggest thing in boxing, unfortunately, he never developed the patience and maturity that was starting to show when he was still with Rooney. While the writing was ultimately on the wall, one can observe his pre-championship, and first two championship fights and see this starting to develop. Once he was on top of the world, however, he discontinued this while opponents were gunning for his weaknesses. It's a sad, sad thing that we couldn't be talking about him differently had his skills been fully developed, and his heart matured.

I guess that's why we have such myths about the man.

catskills23
06-01-2006, 12:46 PM
He was the biggest thing in boxing, unfortunately, he never developed the patience and maturity that was starting to show when he was still with Rooney. While the writing was ultimately on the wall, one can observe his pre-championship, and first two championship fights and see this starting to develop. Once he was on top of the world, however, he discontinued this while opponents were gunning for his weaknesses. It's a sad, sad thing that we couldn't be talking about him differently had his skills been fully developed, and his heart matured.

I guess that's why we have such myths about the man.

yeah but could tyson of ever developed in to a classy boxer?.

Brassangel
06-01-2006, 01:26 PM
Don't know. He had the historian thing going for him, and he often spoke words of respect towards his opponents. Again, he never got to practice these things for very long before several people, including his wife, took advantage of a kid with way too much.

He always had the potential to be a loose cannon as much as a true champion. It was a matter of catalyst; which would be triggered first? Clearly, we know his story.

catskills23
06-01-2006, 06:40 PM
yeah but could tyson of ever developed in to a classy boxer?.

K-DOGG
06-01-2006, 06:46 PM
yeah but could tyson of ever developed in to a classy boxer?.

Not impossible; but I'd say no. Given that Cus was his trainer and given that Mike is short for a heavyweight, I don't see that he could have done any other style. He was outfitted with the style that fit him best.

Now, true, Orlin Norris, who is also 5'10" was a very slick boxer before he moved down to Cruiseweight and focused more on punching power; but Orlin still ran into trouble with the taller guys as would have Tyson.

Nothing's impossible; but I'm sure Cuss trained him the way he did because he knew where his potential lay....and it wasn't in being a midget Ali.....though I often refer to Tyson as a "technical slugger" because, at his best, he did have great technique and was far more than a "crude" slugger; but a classic boxer...can't see it.

catskills23
06-01-2006, 07:09 PM
Not impossible; but I'd say no. Given that Cus was his trainer and given that Mike is short for a heavyweight, I don't see that he could have done any other style. He was outfitted with the style that fit him best.

Now, true, Orlin Norris, who is also 5'10" was a very slick boxer before he moved down to Cruiseweight and focused more on punching power; but Orlin still ran into trouble with the taller guys as would have Tyson.

Nothing's impossible; but I'm sure Cuss trained him the way he did because he knew where his potential lay....and it wasn't in being a midget Ali.....though I often refer to Tyson as a "technical slugger" because, at his best, he did have great technique and was far more than a "crude" slugger; but a classic boxer...can't see it.

remember norris had no chin tyson had a chin of granite.

Southpaw Stinger
06-01-2006, 07:12 PM
tyson had a chin of granite.

He had a tough solid chin but it wasn't granite.

Brassangel
06-02-2006, 10:34 AM
He had a good chin at heavyweight. I think the effects of a granite chin were aided by his 20" neck which had incredible shock absorbing power.

Yaman
06-02-2006, 10:38 AM
He had a good chin at heavyweight. I think the effects of a granite chin were aided by his 20" neck which had incredible shock absorbing power.

Yes, and it took some REAL power to snap Tyson's neck back like Razor Ruddock did. Buster Douglass did it aswell, and people say he was a weak puncher. Tyson had a close to granite chin, because when you think about getting your head snapped back over and over for 10 rounds(Thats gotta hurt man, thats gotta hurt) and your still standing, your chin can take some hard shots.

Abe Attell
06-08-2006, 09:51 PM
I remember when Holyfield was asked if he was concerned about fighting Buster, and he said "yes, any man that can knock down a fighter with a jab you have to worry." {not exact quotes, but close}

Buster seemed to be a fighter that didn't commit to his punches early in his career, until he had something to fight for.
It might be kind of like Tarver: when Tarver fights he really doesn't throw everything into that left, but when he does, throwing his entire body into the punch, it is a big punch.

Abe Attell
06-08-2006, 09:53 PM
yeah but could tyson of ever developed in to a classy boxer?.

Maybe if Cus D'amato was younger, like when he trained Floyd Patterson, he could of helped changed his "character" like he did with Floyd...but of course, Cus died and all went to hell, especially after Jacobs died...rememeber, Floyd was kind of like Tyson when he was very young, and it took Cus to help guide,teach,change him.

kerrminator
06-13-2006, 10:22 AM
You just have to look at Tyson speed and power in his prime to know he was a great fighter.

Anyone who denies it are usually Lewis or Ali fans that are angry coz a yob like Mike Tyson is ranked up there with their man.

Ali surely has to be the most mythical of them all, if he was as good as people say he would have beaten everyone he faced regardless of age.

Ali was like the old days PBF, over-rated and over hyped

Brassangel
06-13-2006, 11:04 AM
Ali is helped out a little by his mythical status, but that doesn't change the fact that he was great. His myth was developed simply because he brought something amazing to the ring.

Tyson's "myth" was formed in similar fashion. It's simple: the man brought amazing skill, speed, power, and even stamina to the ring. He tore people down in a way that hadn't been seen before. Before he went to prison, and after he lost to Douglas, he looked really good while climbing back through the contenders. It's a shame that he threw it out the window. What I'm saying is, there were moments during his career where he displayed heart, where he displayed good body work, etc. Had he continued on that stretch, he would be seated near the top appropriately, instead of by the aid of myth. We only get to see pieces of his greatness, spread out over multiple fights. There were few cases where he brought it all together at once. Had he done so, he would have been a top 5 champion.

As a side note, it was so disappointing to see in his second fight with Holyfield, where he had Evander in trouble in the third round and he tossed it by getting DQ'ed. He really blew it when he had a chance at redemption. Reasons like this are why he is simple the greatest "could/should have been".

Yaman
06-13-2006, 11:37 AM
I take it that you watched the Ruddock fights, Brassangel. He really did have heart, body work(few thing were missing though) but especially heart. People need to watch those fights. Everytime i hear someone say 'If someone fights Tyson back, he folds.' i know they havent seen his best fights. Ruddock nailed Tyson a lot of times and snapped his head back too. Ruddock was one of the hardest hitters ever and he fought Tyson back, but he couldn't stop this warrior. Anyway, you are right, there were times where he had it all, but most of the time he didnt, and people look at the negative stuff. They have no idea.

micky_knox
06-13-2006, 05:56 PM
why do tyson haters always bring up Ali's opposition?

so what if ali fought fraizer,foreman ect..........that has nothing to do with tyson.
tyson dominated and was destructivly awesome.........nobody can deny that

damn if tyson was fighting in Ali's era you would be listing him as one of ali's greatest foes too.

SABBATH
06-13-2006, 06:13 PM
if tyson was fighting in Ali's era you would be listing him as one of ali's greatest foes too.And today Ali would be missing part of his ear...

micky_knox
06-13-2006, 06:22 PM
And today Ali would be missing part of his ear...

not if Ali managed to "split" his glove first

Yaman
06-14-2006, 09:22 AM
not if Ali managed to "split" his glove first
Hahaha good ownage.

Dempsey 1919
06-14-2006, 11:13 PM
Hahaha good ownage.

Or Ali might have a broken arm. :D

SABBATH
06-14-2006, 11:19 PM
Or Ali might have a broken arm. :D
He'd only need one arm.

Dempsey 1919
06-14-2006, 11:27 PM
He'd only need one arm.

Haha, lol!

Brassangel
06-15-2006, 12:44 AM
I think Ali was too slippery (and probably too tall) for Tyson to get his ear. Maybe he'd bite his chin and Ali would crack a joke about the marks on his face.

Seriously though, he just rarely ever had all of the pieces together at once. When he did, sure, he was great, probably one of the best ever. Others, like Ali, had it together more consistently.

P.S. @ Yaman: Yeah, he showed heart in his fights with Ruddock. He also showed stamina, and body work. He also showed the ability to overcome the height and reach disadvantage that most people claim would keep Tyson from defeating various opponents. Ruddock was 6'3", 228 lbs., and had a big reach. This was one of few moments where he showed that he learned something from a previous bout (ie: Douglas). Tyson came in 4 pounds lighter than he was in his fight with Douglas, jabbed, and hit the body. The announcers made mention several times of how visibly winded Ruddock was.

Also, while he beat Tillis, he spent too much time swinging for the dome which made things difficult for him. His trainers worked on this with him, and he came out against Mitch Green swinging at the body. He used more conservative shots, scoring points via combinations. While he didn't knock either fighter out, he again showed the ability to adapt and learn.

Unfortunately, these little details form the matter of his Myth since he only put these pieces together for a few moments at a time.

micky_knox
06-15-2006, 06:16 AM
Or Ali might have a broken arm. :D
or a broken jaw






hell huys i love Ali too...........but i dont see why some of you pick on tyson so much.......or on marciano for that matter....im new here but i sence a lot of tyson and rocky hatred.........they all had there moments of greatness,some more than others granted........but we should be thankfull for all of them.......i don not believe the tyson haters didnt watch and enjoy his fights when he was at the top of his game.......

Muchmoore
06-16-2006, 10:44 PM
Tyson is the best head to head heavyweight ever. He had it all, power, speed, chin, heart, technique....

Everyone says he didnt live up to his potential, but he had 12 defenses of his title and unifed the titles twice! Thats not too shabby

Verstyle
01-20-2007, 08:43 PM
yes, this is true. tyson may have won the title quicker than ali did, but ali won the title in much fewer fights than tyson did. :)

being an olympic gold medalist also works good.ahahaa

Southpaw Stinger
01-20-2007, 08:57 PM
being an olympic gold medalist also works good.ahahaa


tell that to Audley harrison. lol

Verstyle
01-20-2007, 09:00 PM
tell that to Audley harrison. lol

i was refering to why he got a title shot quicker then tyson.

SABBATH
01-20-2007, 09:15 PM
i was refering to why he got a title shot quicker then tyson.It took Ali four years as a pro to get a title shot and Tyson just two years, so Tyson in fact got a title shot quicker.

Verstyle
01-20-2007, 09:18 PM
It took Ali four years as a pro to get a title shot and Tyson just two years, so Tyson in fact got a title shot quicker.

that damn butterfly doesnt know **** then. knew i shoulda boxreced it:nonono:

Dempsey 1919
01-20-2007, 09:18 PM
It took Ali four years as a pro to get a title shot and Tyson just two years, so Tyson in fact got a title shot quicker.

Bingo.....

Verstyle
01-20-2007, 09:19 PM
Bingo.....

i mean in less fights. my bad

Brassangel
01-24-2007, 09:49 PM
After six months of abandonment from this website, I'm surprised to see this thread still getting posts. SABBATH started something good, that's for sure.

A lot of fighters have myths that surround them. I think that more people are starting to analyze Tyson's career (and even Ali's) a little more realistically now that the heavyweight division has lost it's glamor. Where else is there to turn except for the glory days of sports' ex-greatest prize? The Heavyweight Champion of the World.

Tyson showed us on multiple occasions that he had what it takes to win the big fights; most of these examples I have listed countless times before. Nobody denies that he was incredibly gifted, but also emotionally distraught. I think that people are starting to look at the profession instead of the person, which will have a positive effect on the general analyses of Tyson's career.

brownpimp88
01-24-2007, 11:37 PM
The guy that wrote this article is a ****in dumbass. Michael Spinks's only claim to fame was beating larry holmes twice, so what he did before that means nothing, what a dumbass. You can basically diss every boxer if you do full in depth research on thier career. The only guy thats kinda hard to degrade is ali cuz he beat better comp at heavyweight than any other fighter can dream of.

Buster douglas was his only noteworthy opponent lol, how about the undefeated tony tucker, you know the guy that kicked buster's ass. Or how about razor ruddock, the guy that had loads of potential. Tyson has beat enough contenders at heavyweight to be top 10 and he is top 10, nuff said.

Brassangel
01-25-2007, 11:25 PM
Well, the article may be a little strange, but I wouldn't call him dumb. The error in analyzing Mike Tyson's career comes from viewing it like everybody else's. He didn't grow into a peak, he shot out of the gates at his. The more he won, the less he cared. His greatness came only in moments, leaving the crowds knowing that he had nearly unlimited potential in the tank; unfortunately, he left it untapped for most of his fights from 1988 on. Now he's sparring never-would-be's and amateurs for money. More than a myth, people prefer the alternate reality that should/would have been, if only....[FILL IN THE BLANKS HERE].

No one is saying that this article is the 'end-all' for Mike Tyson fans, either. Just an article.

gandhalf
02-04-2007, 08:15 AM
Been rewatching his recent and past fights lately..
watching Him reminds me how one dimensional boxing is though.
any versions of tyson would get easily taklen care of under different rules or circumstances but since everybody's forced to stand against Him...

It's a different story...

Having said that , I also think He was extremely talented.
but ironically ,He also happens to be imo , THE most overrated fighter in boxing history.

Look at a past prime foreman's achievements. Now compare them
To Tyson's (McBride anyone?) at even an older age , Foreman was giving one hell of a fight against a top Holyfield...and Foreman even won the belt in his 40's
Past prime Tyson gets owned by a D level fighter.

Prime tyson looks good vs monumental cans.
then gets put to the test..and gets owned by Douglas. sadly , that wasn't even a fluke.

Tyson shoulda tried K1 instead of embarrassing himself in his own sport vs Mcbride...

It woulda been funnier to see his ass getting KOed via low or highkicks...
NO 8 counts are needed when you get hit flush with the shin.
LOL...talk about "powerful puncher".. punches are jokes compared to flush highkicks. In terms of pwoer they are.

And what's even more pathetic is that Tyson was a joke in that department when compared to the likes of Foreman , Tua , Peter , Shavers.. and the list goes on...
Tyson wasn't even the most powerful thing in his own sport!

But due to the excessive media-brainwashing...He became more dangerous than a shotgun or a hand grenade.

that's how overhyped that guy was..
the excess of the 80's..
Tyson is the perfect representation of that era.
The living incarnation of of the hype machine.

Getting outboxed by Botha...
ridiculed by Lennox...He sure was a king of "**** talking" though.
"I'll eat your children" , "praise to allah"!...lol
and the fans loved every bit of it.

And to think that I used to believe He was a top 3 goat material...lol

Brassangel
02-05-2007, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by gandhalf
Been rewatching his recent and past fights lately..
watching Him reminds me how one dimensional boxing is though.
any versions of tyson would get easily taklen care of under different rules or circumstances but since everybody's forced to stand against Him...

It's a different story...

Having said that , I also think He was extremely talented.
but ironically ,He also happens to be imo , THE most overrated fighter in boxing history.

Look at a past prime foreman's achievements. Now compare them
To Tyson's (McBride anyone?) at even an older age , Foreman was giving one hell of a fight against a top Holyfield...and Foreman even won the belt in his 40's
Past prime Tyson gets owned by a D level fighter.

Prime tyson looks good vs monumental cans.
then gets put to the test..and gets owned by Douglas. sadly , that wasn't even a fluke.

Tyson shoulda tried K1 instead of embarrassing himself in his own sport vs Mcbride...

It woulda been funnier to see his ass getting KOed via low or highkicks...
NO 8 counts are needed when you get hit flush with the shin.
LOL...talk about "powerful puncher".. punches are jokes compared to flush highkicks. In terms of pwoer they are.

And what's even more pathetic is that Tyson was a joke in that department when compared to the likes of Foreman , Tua , Peter , Shavers.. and the list goes on...
Tyson wasn't even the most powerful thing in his own sport!

But due to the excessive media-brainwashing...He became more dangerous than a shotgun or a hand grenade.

that's how overhyped that guy was..
the excess of the 80's..
Tyson is the perfect representation of that era.
The living incarnation of of the hype machine.

Getting outboxed by Botha...
ridiculed by Lennox...He sure was a king of "**** talking" though.
"I'll eat your children" , "praise to allah"!...lol
and the fans loved every bit of it.

And to think that I used to believe He was a top 3 goat material...lol

Wow...not a true, accurate, or intelligent bit in that entire post. Just opinionated, or "excess" smacktalk without reasonable publishings or citations of credible research.

At any rate, I believe that the "Myth" goes both ways.

Ryn0
02-08-2007, 08:56 AM
You just have to look at Tyson speed and power in his prime to know he was a great fighter.

Anyone who denies it are usually Lewis or Ali fans that are angry coz a yob like Mike Tyson is ranked up there with their man.

Ali surely has to be the most mythical of them all, if he was as good as people say he would have beaten everyone he faced regardless of age.

Ali was like the old days PBF, over-rated and over hyped

I agree that tyson was a great fighter who didn't manage to live up to his potential but all we do know is what happened and what thappened was he lost to some good fighters and KO'd some very average ones with the exception of a few. Now to say ali was over-hyped and over-rated is wrong in my opinion. He had trouble with certain fighter such as Cooper and Frazier etc. but he beat them didn't he? every fighter has a style that suits another fight take frazier,foreman for example ali had great trouble with frazier but foreman did not. Ali had little trouble with foreman but frazier did.
To say Ali should have beaten everyone regardless of age is truly an ali hater statement. He fought leon spinks to regain his title even after doctor had stated he was too damaged to fight and his reflexes slowed dramatically from his prime. Ali V holmes was a shadow of his former self. But the medical report before the fight stated that he had a hole in the membrane of his brain but Don King hid the report from prying eyes. To say a boxer should be able to beat another regardless of age is stupid. Even tyson who was an exciting fighter and i liked him very much lost, as his skills faded and age caught up with him. Tyson was indeed destructive an exciting and if tyson was in ali era then yes we might be talking about tyson as one of his greatest foes. But he wasn't, tyson failed to live up to what he could have and although it may hurt some of you to admit it. His oppostion was average with the exception of a few. We can only base a fighter on the opposition he fought. The better the opposition got the Harder tyson lost. Some of you will disagree with me so feel free to change my mind it is very open and willing to gain critisism. But anyone who post meaningless 3 line posts saying tyson was great, ali was average refrain yourself from doing it. It's pointless and proves nothing.

Dempsey 1919
02-08-2007, 02:50 PM
I agree that tyson was a great fighter who didn't manage to live up to his potential but all we do know is what happened and what thappened was he lost to some good fighters and KO'd some very average ones with the exception of a few. Now to say ali was over-hyped and over-rated is wrong in my opinion. He had trouble with certain fighter such as Cooper and Frazier etc. but he beat them didn't he? every fighter has a style that suits another fight take frazier,foreman for example ali had great trouble with frazier but foreman did not. Ali had little trouble with foreman but frazier did.
To say Ali should have beaten everyone regardless of age is truly an ali hater statement. He fought leon spinks to regain his title even after doctor had stated he was too damaged to fight and his reflexes slowed dramatically from his prime. Ali V holmes was a shadow of his former self. But the medical report before the fight stated that he had a hole in the membrane of his brain but Don King hid the report from prying eyes. To say a boxer should be able to beat another regardless of age is stupid. Even tyson who was an exciting fighter and i liked him very much lost, as his skills faded and age caught up with him. Tyson was indeed destructive an exciting and if tyson was in ali era then yes we might be talking about tyson as one of his greatest foes. But he wasn't, tyson failed to live up to what he could have and although it may hurt some of you to admit it. His oppostion was average with the exception of a few. We can only base a fighter on the opposition he fought. The better the opposition got the Harder tyson lost. Some of you will disagree with me so feel free to change my mind it is very open and willing to gain critisism. But anyone who post meaningless 3 line posts saying tyson was great, ali was average refrain yourself from doing it. It's pointless and proves nothing.

:fing02:...

fbeni4
02-08-2007, 05:50 PM
Just a little fact i do realize that he was unbelievably past his prime but tyson beat Berbick who was also the last gy to fight muhammad Ali and also beat him. This is what was considered to be the connection between the Ali and Tyson eras.

X_Legend_X
02-08-2007, 05:55 PM
This guy is a legend

Brassangel
02-09-2007, 12:06 AM
I don't think that anyone truly believes that Ali, or his competition were average. Nor do I think that they truly believe that a fighter should win every fight, regardless of age. I DO think that people are far more generous in their excuses towards Ali, however, than they are towards Tyson.

For example:

Ali had a little more than three years of consecutive inactivity whereby he lost a bit of his speed, timing, and fluidity in the ring. He fought against Quarry and Bonavena, two very hard-knock contenders with awkward styles. Oscar Bonavena in particular took Ali 15 difficult rounds to finally best. His comeback bouts took place over the course of almost a year before he faced Joe Frazier.

Mike Tyson had more than four years of consecutive inactivity whereby he too lost a bit of his speed, timing, and fluidity in the ring. He fought a whopping 9 total rounds against very bleak competition who were tossed in via big paydays. Mike never got tested, and his self esteem had become what it was before: he believed he was invincible, and started to throw one punch at a time, because this was what was knocking his opponents out. This transpired over the course of a year before he faced Evander Holyfield.

Everybody grants Ali the pardon and says "it's okay" to Ali's losses after the layoff, because he lost some speed and eventually developed Parkinson's.

Everybody gives Tyson flak, and says "see, he wasn't that good" when discussing his post layoff losses.

We don't even need to get into the personal problems and corner comparisons.

All that I'm saying is, even though Ali is great, and while I model almost every Fight Night fighter I create after Muhammad Ali :boxing: , he is excused, applauded, and forgiven at every turn by the sports community; even when facts and figures give him the advantage to begin with. Perhaps the largest myth surrounds him, but is passed off onto to others because that very myth has been embraced; sympathetically.

shellroc513
02-09-2007, 12:12 AM
mike knocked ****** out, no myth needed.

SABBATH
02-09-2007, 12:41 AM
Ali had a little more than three years of consecutive inactivity whereby he lost a bit of his speed, timing, and fluidity in the ring. He fought against Quarry and Bonavena, two very hard-knock contenders with awkward styles. Oscar Bonavena in particular took Ali 15 difficult rounds to finally best. His comeback bouts took place over the course of almost a year before he faced Joe Frazier.You are mistaken my friend.

Ali fought Quarry, Bonevena and Frazier within 5 1/2 months. Ali had been convicted in the courts for draft evasion and was facing a prison sentance hence the rush to fight Frazier before his sentancing.

Ali stayed out of prison because his conviction was overturned in June 1971 3 months after the Frazier fight.

Dempsey 1919
02-09-2007, 01:23 PM
You are mistaken my friend.

Ali fought Quarry, Bonevena and Frazier within 5 1/2 months. Ali had been convicted in the courts for draft evasion and was facing a prison sentance hence the rush to fight Frazier before his sentancing.

Ali stayed out of prison because his conviction was overturned in June 1971 3 months after the Frazier fight.

:fing02:...

Brassangel
02-10-2007, 11:19 AM
You were right, it was a touch shy of six months, not a year. I think I was caught up in formatting their respective paragraphs the same that I wrote a year twice. Even so, it really doesn't take away from the comparison. In fact, it may even help the comparison, as generally speaking, the top fighters often had better showings with less time in between ring activity. Obviously not too frequently, or it would have the opposite effect. The worse thing for Tyson here was the fact that he was thrown some real losers, whether his decision or not, and I think that Mike would have been better off if he were thrown some tougher bones before fighting Evander Holyfield; which was the general message of my previous post.

Thanks for the correction though. :smashfrea:

Verstyle
02-10-2007, 11:26 AM
every1 has there opinions on mike and were not the 1s to try to change another persons mind cause there view and experience might be alittle different

Brassangel
02-10-2007, 11:31 AM
While it's true that everybody has their opinions, that doesn't make them informed ones. Also, while everybody has had their experiences, there are still black and white absolutes to consider, which was the point of my post on February 8th.

Verstyle
02-10-2007, 11:33 AM
While it's true that everybody has their opinions, that doesn't make them informed ones. Also, while everybody has had their experiences, there are still black and white absolutes to consider, which was the point of my post on February 8th.

maybe not informed and more ignorant,but still an opinion is an opinion. and ignorance is the hardest to over turn

The Surgeon
02-10-2007, 11:44 AM
mike knocked ****** out, no myth needed.

Good post sir! :fing02:

adietheforestfa
02-10-2007, 06:02 PM
Tyson was unbeatable until he had MONEY.
If Tyson had better people behind him he could have remained at the top for years, shame, great fighter in his prime.

Brassangel
02-10-2007, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by adietheforestfa
Tyson was unbeatable until he had MONEY.
If Tyson had better people behind him he could have remained at the top for years, shame, great fighter in his prime.

While this is a glib hypothesis, it could very well be that "sad but true" statement. I think he still would have posted 1-3 losses somewhere down the line, but they likely would have been when he naturally descended from his prime, and against more respectable opponents.

Oh yeah, I still think Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali were #1 and #2; any order would likely do.

porlie
05-20-2007, 11:46 PM
Tyson was no myth, Holmes went the distance with Holyfield 4 years after Tyson destroyed him and at the time Tyson and Spinks fought Spinks was highly thought of yet Tyson destroyed him easily.

Dempsey 1919
05-21-2007, 03:48 PM
Tyson was no myth, Holmes went the distance with Holyfield 4 years after Tyson destroyed him and at the time Tyson and Spinks fought Spinks was highly thought of yet Tyson destroyed him easily.

It's a matter of styles, but good point nontheless.

The Iron Man
10-19-2007, 08:22 PM
Lol ive never read that article before!. But tbh its a piece of ****, he avoids tysons achievements, and if tyson beat douglas he would of said he was another C class fighter. just utter bollocks

them_apples
10-20-2007, 01:26 AM
yea what kind of topic is this? Mike proved himself in the ring but his antics outside the ring ruined him.

respect for mike is given:boxing:

sterling
10-20-2007, 06:20 PM
Its a bit obvious to see that buster douglas wasnt the best opponant tyson fought since tyson knocked himdown it should of been a knockout but refere had a slow count also tyson was out of shape himself so dont go on like tyson was in his prime dont be stupid the prime tyson wudnet of got beat in every area he just wasnt fit enough.

Jim Jeffries
10-20-2007, 06:48 PM
Tyson was no myth, Holmes went the distance with Holyfield 4 years after Tyson destroyed him and at the time Tyson and Spinks fought Spinks was highly thought of yet Tyson destroyed him easily.

Hmmmm.... Yeah but how did Tyson do against Holyfield in EITHER of their two fights? :owned:

The Iron Man
10-22-2007, 12:30 PM
Thats a different fighter all together..Put it this way Tyson (86-90) KOs Tyson (95-05) in less than 5!..Headbuts never help either

Hawk O'Connor
10-22-2007, 04:46 PM
The true downfall of Mike started with the death of Jimmy Jacobs IMO. Jimmy was like the big brother to Mike, whereas Cayton was the hardcore business man. I do think Cayton was an honest man, but I think without Jacobs there to counter all the crap being thrown at Tyson it was just a matter of time.

Cayton tried to counter it best he could but Don King & The Givens women were too much in the end. I mean they drove a wedge between him and Rooney by convincing him everyone was out for his money when it was them all long.

I imagine Mike was being torn apart by being pulled in so many different directions at once. Plus for the first time he was truly on his own and had to make these big decisions by himself. I'd imagine it was very hard to make the right one with King in one ear and Robin Givens and her mom in the other.

newforce
10-26-2007, 06:01 AM
I don't know why people are actually bothering to reply to this clown sabbath.

newforce
10-26-2007, 06:03 AM
and for the record douglas lost against -at the time-an emotionally weak tyson

Hawk O'Connor
10-26-2007, 11:52 AM
and for the record douglas lost against -at the time-an emotionally weak tyson

Well, if thats the case then I'm sure the playing field was somewhat level since Buster had lost his mother recently.

Jim Jeffries
10-26-2007, 12:01 PM
and for the record douglas lost against -at the time-an emotionally weak tyson

"Emotionally weak", that's too funny. And when he got knocked out by Holyfield, Tyson was an old man right, yeah 30 years old - almost ready for social security, but wait Holyfield was 34 at the time. Tyson was good at squashing tomatoe cans with losing records, kind of like Tyrone Brunson, 22 year old junior middle weight, 18-0, 18 knockouts - all in the first round. Impressive - till you look at their records.

metalinmybrain
10-27-2007, 03:01 AM
Just listing the names of Ali's opponents doesn't make Ali's opponents great. The fighters were in better condition in the 80's and 90's, their training regiments were different, diets were different, etc. Even the rules of the ring were slightly different. While I'm not saying that Tyson faced better competition than Ali, perhaps the truth is that Ali was vastly over-hyped and he faced average journeymen who gave him a good run. This is very similar to your Louis thread and, while we know you hate Tyson, this thread will probably see little responses other than my own.

Furthermore, watch Ali's matches against some of the opponents he had trouble with (Cooper, Jones, Folley, even that German guy whose name I can't remember, Frazier, etc.), and honestly say that Tyson couldn't do what those guys did...only better. Dumbass.
Nicely put, if I could shake your hand I would. It's always a great feeling to read the words of an honest and insightful person such as yourself. Tyson's career wasn't overated. It was the leeches around him that were!

I think everyone should look at Rocky Marciano and his over rated career.

metalinmybrain
10-27-2007, 03:03 AM
Well, if thats the case then I'm sure the playing field was somewhat level since Buster had lost his mother recently.
Also his mother did tell him to knock Tyson out before she passed away. Douglas said Tyson hit him so hard with that uppercut he didn't want to get up, but heard his mothers voice inside telling him to get up and knock him out.

P.s. Has anyone noticed the ****ty job Tyson's corner man did for him in that fight with Douglas? Bull ****!

metalinmybrain
10-27-2007, 03:06 AM
"Emotionally weak", that's too funny. And when he got knocked out by Holyfield, Tyson was an old man right, yeah 30 years old - almost ready for social security, but wait Holyfield was 34 at the time. Tyson was good at squashing tomatoe cans with losing records, kind of like Tyrone Brunson, 22 year old junior middle weight, 18-0, 18 knockouts - all in the first round. Impressive - till you look at their records.
Look at Rocky Marciano's record if you want to see bums kid. In fact every great fighter is going to have a record of opponents with losing records. If you look at the opponents Tyson faced and their records at the time of them facing Tyson his opposition was better than your lame ass is claiming.

Its just your opinion kid but lets not try and pretend that its anything close to reality or truth.

metalinmybrain
10-27-2007, 03:09 AM
The true downfall of Mike started with the death of Jimmy Jacobs IMO. Jimmy was like the big brother to Mike, whereas Cayton was the hardcore business man. I do think Cayton was an honest man, but I think without Jacobs there to counter all the crap being thrown at Tyson it was just a matter of time.

Cayton tried to counter it best he could but Don King & The Givens women were too much in the end. I mean they drove a wedge between him and Rooney by convincing him everyone was out for his money when it was them all long.

I imagine Mike was being torn apart by being pulled in so many different directions at once. Plus for the first time he was truly on his own and had to make these big decisions by himself. I'd imagine it was very hard to make the right one with King in one ear and Robin Givens and her mom in the other.
One post from you that I cannot argue. You did forget to mention how young he was and going through these delimas in life. I'm pretty sure being so young with all these pressures mostly anyone would fold in the end.

Hawk O'Connor
10-27-2007, 03:50 AM
Also his mother did tell him to knock Tyson out before she passed away. Douglas said Tyson hit him so hard with that uppercut he didn't want to get up, but heard his mothers voice inside telling him to get up and knock him out.

P.s. Has anyone noticed the ****ty job Tyson's corner man did for him in that fight with Douglas? Bull ****!


The clowns in the corner were Rory Holloway, John Horne and I forget the idiot that was acting as the head trainer. When the guys in your corner dont bring an endswell or ice then you know the ineptness of the people you're involved with. Tho' to be fair I'm sure moron 1 (read as Holloway) and moron 2 (read as Horne) had something to do with the overall idiocy of that.

When you see three guys fill a rubber glove with ice water and try to reduce the swelling you know something is out of whack.

metalinmybrain
10-27-2007, 09:32 PM
The clowns in the corner were Rory Holloway, John Horne and I forget the idiot that was acting as the head trainer. When the guys in your corner dont bring an endswell or ice then you know the ineptness of the people you're involved with. Tho' to be fair I'm sure moron 1 (read as Holloway) and moron 2 (read as Horne) had something to do with the overall idiocy of that.

When you see three guys fill a rubber glove with ice water and try to reduce the swelling you know something is out of whack.
lol, correct. I can't seem to find anything more embarrassing than a corner who doesn't come prepared. I think Tyson should have knocked them out after that fight because they just threw gas into the flame that was already consuming Tyson against Douglas. What a bunch of ****ing idiots those guys are!

Mike Tyson77
10-27-2007, 09:46 PM
"Iron" Mike Tyson was so bad, he put Berbick down 3 times from one punch.



"Iron" Mike Tyson was so bad, he brought me into the sport 20 years after his prime.



"Iron" Mike Tyson is so bad, ill pay $50.00 next weekend to watch cotto-Mosely. Can't wait to see what happens.


LONG LIVE BOXING.:boxing:

LondonRingRules
11-02-2007, 06:46 PM
How Good Was/Is Mike Tyson?

By Frank Scoblete
30 January 2000

I do not, as some writers do, lament the fact that Mike Tyson never lived up to his potential. In fact, I believe he did live up to it, fully, completely. His potential just wasn't all that great and that's what he became -- not all that great.

** Funny, funny stuff. IBRO listed him 13th behind Lewis and in front of Holy'roid.

Any ways, time for Oz Jr's minders to take care of all the recent pot shots against Jr's masculinity and all. Doesn't look like many of these chaps care for Mr. Scablete's nonsense or Junior's judgement.,,:dunce:

Jim Jeffries
11-02-2007, 08:48 PM
Look at Rocky Marciano's record if you want to see bums kid. In fact every great fighter is going to have a record of opponents with losing records. If you look at the opponents Tyson faced and their records at the time of them facing Tyson his opposition was better than your lame ass is claiming.

Its just your opinion kid but lets not try and pretend that its anything close to reality or truth.

TYSON WAS OVERRATED, that's not my opinion, that's a fact. He was hyped up as the greatest ever and as it turned out, that was far from the truth. You can claim any excuses you want for him, but you know what they say about excuses. I was talking about the records of Tyrone Brunson's opposition (one winning record,) but yes, Tyson came along when the division was pretty weak and for all of about 2 years he looked very good. 2 years does not a great make and as we all know he was exposed, his chin, his endurance and his heart. Worship him all you want, that won't make him any greater.

ROSS CALIFORNIA
11-02-2007, 09:14 PM
TYSON WAS OVERRATED, that's not my opinion, that's a fact. He was hyped up as the greatest ever and as it turned out, that was far from the truth.
Get your facts strait, many said he was on the road to becoming the greatest of all time.
2 years does not a great make and as we all know he was exposed, his chin, his endurance and his heart.
Learn how to speak English! LOL

Hawk O'Connor
11-02-2007, 09:19 PM
I don't think it's the so called experts who overrate Tyson, it's the legions of fans. Lets be real, read some of the stuff posted in some of these Tyson threads and it tells you all you need to about the subject.

C'mon..there is even one post that says something to the effect that Tyson could punch holes thru cinder block walls. I mean get real fellas.

ROSS CALIFORNIA
11-02-2007, 09:34 PM
I don't think it's the so called experts who overrate Tyson, it's the legions of fans. Lets be real, read some of the stuff posted in some of these Tyson threads and it tells you all you need to about the subject.

C'mon..there is even one post that says something to the effect that Tyson could punch holes thru cinder block walls. I mean get real fellas.
I think it's more of a case with these guys not being able to control their anger during these threads. I'll admit I get a little caught up in it too sometimes, especially if the guy is a real idiot. LOL But, a lot of what's being said is being exaggerated through anger to make a point. A lot of these guys just don't communicate well during these types of discussions because they're too emotional about the whole thing. But please forgive them, for they know not what they are doing. LOL

Jim Jeffries
11-03-2007, 12:36 AM
How Good Was/Is Mike Tyson?

By Frank Scoblete
30 January 2000

Now that Mike Tyson's career is almost over, it might be of interest to take a cold hard look at just how good he was at his best to get some idea of where he stands in the rankings of the great heavyweight champions.

It is not a stretch to say that much of the fearsome Tyson persona of a decade or more ago was media hype and was little related to what he actually accomplished in the ring or against whom he accomplished it.

We can make a case that Tyson fought "never-wases" and "nothing-lefters" in his early career culminating with his knockout over an intimidated former light-heavyweight champion Michael Spinks, whose only real claim to fame was "winning" two controversial decisions against an aging and distracted Larry Holmes.

Other than the light-hitting, terrified Spinks and the out-of-shape, intimidated, comebacking, former great Larry Holmes, who did Tyson actually fight in his pre-prison days who was truly any good in absolute terms? If we measure competition based on who Ali faced, then who of all Tyson's pre-prison opponents was as good as Jerry Quarry, Oscar Bonavena, Ken Norton, Ron Lyle, Ernie Shavers, Joe Bugner, Mac Foster, Floyd Patterson, Zora Foley, Cleveland Williams, Jimmy Ellis, Bob Foster or Ernie Terrell, not to mention the awesome likes of all-time greats Sonny Liston, George Foreman or Smokin' Joe Frazier? Would you classify Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick or Frank Bruno with any those other fighters? Only if you never saw them fight!

The only real fight the pre-prison Tyson ever had was against the only decent heavyweight fighter he fought, a determined, well-conditioned Buster Douglas -- and Tyson was roundly beaten, battered and knocked out! That was Tyson in his prime, against a fighter who went on to "extinguish" himself by being knocked out in three rounds by Evander Holyfield.

If the pre-prison Tyson's boxing worth must be looked at with some skepticism, then the post-prison Tyson must be looked upon with scorn. Often in boxing, the true greatness of a fighter is not actually known when he is in his prime as he defeats opponent after opponent rather convincingly. It is only after he ages, slows down, and gets himself into wars are we aware of just how good the fighter is -- and was!

Certainly that was true of Ali. Before he made his comeback from an almost four-year forced layoff, there were all sorts of questions about his ability. Could he take a punch? Had he been beating up washed-up fighters? Did he have courage? Would he dog it if he were ever in a real fight? The layoff slowed Ali down, made him more vulnerable. What's more, great fighters appeared in that time, fighters better than any he had previously fought!

So a somewhat diminished Ali met each and every challenger -- starting with a comeback fight against highly ranked Jerry Quarry and then a second fight against vicious number-one contender Oscar Bonavena. His first career loss to Joe Frazier in his third comeback fight proved he could take a punch and that he had mountains of courage. That fight was the first of several "wars" Ali would fight in this second part of his career.

His next loss was to Ken Norton. Fighting 11 rounds with a broken jaw, Ali merely proved again that he was as courageous as any fighter who ever lived. His great victories against these very same fighters and his upset win over the god-like Foreman, showed what a great fighter he was -- and how much greater he had been before his layoff!

Not so with Tyson. His "layoff" was heralded with a return to the ring against a rank amateur, Peter McNeeley, whom Tyson "destroyed" with a wild flurry in round one. This same McNeeley was later knocked out by the bloated Butterbean in one round and has since lost just about every real fight he's had! And what of Buster Mathis, Jr., Bruce "I was knocked out by a gust of air" Seldon, Francois Botha, or Julian Francis? Are they credible opponents? Only if elephants can fly.

The only real fight the post-prison Tyson had of any significance was against Evander Holyfield, who was selected because he appeared to be a shot fighter, having lost two out of three to the disappointing Riddick Bowe. Had Tyson known that Holyfield was not a shot fighter, but actually the only great heavyweight of the 1990s, I'm sure he would have selected a different fighter to beat, perhaps a third go-round with the overrated Razor Ruddock who proved himself a worthy Tyson contender by being knocked out in one round by the otherwise cautious Lennox Lewis.

So here we have a very simple yardstick for measuring the greatness of Mike Tyson. He fought two hard fights, one pre-prison and one post-prison -- both of which he lost (subsequently, he ate his way to a third loss and fouled himself into a no-decision). The rest of his victories, pre-prison and post-prison, were over fighters who couldn't make the "C" list during Ali's tenure. So where does that put him on the list of all-time greats?

It doesn't. He doesn't belong. He's not even in the top 20!

If you think of the very few good heavyweight fighters who have plied their trade in the late 1980s and 1990s, it is a short list: Evander Holyfield, George Foreman (oh, yes, the Big George who fought Holyfield would have rocked Iron Mike just as he did Smokin' Joe), Riddick Bowe, and maybe Lennox Lewis and Michael Moorer. Tyson only fought one of them, and lost. The others he avoided.

I do not, as some writers do, lament the fact that Mike Tyson never lived up to his potential. In fact, I believe he did live up to it, fully, completely. His potential just wasn't all that great and that's what he became -- not all that great.

Please GOD, tell me his career is OVER. Tired of seeing Mike getting knocked out. Please mike quit while you're ahead.

Jim Jeffries
11-03-2007, 12:39 AM
Get your facts strait, many said he was on the road to becoming the greatest of all time.

Learn how to speak English! LOL

Uh, that's straight Mr. English professor. And "on the road to becoming" the greatest of all time, hence the HYPE. Greatest rapist maybe, biter maybe, eh that's about it.

ROSS CALIFORNIA
11-03-2007, 03:10 AM
Uh, that's straight Mr. English professor. And "on the road to becoming" the greatest of all time, hence the HYPE. Greatest rapist maybe, biter maybe, eh that's about it.
Don't let me piss you off or anything, I'm just having fun here. I respect all of you on the forum. We're not seeing our real selves here completely.

The Iron Man
11-03-2007, 10:54 AM
TYSON WAS OVERRATED, that's not my opinion, that's a fact. He was hyped up as the greatest ever and as it turned out, that was far from the truth. You can claim any excuses you want for him, but you know what they say about excuses. I was talking about the records of Tyrone Brunson's opposition (one winning record,) but yes, Tyson came along when the division was pretty weak and for all of about 2 years he looked very good. 2 years does not a great make and as we all know he was exposed, his chin, his endurance and his heart. Worship him all you want, that won't make him any greater.

Oh his Chin was exposed! Didnt he have one of the best chins!, watch his fights mate listen to what people like Douglas, Lewis, Ruddock and Holyfield say!. He had a better chin than many of the boxers u would place on this list. As for endurance, he had 6 fights go the full distance and he actually won all of those. As for heart, its fair to say he didnt have the greatest heart of them all, but thats not to say it was non-existant.

hemichromis
11-03-2007, 03:46 PM
Oh his Chin was exposed! Didnt he have one of the best chins!, watch his fights mate listen to what people like Douglas, Lewis, Ruddock and Holyfield say!. He had a better chin than many of the boxers u would place on this list. As for endurance, he had 6 fights go the full distance and he actually won all of those. As for heart, its fair to say he didnt have the greatest heart of them all, but thats not to say it was non-existant.

tyson had one of the best chins but he had little heart

The Iron Man
11-03-2007, 04:01 PM
He had heart just not as mch as some of the other Greats for example marciano. But he did have heart, he kept fighting against Lewis even tho he was taking a beating, he fought the majortiy of the the fight against Williams with torn ligaments.

ROSS CALIFORNIA
11-03-2007, 07:42 PM
Well, if thats the case then I'm sure the playing field was somewhat level since Buster had lost his mother recently.
Sorry to disagree but the death of his mother actually lifted Douglas more than anything else. Did you see his interview right after the fight in the ring? Douglas could burly talk at first because he was crying and saying he did it for his mother. It was that motivation that allowed him to perform better than he had ever performed before. That and the fact that Tyson just wasn't there (mentally) that night, made for the perfect circumstances of an upset. If the match up between Tyson and Douglas was even, then why was it described as the greatest upset in boxing history? None of the very best Boxing experts gave Douglas a chance. The odds were like 42 to 1, an unheard of number. There was clearly more going on in this fight than just a surprise. Tyson hadn't even been beaten on and already he was just standing around in the 3rd round. Sorry for the rant but I couldn't keep it short. LOL

Hawk O'Connor
11-03-2007, 07:49 PM
Sorry to disagree but the death of his mother actually lifted Douglas more than anything else. Did you see his interview right after the fight in the ring? Douglas could burly talk at first because he was crying and saying he did it for his mother. It was that motivation that allowed him to perform better than he had ever performed before. That and the fact that Tyson just wasn't there (mentally) that night, made for the perfect circumstances of an upset. If the match up between Tyson and Douglas was even, then why was it described as the greatest upset in boxing history? None of the very best Boxing experts gave Douglas a chance. The odds were like 42 to 1, an unheard of number. There was clearly more going on in this fight than just a surprise. Tyson hadn't even been beaten on and already he was just standing around in the 3rd round. Sorry for the rant but I couldn't keep it short. LOL


Well I was referring to the aspect of going thru emotional things. Regardless of how he fought you know it effected Douglas on a very emotional level. Where as Douglas embraced his and used it for motivation and a reason to persevere<?> Tyson wallowed in his and let it distance him from the job at hand.

The point being though, both fighters were dealing with very emotional and painful feelings.

Mike Tyson77
11-03-2007, 09:44 PM
"Tyson will be exposed by Spinks, Im picking Spinks to win."

-Teddy Atlas


Tyson KO1 Spinks

micky_knox
11-03-2007, 09:56 PM
myths dont become the undisputed h/w champ of the world...only extreme talent does that..

hate all you want but it wont change the fact that Tyson (if only for 3 years) was ****ing AWESOME

marsman
11-04-2007, 12:12 AM
Man Tyson was Biblical, something classic. TYson was basically a lil boy who made legends and grown men **** their pants at the sight of his Power.Not only that the Training he recieved from Cus, Kevin Rooney, and Teddy Atlas was classic in itself. Don't try to downplay MIke Tyson, he waa great...witht hat being said his full potential would just be beating Holyfield and Lewis, either way the matches still happened and only Lewis Dominated him. Holyfield won a hard and great 1st fight.

The Iron Man
11-04-2007, 12:17 AM
Well I was referring to the aspect of going thru emotional things. Regardless of how he fought you know it effected Douglas on a very emotional level. Where as Douglas embraced his and used it for motivation and a reason to persevere<?> Tyson wallowed in his and let it distance him from the job at hand.

The point being though, both fighters were dealing with very emotional and painful feelings.

Just the same way that the death of cus affected tyson yet he still won all 3 belts aswell..also the death of Jimmy Jacobs. They both channeld it well into boxing.

Mike Tyson77
11-04-2007, 12:43 AM
1 2 3 4 5 . That means 5, 5 title belts. "Iron" Mike was a GREAT champion, and Boxing is the greatest sport. "Iron" Mike showed that.



5

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FtILnnS54EM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FtILnnS54EM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Hawk O'Connor
11-04-2007, 12:56 AM
Just the same way that the death of cus affected tyson yet he still won all 3 belts aswell..also the death of Jimmy Jacobs. They both channeld it well into boxing.

Well the entire point was, someone mentioned (I think anyway) that Tyson was majorly distracted in the Douglas fight. You guys fail to consider Douglas' mother died as well. Tit for tat.

The Iron Man
11-04-2007, 12:59 AM
But there is a difference between the two. Douglas was inspired he had to win this fight for his mum she believed in him. Where as the women tyson loved was leaving him sueing him he had fierd his trainer since he had begun (basically). They are two different types of mental issues.

Hawk O'Connor
11-04-2007, 01:03 AM
But there is a difference between the two. Douglas was inspired he had to win this fight for his mum she believed in him. Where as the women tyson loved was leaving him sueing him he had fierd his trainer since he had begun (basically). They are two different types of mental issues.

An emotional distraction is the same. The difference is is how you use it. Tyson became disenchanted and more concerned with what was going on other than the matter at hand (the fight), Douglas used his as motivation to take himself to another level.

The Iron Man
11-04-2007, 01:06 AM
I agree with that in a way.But its two totally different things, one can act as a motivator (death of a class freind/family) there are countless times were this has happend. But breaking up with someone you loved and them sueing you is very different

Mike Tyson77
11-04-2007, 01:07 AM
Tyson has 5 championship belts on his wall, how many do you have?

Hawk O'Connor
11-04-2007, 01:21 AM
I agree with that in a way.But its two totally different things, one can act as a motivator (death of a class freind/family) there are countless times were this has happend. But breaking up with someone you loved and them sueing you is very different



So you are saying, that in the grand scheme of things, getting a divorce is more emotionally taxing than the passing of your mother?

Mike Tyson77
11-04-2007, 01:31 AM
So you are saying, that in the grand scheme of things, getting a divorce is more emotionally taxing than the passing of your mother?



Im sure both can be very draining and aweful. I personally have not experinced either.


Bottem line though, Tyson was the UNDISPUTED HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION. How many people can say that?

The Iron Man
11-04-2007, 12:15 PM
So you are saying, that in the grand scheme of things, getting a divorce is more emotionally taxing than the passing of your mother?

Im saying they are totally different you can use the death of you mother as a reason to win the fight, especially that douglas cliamed his mother believed in him and that he could win. But Tyson had a divorce with someone he loved being sued, has no rooney jacobs or cus to talk to, there is no inspiration in that to win the fight. After the fight he cant say i fought for my ex-wife who is now trying to distroy my life. And also for my life which is breaking down!.. i think "i did it for you mum" is much more relavent.

Hawk O'Connor
11-04-2007, 12:37 PM
Im saying they are totally different you can use the death of you mother as a reason to win the fight, especially that douglas cliamed his mother believed in him and that he could win. But Tyson had a divorce with someone he loved being sued, has no rooney jacobs or cus to talk to, there is no inspiration in that to win the fight. After the fight he cant say i fought for my ex-wife who is now trying to distroy my life. And also for my life which is breaking down!.. i think "i did it for you mum" is much more relavent.

The overall point being, you can't use that as an excuse for Tyson because Douglas had just as big of a distraction in his mind. The only difference is Douglas overcame it, Tyson did not.

ROSS CALIFORNIA
11-05-2007, 05:13 AM
The overall point being, you can't use that as an excuse for Tyson because Douglas had just as big of a distraction in his mind. The only difference is Douglas overcame it, Tyson did not.
I think we're looking at it all wrong here. Some of Tysons problems may have stemmed from his divorce, but at the time of the Douglas fight it was his overall life style that put him in the position to be beat. Tyson was just doing what he wanted at this point. He should have known he was on the path to self destruction but it looks like his false sense of security blinded him to what was inevitable. Without someone there to push him and guide him the way he needed, he deteriorated into what you seen in Tokyo. Had he not knocked Williams out so fast, this deterioration might have been evidenced in that fight, because it's not something that just happens over night. I have always thought he didn't look 100% in the first Bruno fight, which was his first fight without Rooney. I think Tysons problems were a hole different story than Douglas' problem or distraction. I think it's safe to assume Douglas' religious beliefs were in line with most Americans in that he thought his mom was watching him from heaven. His mom knew he was training to fight Tyson and I'm sure she wished him luck and told him he could do it. (Please bare with me I know this all sounds corny. lol) In life, for most people, there can be nothing more motivating than accomplishing something for your mother that just died, knowing she's watching. Not everyone would have, but this helped Douglas rise to the occasion and focus on what he had to do to win. It's too bad for Douglas that Tysons situation aided him in winning the fight. Tysons situation was totally different, he was expected to win the fight easy. There's no reason to rise to the occasion when your living with a false sense of security. Larry Merchent used to say "the only one who can beat Mike Tyson is Mike Tyson", and on that night, Mike tyson beat him self.

The Iron Man
11-05-2007, 08:26 AM
The overall point being, you can't use that as an excuse for Tyson because Douglas had just as big of a distraction in his mind. The only difference is Douglas overcame it, Tyson did not.

Dont worry you obviously dont understand what i mean

Hawk O'Connor
11-05-2007, 11:29 AM
Dont worry you obviously dont understand what i mean

I could say the exact thing ;)

Hawk O'Connor
11-05-2007, 11:41 AM
I think we're looking at it all wrong here. Some of Tysons problems may have stemmed from his divorce, but at the time of the Douglas fight it was his overall life style that put him in the position to be beat. Tyson was just doing what he wanted at this point. He should have known he was on the path to self destruction but it looks like his false sense of security blinded him to what was inevitable. Without someone there to push him and guide him the way he needed, he deteriorated into what you seen in Tokyo. Had he not knocked Williams out so fast, this deterioration might have been evidenced in that fight, because it's not something that just happens over night. I have always thought he didn't look 100% in the first Bruno fight, which was his first fight without Rooney. I think Tysons problems were a hole different story than Douglas' problem or distraction. I think it's safe to assume Douglas' religious beliefs were in line with most Americans in that he thought his mom was watching him from heaven. His mom knew he was training to fight Tyson and I'm sure she wished him luck and told him he could do it. (Please bare with me I know this all sounds corny. lol) In life, for most people, there can be nothing more motivating than accomplishing something for your mother that just died, knowing she's watching. Not everyone would have, but this helped Douglas rise to the occasion and focus on what he had to do to win. It's too bad for Douglas that Tysons situation aided him in winning the fight. Tysons situation was totally different, he was expected to win the fight easy. There's no reason to rise to the occasion when your living with a false sense of security. Larry Merchent used to say "the only one who can beat Mike Tyson is Mike Tyson", and on that night, Mike tyson beat him self.

I don't think I have disputed any of that. Ultimately, in context, everything bad that happened to Mike Tyson can be traced back to Robin Givens & Don King. I won't go into that whole issue again, but they are the both the doorway to Tyson's downfall.

The people Tyson surrounded himself with started his ball rolling on the path of self destruction. I also agree that you could see an immediate difference without Rooney. Without Kevin Rooney Mike was a one dimensional fighter.

Anyways I've never disputed any of that. The only point I was trying to make was the where Tyson had distractions in his life prior to the fight, Buster Douglas did too. You can't say well it's different. Because emotional pain is emotional pain.

I've known plenty of people who have used divorces/break ups as motivation to do something positive. I've also known plenty of people that use adversity as a means to persevere. To Mike Tyson's credit he never fostered the blame, Don King did. Tyson did not.

Sadly we were robbed of a rematch. Could Tyson have regained the title? It's very possible given the way Douglas weight/training issues came to play in regards to the Holyfield fight. On the other hand given the way Tyson's life had spiraled out of control it could have went the same as the first.

One of the only intelligent things I've seen from Tyson's then trainer Aaron Sowell was when he told Tyson, "The way you've ben training and living your life means your headed for a butt whupping." And he was correct. Too bad Tyson couldn't see it.

Jim Jeffries
11-05-2007, 05:19 PM
Tyson couldn't even KO an OLD James Smith that had already been KOd by Larry Holmes.

ROSS CALIFORNIA
11-05-2007, 06:42 PM
The only point I was trying to make was the where Tyson had distractions in his life prior to the fight, Buster Douglas did too. You can't say well it's different. Because emotional pain is emotional pain.
I don't think Mikes problems were emotional pain. That's why I say it was different. His divorce had been over a year prior to the Douglas fight. If he had been the kind of person that stayed at home all day, then maybe it would still have been really effecting him. But, he had so much going on, so many other girls that I'm pretty sure the pain (if any by that time) wasn't enough to distract him. Tell you the truth, I don't think he was distracted at all. I think he was losing interest in the game. He's said in more recent interviews that boxing was fun when Cus and Jacobs were around. When you think about all the problems that fallowed after their deaths, you can see how his outlook on the entire situation could have changed in a negative way. Kind of like saying "man, **** this" I believe the mindsets between Douglas and Tyson were incomparable. And like I said in my previous post, Douglas had all the reasons in the world to rise to the occasion in this fight. He also had something to prove, if your aware of his career, you'll know what I'm talking about. Now, in a rematch, Tyson would have every reason to rise to the occasion. I'm not really trying to debate you, I just want to make it clear why I think their mindsets were completely different from one another. It's just my opinion but who really knows what was going on in Mikes head at that time. Whatever it was, he didn't seem to be focused like he had been.

Hawk O'Connor
11-05-2007, 06:53 PM
I'm not really trying to debate you, I just want to make it clear why I think their mindsets were completely different from one another. It's just my opinion but who really knows what was going on in Mikes head at that time. Whatever it was, he didn't seem to be focused like he had been.

No I wasn't questioning any of what you said, I was just trying to point out that there was extenuating<?> circumstances on both sides. You can't point out one and totally dismiss the other.

ROSS CALIFORNIA
11-05-2007, 06:54 PM
Tyson couldn't even KO an OLD James Smith that had already been KOd by Larry Holmes.

Smith actually fought Holmes and held Tyson. There's a big difference between the two fights. Had Smith fought Tyson like he said, he would have got knocked out early. I'm not going to go look into it right now, but it appears the fight was stopped on a cut. Whatever the case, Smith was still standing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FkHR9Q1hDE

ROSS CALIFORNIA
11-05-2007, 06:55 PM
No I wasn't questioning any of what you said, I was just trying to point out that there was extenuating<?> circumstances on both sides. You can't point out one and totally dismiss the other.
I agree with that.

them_apples
11-06-2007, 01:04 AM
Yea smith wasn't anywhere close to winning that fight anyway, Tyson was just chasing the coward around the ring the whole time, he even put in a well placed taunt. It's not hard to tie up a guy smaller than you, its a cowards way out. Holy field did this combined with head butting, and in the second fight still think Tyson would have won, if he could have held himself together.

Jim Jeffries
11-06-2007, 02:08 AM
Yea smith wasn't anywhere close to winning that fight anyway, Tyson was just chasing the coward around the ring the whole time, he even put in a well placed taunt. It's not hard to tie up a guy smaller than you, its a cowards way out. Holy field did this combined with head butting, and in the second fight still think Tyson would have won, if he could have held himself together.

Tyson knew he had no chance of beating Holyfield in the second fight, that's why he took the COWARD way out.

Hawk O'Connor
11-06-2007, 02:12 AM
Maybe the admins of this site should create an all Tyson section. It seems like every single thread (this one is actually about Tyson) gets turned into something about Mike. Kind of redundant.

them_apples
11-06-2007, 02:22 AM
Tyson knew he had no chance of beating Holyfield in the second fight, that's why he took the COWARD way out.

Yea after getting head butted in 2 straight fights who really took the cowards way out, in the first fight mike Tyson actually got knocked down from a head butt.

This is a Tyson thread, so I can't see what your comment is getting at Hawkins.

Jim Jeffries
11-06-2007, 02:27 AM
Yea after getting head butted in 2 straight fights who really took the cowards way out, in the first fight mike Tyson actually got knocked down from a head butt.

This is a Tyson thread, so I can't see what your comment is getting at Hawkins.

I can't see someone who threw as many elbows as Tyson EVER complaining about a headbutt.

them_apples
11-06-2007, 02:35 AM
You do know that "sliding elbows" is common use in boxing up close. Don't mistake Elbow slides or pushes with elbow strikes. If Tyson purposely struck people with his elbows they would be in hospital with broken noses.

Frazier and Patterson practiced the same thing.

Hawk O'Connor
11-06-2007, 12:04 PM
Yea after getting head butted in 2 straight fights who really took the cowards way out, in the first fight mike Tyson actually got knocked down from a head butt.

This is a Tyson thread, so I can't see what your comment is getting at Hawkins.

The excuses never stop. Got knocked down by a headbutt? LOL Which fight did you watch? I saw the left hook put Tyson down. I also saw a clash of heads that buckled Tyson when he came in on Holyfield. I'm use to excuses from Tyson fans, but this is total hogwash.

Anyways, my point was that as I was looking at the different threads that have nothing to do with Tyson (and if you'll read I said this was a thread about Tyson) someone always tries to turn into something about him.

The Iron Man
11-06-2007, 12:05 PM
Hawkins its your choice whether to keep discussinng man, his probably the most popoular Boxer, especially with people of this generation.

Mike Tyson77
11-06-2007, 12:19 PM
Maybe the admins of this site should create an all Tyson section. It seems like every single thread (this one is actually about Tyson) gets turned into something about Mike. Kind of redundant.


Great idea! ALL HAIL "IRON" MIKE!


Tyson/Hopkins for the 08' Election!:banana:

Hawk O'Connor
11-06-2007, 12:19 PM
Hawkins its your choice whether to keep discussinng man, his probably the most popoular Boxer, especially with people of this generation.

Come on man, he is mentioned in lots of threads that have no bearing on him. It kind of sidetracks everything else when you have someone always making comparisons to Mike TYson or degrading another fighter in comparison to Tyson. It gets old quick.

The Iron Man
11-06-2007, 12:27 PM
Im not dis agreeing with you m8, i know that. Just dont reply to it! ignore it lol! why do you think poet has such a large list of people he cant see!

Hawk O'Connor
11-06-2007, 12:40 PM
Im not dis agreeing with you m8, i know that. Just dont reply to it! ignore it lol! why do you think poet has such a large list of people he cant see!

I know what you meant but that shouldn't be needed. I understand that topics sometimes ver off course, but when it happens in everyone its kind of a trend. Anyway, you're right.