Tweet
Originally posted by K-DOGG
I honestly think Mike was a prison conviction away from the best era and match-ups since the 1970's. Sad that we'll never know for sure.
I honestly think Mike was a prison conviction away from the best era and match-ups since the 1970's. Sad that we'll never know for sure.
Just as a side note:
Nearly everybody excuses Muhammad Ali for his slightly diminished skills, and his loss to Joe Frazier after his three year layoff; while nobody gives the same excuse to Tyson for losing to Holyfield after his four year layoff. While it's true that Ali truly came back to make something amazing out of the second portion of his career while Tyson continuously fumbled, I just think that there are some facts which should be considered:
Muhammad Ali fought 18 rounds in less than one year, prior to his bout with Joe Frazier. Those rounds were against incredibly game opponents in Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena; both awkward fighters who were tough as they come for that era. Meanwhile, Joe Frazier fought a total of 7 rounds in the previous year against Ellis and Foster, hardly the same competition Ali fought. While Frazier was fighting tough opponents during Ali's layoff, he was not fighting guys that would prepare him for the style of fight Ali could bring. Still, he showed up, took advantage of Ali's rust, and walked away the winner of an epic battle.
Mike Tyson fought a total of 8 rounds in a year's time prior to his bout with Evander Holyfield. Those rounds were definitely not against opponents like Quarry and Bonavena; they were against McNeeley, Mathis Jr., Bruno, and Seldon. While McNeeley was not afraid of Tyson...well, that's basically the best you get from these four. Meanwhile, Holyfield fought one epic battle after another during Tyson's time off against the likes of Moorer, Mercer, Bowe, Bowe II, Bowe III, Foreman, etc. Even so, Tyson still started to show signs of life in the 5th round. One combination in particular (a body blow followed closely by a right uppercut) managed to stagger Holyfield backward, which kept Evander from pushing Mike backwards for the remainder of the round. That is, until suddenly an "accidental" head-butt split open Mike's forehead on the same side that Evander would later throw the jab all night long. In their second meeting, (which most critics view incorrectly by stating that Evander was dominating the fight; he won round 1 at best), Tyson comes in 5 pounds lighter than he was in their first meeting, and starts landing cleanly in the third round, driving Holyfield backward. That is, until suddenly and "accidental" head-butt lights a fuse that blows up into the bite heard round the world.
In other words, Holyfield was pretty seasoned and ready to take on entire eras of fighters when Tyson walked into the ring; Frazier had barely dented a few cans when he fought Ali. Tyson had four years and one month off; Ali had three years and six months off. Tyson fought 8 rounds against poor competition; Ali fought 18 rounds against tough-as-nails competition.
Every time Tyson lost, people say, "I knew he wasn't that good...".
Every time Ali lost, people say, "Yeah, but...".
Don't get me wrong, I love Muhammad Ali. In my book, he's the one heavyweight who could be placed in any era in history and come out near, or on the top of them all. He would also beat Mike Tyson 9 out of 10 times. I just find it curious that people are so automatic to grant Ali the excuses one after another, even when situations among fighters parallel so closely. (Mind you, I am fully aware that Ali did manage to make an amazing recovery following his fight with Frazier, while Tyson stayed in the "give me another chance, I promise this is my last trip to jail" phase.)
Otherwise, I think that K-DOGG has made an excellent hypothesis concerning the "what-if" surrounding the 90's era that will forever remain the elephant in the boxing locker room. Great stuff!
Comment