Prime Tyson could have been the best ever??

[StarshipTrooper]

I guess you think the 30's and 40's where better?

Actually I do, there were a lot of good fighters in the Heavyweight division in the 30s and 40s. The 20s and 50s weren't very good but still better than the mid to late 80s. You're falling into the modernist trap of thinking if it happend before you were born it automatically sucks. The 90s were one of the best eras ever for Heavyweights: Only the 70s were better in my estimation. So I hardly fall into the catagory of believing the old days were always better, an accusation I can predict will come next from you. Unlike you, I'm open minded about the various eras in boxing and I can find great (and not so great) fighters from the turn of the century till this very day. I refuse to shut my mind off an impose artificial limitations on my thinking.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

I'm sorry I don't buy it, It wouldn't have mattered who was in Tyson's corner that night. As I've said previously, If there was any boxer out there, that knew the game inside out, it was Tyson, he has probably watched more fights and studied them more than any other fighter in history, he should have known what to have done in all of the fights he was losing, but on every occasion he was put off his game plan, simply because they stood up to him, and any real Tyson fan should know this, that was always his biggest problem even way back in the early days in his amatuer fights, read the accounts of Teddy Atlas and co, even when Tyson was winning fights, if they kept getting up and standing up to him even with not much success, Tyson would come back to the corner at the end of a round and make up excuses that his hand broke or his wrist was damaged, simply because he never liked it when opponents stood up to him. Although he never quit in the ring, he quit mentally when someone stood up to him, and it completely put him off his game plan. Even in his so called prime he was a 6-7 round fighter and then lost concentration and neglected everything that made him such a terrific fighter offensively and defensevely. In every fight he lost, he realised from early on that they weren't gonna just lie down, and most important weren't intimidated by him, which in turn intimidated Tyson and therefore put him off his gameplan, he would look tentative and when he did attack it was from straight on, just throwing single shots and looking for the win. He had all the tools to beat Holyfield and Lewis except for the mental toughness, he never really knew how to fight back when everything was against him. Look at the Lewis fight, he started off against Lewis great, looking like old Tyson for 2 rounds. But Lewis stood up to him and fired back and this was what put Tyson off, he came out in the 3rd round looking like a different fighter, where did his skills go, they didn't just disappear and it wasn't stamina it was mental. I am a Tyson fan, but not a nuthugger and as a knowledgable fight fan, I could see all his weaknesses, I said the same thing way back in 87-88 and I was right all along. He believed the hype about himself, everyone said he was invincible and he thought everyone would just lie down and when they never he didn't know what to do, all he had to do would have been fight as he normally did, slipping punches, lateral movement and hard fast combos switching from head to body, he should have known that but when you lose your confidence and don't think your gonna win, you do ****** things. How many Tyson fans watched his defeats and were screaming at the TV come on mike what on earth are you doing, where is the lateral movement, the slipping of the punches, where are the combos, why are you just wading in straight on throwing single shots, be honest you all were but used excuses he didn't train or hes past his prime, when in fact all along he was missing that one important ingrediant in a great fighter, and that is a great mind, and the true heart of a champion to suck it up, and fire back with as much as you can, not just single shots.

Awesome post! Bravo!

Poet

[Mike Tyson77]

Actually I do, there were a lot of good fighters in the Heavyweight division in the 30s and 40s. The 20s and 50s weren't very good but still better than the mid to late 80s. You're falling into the modernist trap of thinking if it happend before you were born it automatically sucks. The 90s were one of the best eras ever for Heavyweights: Only the 70s were better in my estimation. So I hardly fall into the catagory of believing the old days were always better, an accusation I can predict will come next from you. Unlike you, I'm open minded about the various eras in boxing and I can find great (and not so great) fighters from the turn of the century till this very day. I refuse to shut my mind off an impose artificial limitations on my thinking.

Poet

Jack Johnson is my #2 favorite fighter. I like the old fighters, but I dont believe the 80's where the worst. I think Tyson, Tucker, or Tubbs would have done the same thing if they fought in Louis's time.


I mean C'mon, Tony Galento said he trained off of beer and burgers!

[Brassangel]

Tyson learned from the Douglas fight.

This is the part people fail to recognize. His next four fights were completely different then the ones leading up to, and including the Douglas fight. Unfortunately, he couldn't handle his personal life and he went to jail.

He encountered opponents before who weren't afraid of him (Green, Holmes, Ferguson (before his nose got broken), etc.) and he still executed enough to win at least a convincing decision. Tyson himself said that he was scared going into every fight, and yet, he still got the job done. He didn't hope to frighten his opponents into submission, he hoped to batter them into submission. Sometimes, when that didn't work, he got frustrated, and quit. 99% of those instances came after his trip to prison.

The 80's were pretty lame in the heavyweight division, but every fighter was tall, lean, and modelled after the previous lineal champion, Larry Holmes. They were supposed to be the bread-and-butter forumla for beating Mike Tyson, with strong jabs, stamina, good chins, confidence, etc. It didn't matter; he came into the division at the start of the surge of super-heavyweights, and he still cleaned it up faster, cleaner, and with less question than any heavyweight in history. He would have been a champion in any era, just not as dominant.

His fights with Ruddock are clear examples of Tyson's ability to show heart, stamina, and not quit just because the opponent fights back. Ruddock was a better boxer than Douglas, and hit a crap-ton harder, yet Mike proved he was a champ.

And yes, hurricane, it was very frustrating to watch Mike stand there like a sack of sand, not caring about getting hit, and only throwing one punch at a time. The corner isn't his sole reason for losing, as I listed many other factors here, and in my previous post(s); many of which are, admittedly, his own fault.

[StarshipTrooper]

Jack Johnson is my #2 favorite fighter. I like the old fighters, but I dont believe the 80's where the worst. I think Tyson, Tucker, or Tubbs would have done the same thing if they fought in Louis's time.


I mean C'mon, Tony Galento said he trained off of beer and burgers!

Galento is hardly the prototypical fighter of the 1940s. He got away with his antics because he hit like a truck; in this case you've picked out the exception not the rule. Tucker and Tubbs being champions in the 40s? I don't think so because neither would have lasted 6 rounds with Joe Louis.

Poet

[BKM-]

Ahh few more pages. What's this about gentlemen? Let me in on the action lol.

[them_apples]

how can the 80's be the worst.. Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis were all spawned from the 80's. While the 80's did have a great load of tomato cans (that all fought the same) that got clobbered by the big names I still don't think it was the worst. The early nineties seemed to have a good deal of "better" fighters, as much as the old guys will fail agree with. 1998+ and up is full of big slow dumb fighters that seem to rely on size more than skill.

Fighters from the 40's-50's still wouldn't have a chance leaving their heads open and all, its not like they would have magically hard chins or anything, they are still human. Also, nobody had one hit knockout power until the 80's-90's, which I would think comes from the intensive athlete oriented training. (Marciano slowly beat guys down, never with one punch), he also only weighed (186-189lbs?). People will automatically say "thats just because the old fighters were tougher, which would be completely wrong -- but alas its inevitable.

I'm not bashing the old guys ether, they put up a good show for there time, but saying 180 lb slow white guys can hang with Prime fighters such as what I listed is just BS.

[Thunder Lips]

This is the part people fail to recognize. His next four fights were completely different then the ones leading up to, and including the Douglas fight. Unfortunately, he couldn't handle his personal life and he went to jail.

He encountered opponents before who weren't afraid of him (Green, Holmes, Ferguson (before his nose got broken), etc.) and he still executed enough to win at least a convincing decision. Tyson himself said that he was scared going into every fight, and yet, he still got the job done. He didn't hope to frighten his opponents into submission, he hoped to batter them into submission. Sometimes, when that didn't work, he got frustrated, and quit. 99% of those instances came after his trip to prison.

The 80's were pretty lame in the heavyweight division, but every fighter was tall, lean, and modelled after the previous lineal champion, Larry Holmes. They were supposed to be the bread-and-butter forumla for beating Mike Tyson, with strong jabs, stamina, good chins, confidence, etc. It didn't matter; he came into the division at the start of the surge of super-heavyweights, and he still cleaned it up faster, cleaner, and with less question than any heavyweight in history. He would have been a champion in any era, just not as dominant.

His fights with Ruddock are clear examples of Tyson's ability to show heart, stamina, and not quit just because the opponent fights back. Ruddock was a better boxer than Douglas, and hit a crap-ton harder, yet Mike proved he was a champ.

And yes, hurricane, it was very frustrating to watch Mike stand there like a sack of sand, not caring about getting hit, and only throwing one punch at a time. The corner isn't his sole reason for losing, as I listed many other factors here, and in my previous post(s); many of which are, admittedly, his own fault.

All true.

The "intimidation" myth is pretty headache inducing. Most fighters didn't stand up and trade with Tyson because they would have got knocked out. Even Douglas avoided Tyson with his reach and stiff jabs/right hand leads, when he did get caught he ended up on his ass.

[StarshipTrooper]

how can the 80's be the worst.. Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis were all spawned from the 80's. While the 80's did have a great load of tomato cans (that all fought the same) that got clobbered by the big names I still don't think it was the worst. The early nineties seemed to have a good deal of "better" fighters, as much as the old guys will fail agree with. 1998+ and up is full of big slow dumb fighters that seem to rely on size more than skill.

Fighters from the 40's-50's still wouldn't have a chance leaving their heads open and all, its not like they would have magically hard chins or anything, they are still human. Also, nobody had one hit knockout power until the 80's-90's, which I would think comes from the intensive athlete oriented training. (Marciano slowly beat guys down, never with one punch), he also only weighed (186-189lbs?). People will automatically say "thats just because the old fighters were tougher, which would be completely wrong -- but alas its inevitable.

I'm not bashing the old guys ether, they put up a good show for there time, but saying 180 lb slow white guys can hang with Prime fighters such as what I listed is just BS.

First off, Holyfield and Lewis may have been spawned in the 80s but they didn't come of age until the 90s.

Second off, you're dead wrong if you think fighters in the 40s and 50s didn't practice defense.

Third off, what the living HELL are you smoking? No one had one punch power until the 80s? Joe Louis, 1940s. Rocky Marciano, 1950s (If you don't believe he had one punch power watch the Walcott fight). Sonny Liston, 1960s. Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Earnie Shavers (hardest hitting Heavyweight ever), 1970s. You're living in a dreamland dude. This is the kind of attitude I mentioned earlier about believing everything that happend before you were born automatically must have ******.

Fourth off, fighters today train little differently from the way they trained at the turn of the century. Evander Holyfield is a noticable exception to this. They do roadwork, shadowbox, hit the bags, and spar: Just like they did back then. Weight lifting was off limits then just as it's off limits now. Why? Because it kills your reflexes, something a fighter depends on to be successful. There is no magical formula that was discovered in the 1980s that turned fighters from being pathetic jokes into some kind of super-athlete. It didn't happen. In fact, if you look at the Heavyweights of the past ten years you'll see that if anything they are fatter and less conditioned then ever before.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

PS. One punch power does NOT come from intensive athletic training. You're born with it: Either you have it or you don't. You can't go out and get it. It can't be developed you have to have it naturally.

Poet