The true definition of the phrase "when he was in his prime"

I disagree about tyson having more power than Frazier, also about tyson taking a shot better than frazier. there is no way tyson could have gone 14 or 15 rounds with ali without getting knocked out. ali beat the living shit out of frazier and still had a hard time putting frazier down. everyone of tysons defeats came by way of ko so I dont know how you can justify that tyson took a better shot than frazier. and you actually strengthened my position on tyson by stating that Rooney controlled his every move. thats even more the reason tyson should not be considered an ATG or a future hall of famer. at some point in a fight, you have to be able to think for yourself and make adjustments that only you(the one actually doing the fighting) can make. Tyson could take one shot better than Frazier. Tyson went 9+ rounds with Douglas who hit very hard; a lot harder than Ali and layed it on Tyson from round 1 land clean shots right on the chin over and over...and that was an untrained Tyson. Note: McCall said Douglas hit harder than Lewis. Also: Douglas also had a lethal jab. You also have Bruno, Ruddock, and Lewis. Tyson's stamina was done by Lewis and still absorbed shot after shot until he was finally put out. Even Lewis talked about how he was amazed at Tyson's chin. Tyson has strong legs and a very good chin...and you can even add "will" which is why he never suffered from "Flash-knockdowns" like most of the rest. The one time he did, which was against Evander on a body-shot, was from Tyson being off balance which you can see in the replay and it is pointed out as such. Have to go for now.... Oh, and remember, without Emmanuel, where is Wlad? Where is Ali if Dundee wasn't there to help guide him on who to choose and when to choose as well as helping him out in certain fights. Many fighters need their trainers but Tyson and maybe because it was age, relied on Rooney heavily...this is true.

When the reflexes start to slow... Usually when they get into their mid or late 30's... And sometimes it depends on when you start boxing(i.e. Hopkins) When you see the punch coming and you know to move your head...but u CAN'T.

Watch....Jack Newfield

You have to be kidding. It's called TRAINING the proper way and not training yourself. Even Roger Mayweather noted this as Tyson's downfall as well as many others. Plus, Rooney was Tyson's Head; he game-planned every step Tyson took inside the gym and in the fight. That's also why I've never considered Tyson a true General of the ring because he relied on Rooney heavily for his expertise. Tyson had more power than Ali; had a slightly better arsenal of punches than Ali because he could throw every type of punch as well as throw body attacks. Defense: longer debate on this. Ali wasn't technically sound as far as "by the book" but he didn't need a book to teach him. Both were vulnerable at certain points. Ali was smarter; more of self-General. Frazier: Tyson was faster, more powerful in both hands; more agile; head-movement was better; had an arsenal of punches that Frazier didn't have; and had a few more tricks that Frazier never learned. Frazier had more heart and wasn't scared of nobody. Tyson was also stronger and could take a better shot. Marciano: same as Frazier... Ali, Frazier, and Marciano were able to sustain a longer motivation for boxing than Tyson without getting into the details as to why someone may fall short of what is expected (which is part of life). I disagree about tyson having more power than Frazier, also about tyson taking a shot better than frazier. there is no way tyson could have gone 14 or 15 rounds with ali without getting knocked out. ali beat the living shit out of frazier and still had a hard time putting frazier down. everyone of tysons defeats came by way of ko so I dont know how you can justify that tyson took a better shot than frazier. and you actually strengthened my position on tyson by stating that Rooney controlled his every move. thats even more the reason tyson should not be considered an ATG or a future hall of famer. at some point in a fight, you have to be able to think for yourself and make adjustments that only you(the one actually doing the fighting) can make.

Actually my logic is based on Mike Tyson. Not any of the fighters you mentioned. When people start talking about a certain fighter being in his prime, what they are really talking about is how good the fighter was up until their first loss. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............

How am I underrating his resume? He has no resume to talk of. Who are these fighters on his resume that you speak of? I just named two of them, Spinks and Holmes. thats it. but as I read more of your posts it seems like you do know what your talking about for the most part and I guess the comparison between wlad and tysons career had some good points, but in no way has wlad been made out to be some unbeatable beast or the baddest man on the planet like Tyson was labeled. And your right about underrating tysons abilities. He had a great ability to intimidate his opponent before the fight, but seeing how thats not really a boxing skill, I cant give him too much credit for that. Actually, "intimidation" is a WAR attribute which also falls in line with boxing. Ask yourself; what makes someone intimidated by a 5'11, 215 pound 20 year old? Remember, most of his opponents were bigger than him in both height and weight.

Apparently the prime of both Rafael and Juan Manuel Marquez was only experienced before their first professional fights, which they both lost. Your logic is flawed. Actually my logic is based on Mike Tyson. Not any of the fighters you mentioned.

Actually you didnt end the thread, you just made it longer. The only difference between the two tyson versions your talking about is maybe he had a little more head movement with Rooney. But if you watch the Buster Douglas fight, he was slipping punches and moving his head beautifully in the first couple of rounds. My point is in order to be a great hall of famer like some people try to make Tyson out to be, there are other attributes that make a fighter great. Besides freakish power in both hands and pretty good speed for a HW, Tyson had none of those. Therefore, he was never going to be great. Do you think Michael Jordan would have been the greatest B-Ball player of all time if he lacked self-discipline. Hell no. Its a big part of what makes a hall of famer different than a good fighter. And Tyson had no other attributes that Ali, or Frazier or Marciano had. You have to be kidding. It's called TRAINING the proper way and not training yourself. Even Roger Mayweather noted this as Tyson's downfall as well as many others. Plus, Rooney was Tyson's Head; he game-planned every step Tyson took inside the gym and in the fight. That's also why I've never considered Tyson a true General of the ring because he relied on Rooney heavily for his expertise. And Tyson had no other attributes that Ali, or Frazier or Marciano had. Tyson had more power than Ali; had a slightly better arsenal of punches than Ali because he could throw every type of punch as well as throw body attacks. Defense: longer debate on this. Ali wasn't technically sound as far as "by the book" but he didn't need a book to teach him. Both were vulnerable at certain points. Ali was smarter; more of self-General. Frazier: Tyson was faster, more powerful in both hands; more agile; head-movement was better; had an arsenal of punches that Frazier didn't have; and had a few more tricks that Frazier never learned. Frazier had more heart and wasn't scared of nobody. Tyson was also stronger and could take a better shot. Marciano: same as Frazier... Ali, Frazier, and Marciano were able to sustain a longer motivation for boxing than Tyson without getting into the details as to why someone may fall short of what is expected (which is part of life).

This is stupid. Tyson was in his prime when he lost to Douglas, just not in peak form. And he crashed hard after Douglas cuz his entire career image was built around his aura of invincibility. Many fighters are just fine if not better after they lose. Look at Darch right now. Only casuals on here get down on that exposed, overrated, shot, etc bullshit just cuz a guy loses once. Unless he takes a bad beatin in his 1st defeat, it's almost never true of a fighter. Exactly, just like Foreman went downhill after losing to Ali, going life or death with Lyle and losing to Young, guys IMO he would've destroyed earlier. He needed a 10 year break from the sport before he was able to reinvent himself and succeed again.

This is stupid. Tyson was in his prime when he lost to Douglas, just not in peak form. And he crashed hard after Douglas cuz his entire career image was built around his aura of invincibility. Many fighters are just fine if not better after they lose. Look at Darch right now. Only casuals on here get down on that exposed, overrated, shot, etc bullshit just cuz a guy loses once. Unless he takes a bad beatin in his 1st defeat, it's almost never true of a fighter. good post, well thought out. we need more post like this one.

Let's start with this. Notes: Tyson's longest fight up until that point was 6 rounds. Given he had a short amateur career and was being rushed as a Pro and was only 19/20 at the time, it was explained that Tyson's confidence in his stamina to go the distance wasn't high. So at a certain point, Tyson went on cruise control. As each round went on, he gained experience and grew confidence that he could extend the fight. By the last round and the time the fight was over, Tyson said it wasn't as that bad at all. This is when he knew he was ready to move to the next stage. In the very next fight against Mitch Green he also went the distance but his attitude and maturity were way above his previous fight. You could see it in the way he fought and the way he talked after the fight. We call this the "maturation process" of a fighter/person. Tyson just matured incredibly fast for a fighter. You can see this from his first pro fight to his fight with Berbick...and then from Berbick to Spinks. It's pretty incredible how fast he matured as a fighter technically and mentally as far as confidence goes. But take away the training which was key to his success (with motivation that adds into all of this) and he goes down. Tua knocked out Ruiz in the first yet how many others have come close to it? Big Punchers always have that chance to take someone else out. And what do we do with the list of opponents other "ATG" fighters haven't been able to knock out yet others have? When people talk about a young Tyson they don't just talked about his power but his overall ability as a boxer/fighter. To look at just his POWER is an ignorant viewing of a young Tyson and many have fallen into this trap because of that ignorance. Even at his peak, if he didn't knock someone out it was seen as a failure yet we don't play this game with many others because their lack of power or ability to go in for the kill.[/QUOT Not a bad post however my point is that tyson in no way should be inducted into the hall of fame. As he fought tougher and more expierenced fighters he suddenly became a average heavyweight. this all culminated in the buster douglas fight. Ok so he matured and found out he could go the distance if he had too. Doesnt really add to his list of accomplishments. So we can try to blame it on the trainers or lack of later in his career but that all boils down to another reason he shouldnt be in the hall of fame. He had no self control or self discipline, thats why rooney and atlas didnt want anything else to do with him.

This is stupid. Tyson was in his prime when he lost to Douglas, just not in peak form. And he crashed hard after Douglas cuz his entire career image was built around his aura of invincibility. Many fighters are just fine if not better after they lose. Look at Darch right now. Only casuals on here get down on that exposed, overrated, shot, etc bullshit just cuz a guy loses once. Unless he takes a bad beatin in his 1st defeat, it's almost never true of a fighter.

I thought you would get it on your own. When Wladimir was Tyson's age (when Tyson was the world champion), he was being knocked around the ring by journeymen like Ross Puritty. He was also twice knocked out in his late 20's with 40+ pro fight experience. His best win is over a bloated cruiserweight Chris Byrd who used to fight at 140 lbs as an amateur when he was 20 years old. Ray Mercer was an old man when he fought Wladimir, and old man Holmes beat Mercer in his prime. There are late bloomers and early bloomers. Wladimir is the former, while Tyson was definitely the latter. Anyone who has seen him fight at his peak, and out of it, should instantly be able to recognize the difference. Now keep in mind that I'm not one of those who make Tyson out to be this invincible beast. I've argued against these people. He had his strengths and his weaknesses but you are severely underrating his abilities and his resume. How am I underrating his resume? He has no resume to talk of. Who are these fighters on his resume that you speak of? I just named two of them, Spinks and Holmes. thats it. but as I read more of your posts it seems like you do know what your talking about for the most part and I guess the comparison between wlad and tysons career had some good points, but in no way has wlad been made out to be some unbeatable beast or the baddest man on the planet like Tyson was labeled. And your right about underrating tysons abilities. He had a great ability to intimidate his opponent before the fight, but seeing how thats not really a boxing skill, I cant give him too much credit for that.

A 20 year old Tyson couldnt even knock out James "Quick" Tillis. Tillis was knocked out by Tommy Morrison in the first round Let's start with this. Notes: Tyson's longest fight up until that point was 6 rounds. Given he had a short amateur career and was being rushed as a Pro and was only 19/20 at the time, it was explained that Tyson's confidence in his stamina to go the distance wasn't high. So at a certain point, Tyson went on cruise control. As each round went on, he gained experience and grew confidence that he could extend the fight. By the last round and the time the fight was over, Tyson said it wasn't as that bad at all. This is when he knew he was ready to move to the next stage. In the very next fight against Mitch Green he also went the distance but his attitude and maturity were way above his previous fight. You could see it in the way he fought and the way he talked after the fight. We call this the "maturation process" of a fighter/person. Tyson just matured incredibly fast for a fighter. You can see this from his first pro fight to his fight with Berbick...and then from Berbick to Spinks. It's pretty incredible how fast he matured as a fighter technically and mentally as far as confidence goes. But take away the training which was key to his success (with motivation that adds into all of this) and he goes down. Tua knocked out Ruiz in the first yet how many others have come close to it? Big Punchers always have that chance to take someone else out. And what do we do with the list of opponents other "ATG" fighters haven't been able to knock out yet others have? When people talk about a young Tyson they don't just talked about his power but his overall ability as a boxer/fighter. To look at just his POWER is an ignorant viewing of a young Tyson and many have fallen into this trap because of that ignorance. Even at his peak, if he didn't knock someone out it was seen as a failure yet we don't play this game with many others because their lack of power or ability to go in for the kill.

Apparently the prime of both Rafael and Juan Manuel Marquez was only experienced before their first professional fights, which they both lost. Your logic is flawed. Add Hopkins to that list, and Barrera's biggest wins came after his first loss, if I'm not mistaken.

Apparently the prime of both Rafael and Juan Manuel Marquez was only experienced before their first professional fights, which they both lost. Your logic is flawed.

So even though it is a bit of a bait thread.... This will end the thread: Can any version of Tyson post-Rooney beat the version that Rooney trained from Berbick to Spinks? Actually you didnt end the thread, you just made it longer. The only difference between the two tyson versions your talking about is maybe he had a little more head movement with Rooney. But if you watch the Buster Douglas fight, he was slipping punches and moving his head beautifully in the first couple of rounds. My point is in order to be a great hall of famer like some people try to make Tyson out to be, there are other attributes that make a fighter great. Besides freakish power in both hands and pretty good speed for a HW, Tyson had none of those. Therefore, he was never going to be great. Do you think Michael Jordan would have been the greatest B-Ball player of all time if he lacked self-discipline. Hell no. Its a big part of what makes a hall of famer different than a good fighter. And Tyson had no other attributes that Ali, or Frazier or Marciano had.

how is that hypocritical at all? and where does the fact that im a wlad fan come into play at all in my post. you lost me dude. at least reply with something of substance. I thought you would get it on your own. When Wladimir was Tyson's age (when Tyson was the world champion), he was being knocked around the ring by journeymen like Ross Puritty. He was also twice knocked out in his late 20's with 40+ pro fight experience. His best win is over a bloated cruiserweight Chris Byrd who used to fight at 140 lbs as an amateur when he was 20 years old. Ray Mercer was an old man when he fought Wladimir, and old man Holmes beat Mercer in his prime. There are late bloomers and early bloomers. Wladimir is the former, while Tyson was definitely the latter. Anyone who has seen him fight at his peak, and out of it, should instantly be able to recognize the difference. Now keep in mind that I'm not one of those who make Tyson out to be this invincible beast. I've argued against these people. He had his strengths and his weaknesses but you are severely underrating his abilities and his resume.

A bit hypocritical coming from a Klitschko fan. how is that hypocritical at all? and where does the fact that im a wlad fan come into play at all in my post. you lost me dude. at least reply with something of substance.

So even though it is a bit of a bait thread.... This will end the thread: Can any version of Tyson post-Rooney beat the version that Rooney trained from Berbick to Spinks?