By Tom Donelson
I have not come here to praise Mike Tyson and I'm not here to bury him either. Tyson sat in ignominy on his stool after the sixth round of his recent Kevin McBride debacle that proved age is the final obstacle in Tyson's career. An obstacle that no fighter can overcome. One fight does not make a career and when a fighter has fought for two decades, he has a body of work to review and criticize.
Tyson started as a meteor that shot brightly in the night, but the flame quickly extinguished. In 1986, Tyson, at the age of 20, became the youngest heavyweight champion in boxing history when he knocked Trevor Berbick out in two rounds. During this period, his contemporaries such as Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe, were fighting as amateurs and preparing for the 1988 Olympics. Tyson nemesis Evander Holyfield was still campaigning as a cruiserweight.
As one boxing historian recently noted, Tyson was the most deftly managed fighter in recent times and his rise to prominence was part of a long-term plan. The late Cus D’Amato viewed Tyson as his final masterpiece, a fighter perfect for his peek-a-boo style. With a combination of speed and dynamite in both hands, Tyson was able to stop fighters with a variety of punches. Intimidation was as much part of Tyson profile as his skills. Tyson was groomed for greatness, Jimmy Jacobs would show his catalog of old fight films to the young pugilistic star in order to familiarize him with various styles. Tyson knew what greatness was and what it took to get it, his handlers trained him as if he was going to land a place on Boxing Mount Olympus. Tyson was cursed with expectations that very few fighters could ever obtain, and anything less than being acclaimed the greatest would be a failure.
Tyson’s high point came when he knocked Michael Spinks out. Spinks was one of the best pound for pound fighters in the past 30 years and became a legitimate heavyweight. After dominating the light heavyweights, Spinks captured the Heavyweight championship by beating one of boxing’s better champions, Larry Holmes. Going into this highly anticipated fight, there were many who felt that Spinks could beat Tyson but those predictions were squashed after 91 seconds.
What happened to Tyson's career? Outside distractions, criminal behavior that led to jail and management changes were significant reasons for his decline. The best reason is that many of Tyson's contemporaries developed into top-notch heavyweights. Holyfield, Lewis and Bowe made the leap into the heavyweight elite status which created a deeper heavyweight division in the 90’s, in terms of talent, as compared to the lack of talent in late 80’s.
When Tyson came back from his jail sentence, the heavyweight division was stronger than when he left it. The improvement in the quality of heavyweights provided new obstacles for Tyson. Any small reduction of talent would doom Tyson and in the end, that is exactly what happened.
When comparing fighters, one must compare what they did in the ring against the best of their generation. Muhammad Ali won 22 heavyweight title bouts and against greats like Sonny Liston, George Foreman, and Joe Frazier, he was 5-1. These were the best of his generation and for 14 years; Ali was the dominant fighter in a era with an abundance of great heavyweights.
Tyson won 13 out of 17 title fights, which can’t be dismissed. He beat Spinks, one hall of fame fighter but against Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield, he was 0-3. Against the two best heavyweight of his time, he not only lost, but he was stopped in two bouts and disqualified in another. Ali on the other hand, beat the best of his generation, Tyson did not. Not age or rust be blamed for Tyson's losses. In his first fight against Holyfield, Tyson was the overwhelming favorite and there was legit fear for Holyfield's physical safety. Holyfield easily won the fight and was winning their rematch before Tyson was disqualified. Lennox Lewis dominated Tyson after the first round of their fight on route to stopping him in 8 rounds.
Would the results be different if Tyson fought Holyfield or Lewis while he was still in his prime? While conventional wisdom says yes, I am not so certain. Boxing historian Frank Lotierzo summed up Holyfield's advantage over Tyson when he observed that Holyfield found ways to win the tough fights and did not soley dependant upon his power. And at his peak, Holyfield could take Tyson's best just as he took Foreman’s best. If a peak Holyfield fought a peak Tyson, I would still say Holyfield wins.
Lewis is a more interesting case since it is hard to really state what was Lewis' prime. Lewis was one of those fighters who seemed to have gotten better as he became older. When he fought David Tua, he realized very quickly that he could win the fight by fighting on the outside. Lewis knew right away that trading shots with the shorter and stocky Tua was not the right strategy to win the fight. Lewis was a chess player and knew when to put himself at risk or when not to, he won as much by his smarts as by his skill.
What is Tyson's place in history? A few years back, Frank Lotierzo and I ranked Tyson as the tenth best heavyweight since 1930. (Due to the differences in rules, we ranked the pre 1930’s fighter separately. All of this is explained in our book, Viewing Boxing From Ringside.) As a personality, no one could sell as many tickets as Tyson. From a monetary point of view, boxing needed Tyson more than Tyson needed boxing. From a boxing perspective, he was very good fighter, but he was not the best of his generation. If Mike Tyson was just Mike Jones, without the baggage, we would be celebrating a excellent fighter with a great career. But we would not claim that Mike Jones was on par with Ali or Louis. As Tyson's fades away from our view and we get a chance to reflect on his career without the hysteria that accompanies him, we will ultimately come to the conclusion that the guy was a pretty good fighter.
