Iron Mike Tyson

[res]

I don't attempt to psycho-analyze Tyson. I'm simply NOT qualified to do that. I do understand psychiatric issues as I myself have Borderline Disorder and have been around mental health system more than a few times. Enough times to know that armchair diagnosis is just not helpful and all too frequently paints a misleading picture. Tyson ought to have gotten meaningful psychiatric assistance as a teen but it never happend. Now it may be too late. He certainly won't receive anything meaningful in prison and will most likely be released even more supremely ****ed up than he already is. That's sad, because regardless of my views of where Tyson stands on the ATG list he is the one fighter I would like to sit down with a cup of coffee and analyze old fights with: He's the one fighter who has consistantly shown an appreciation for boxing's rich history and he's a top-notch analyst to boot. I remember watching a Bruno fight from the late 80s and Tyson sat in for a couple with the announcers. He analyzed what was going on in the ring better than the vast majority of experts that usually comment during broadcasts, spotting things the others just flat out missed. Post-boxing career he would have made a first rate broadcast expert for HBO or Showtime.

Poet

Basically true, but identifying father figures certainly isn't any kind of tremendous psychoanalytical feat, especially in this case, and since pretty much everyone around him and he himself acknowledges the fact.

[Squabbles94806]

I partially agree, except i don't think it was so much the negative outside influences as much as the absence of one major positive influence: Cus Damato. Tyson, who was clearly psychologically unstable from the beginning, had no real family and was taken in as a kid by D'amato. When Da'mato died, the direction and restraint in his life was gone. I often say Mike Tyson the fighter was not one man but two. A child without a parent can do nothing and the man has been a psychological child for most of his life. He performed to please his parent and when he was gone he had no drive to perform, no one to please..

"Excuse" is a moral concept. This isn't about morality or responsibility, this is about sad facts.

Should everyone be able to take responsibility for their own life? Sure, but that has nothing to do with the reality of what happens if they do not or cannot. Personality can ruin talent, it's just a fact.

That said, no performance equals no greatness.

You know there has been some theories by boxing analyists that D'mato wasn't training Mike for his best interest. It was soley for D'mato to redeem himself in the boxing community. It's obviously true that D'mato understood that Tyson had some mental problems, which is why i think he took him in. D'mato was like a mentor who did call the shots. But It was Atlas and Rooney who trained, drilled and maintained Tyson.

Hows about this. Tyson's fighting ability and prowess made him great. But as far as accomplishments, during that particular time (80s-early 90s) it was difficult to create a resume when there was hardly anyone out there. Not to mention the sleazy side of boxing which got its meat hooks into Mike.

I encourage anyone's who's a Tyson fan to read "The Last Great Fight" by Joe Layden. I know someone out there has read this book before...anyone? Anyone? They got a lot of good ***** in that book. Stuff that you already know, but a little more in depth and behind the scene.

[res]

Hows about this. Tyson's fighting ability and prowess made him great. But as far as accomplishments, during that particular time (80s-early 90s) it was difficult to create a resume when there was hardly anyone out there. Not to mention the sleazy side of boxing which got its meat hooks into Mike.

But made him a "great" what?

Boxing prospect? yes. Fighter? I have to say no.


As for making a resume, there was Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis; even Foreman who was able to make himself a force in that era..

You know there has been some theories by boxing analyists that D'mato wasn't training Mike for his best interest. It was soley for D'mato to redeem himself in the boxing community. It's obviously true that D'mato understood that Tyson had some mental problems, which is why i think he took him in. D'mato was like a mentor who did call the shots. But It was Atlas and Rooney who trained, drilled and maintained Tyson.

As for Tyson and D'amato, my belief is that Tyson's biggest problems were not technical but emotional and that is why D'amato's role was so important.

[Squabbles94806]

But made him a "great" what?

Boxing prospect? yes. Fighter? I have to say no.


As for making a resume, there was Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis; even Foreman who was able to make himself a force in that era..





As for Tyson and D'amato, my belief is that Tyson's biggest problems were not technical but emotional and that is why D'amato's role was so important.

Made him a great fighter. He definately could be just good. So he had to be great. I'm only talkin about his fighting ability. Not his career, or personal life or anything else. The word "Great" desribes something that stands out. Iron Mike stood out when he was knockin fools in the 80s. Therefore, the fight in him was great.

As for Bowe, Holyfield and Lewis, i did mention that. Tyson didn't fight them when he was in his prime because of the people around him. They'd rather make a fast buck than establish Tyson as a truly great boxer. It's also in that book i mentioned. That's why the Buster fight was so significant.

Yes. Tyson does have emotional problems that tie in psychologically.

You are a Tyson fan though, are you not?

[them_apples]

Every great boxer has a dark side of his career, Tyson is no exception.

I could pick apart any great boxers resume and make him look like an overrated bum if I wanted to. Tyson only get's picked on because of his **** accusation, the ear biting incident and he has a lot of fans that choose him to beat anyone (nuthuggers).

If you can push those thoughts out of your mind, he winds up at about 7 or 8 on the ATG heavyweight list. Which is good in my books.

- Ali lost to Spinks
- Lewis got knocked out cold by an average quality opponent - and he was still near his prime
- Foreman loses to Young, a fighter he should have easily beat
- Dempsey got knocked out in the middle of his career in the first round by a man with 30 losses
- Rocky fought old men
- Louis only has 25 title defenses because he was fighting bum of the month
- Holyfield lost 10+ times

You do that ^ and every great heavyweight looks bad.

[Squabbles94806]

Every great boxer has a dark side of his career, Tyson is no exception.

I could pick apart any great boxers resume and make him look like an overrated bum if I wanted to. Tyson only get's picked on because of his **** accusation, the ear biting incident and he has a lot of fans that choose him to beat anyone (nuthuggers).

If you can push those thoughts out of your mind, he winds up at about 7 or 8 on the ATG heavyweight list. Which is good in my books.

- Ali lost to Spinks
- Lewis got knocked out cold by an average quality opponent - and he was still near his prime
- Foreman loses to Young, a fighter he should have easily beat
- Dempsey got knocked out in the middle of his career in the first round by a man with 30 losses
- Rocky fought old men
- Louis only has 25 title defenses because he was fighting bum of the month
- Holyfield lost 10+ times

You do that ^ and every great heavyweight looks bad.

Yeah. Tyson was one of the greatest, but he definately not the greatest. Top 10 indefinately. IMO. Top 5? That's pushing it. I think Marciano's overrated.

I wouldn't go too far as saying that I'm a Tyson nuthugger. I was a kid when Tyson was on top. So naturally, of course i'm gonna be a fan. I'm just keepin it real. The only time when i turned my back on Tyson is when he bit Holyfield's ear. But got back in touch with my roots when Lewis Knocked Tyson out.

[res]

Every great boxer has a dark side of his career, Tyson is no exception.

I could pick apart any great boxers resume and make him look like an overrated bum if I wanted to. Tyson only get's picked on because of his **** accusation, the ear biting incident and he has a lot of fans that choose him to beat anyone (nuthuggers).

If you can push those thoughts out of your mind, he winds up at about 7 or 8 on the ATG heavyweight list. Which is good in my books.

- Ali lost to Spinks
- Lewis got knocked out cold by an average quality opponent - and he was still near his prime
- Foreman loses to Young, a fighter he should have easily beat
- Dempsey got knocked out in the middle of his career in the first round by a man with 30 losses
- Rocky fought old men
- Louis only has 25 title defenses because he was fighting bum of the month
- Holyfield lost 10+ times

You do that ^ and every great heavyweight looks bad.

Yeah, I never use the Douglas loss against Tyson, quite frankly I think it's just being dishonest.

As you know, my opinion about Tyson is not based on his losses (who beat him) but on his wins (Who he never beat/fought).

I just don't think you can become a great by savagely beating a bunch of mediocre fighters.

[res]

Made him a great fighter. He definately could be just good. So he had to be great.

But a major part of the test for being a great fighter is facing challenges. Without challenges no one can ever know how good you are.

[Knighte]

Tyson only get's picked on because of his **** accusation, the ear biting incident and he has a lot of fans that choose him to beat anyone (nuthuggers).

I pick on Tyson because of the pathetic nature of his defeats. I couldn't believe when Buster Douglas schooled him; I thought it was a fluke. Then he looked good against some mediocre fighters. Then Evander destroyed him, much the same way Buster did. Then Mike bit Evanders ear off like a little *****. Then Mike looked good against some mediocre fighters. He looked like a million bucks training for the Lewis fight, but Lewis, predicatably, annihilated him THE SAME WAY BUSTER AND EVANDER DID. I couldn't believe Tyson had no answer for Lewis.. it wasn't like he was some doddering old man. Lewis was older than he was. It was becoming obvious to me Mike did not know how to box. He just wasn't learning from his previous mistakes. Then McBride took him apart, then he lost to Williams... then it was like

**** you Tyson you pathetic loser!!!!

[them_apples]

I pick on Tyson because of the pathetic nature of his defeats. I couldn't believe when Buster Douglas schooled him; I thought it was a fluke. Then he looked good against some mediocre fighters. Then Evander destroyed him, much the same way Buster did. Then Mike bit Evanders ear off like a little *****. Then Mike looked good against some mediocre fighters. He looked like a million bucks training for the Lewis fight, but Lewis, predicatably, annihilated him THE SAME WAY BUSTER AND EVANDER DID. I couldn't believe Tyson had no answer for Lewis.. it wasn't like he was some doddering old man. Lewis was older than he was. It was becoming obvious to me Mike did not know how to box. He just wasn't learning from his previous mistakes. Then McBride took him apart, then he lost to Williams... then it was like

**** you Tyson you pathetic loser!!!!

Then you better start picking on all the other heavyweight greats If you have a ****** mentality like that. I guess biting someones ear off automatically makes your achievements not count in your book.

@ res

As you know, my opinion about Tyson is not based on his losses (who beat him) but on his wins (Who he never beat/fought).

I just don't think you can become a great by savagely beating a bunch of mediocre fighters.

I've argued with you about this before, he does not have the greatest wins in comparison to Ali and Foreman, but you are downgrading his wins massively.

Holmes was old yes, I agree - but so were all of Rocky's opponents, a name that seems to show up all to often on ATG lists.

Holmes at least came back and was competitive.

Spinks was a "blown up" light heavyweight that never lost....need I go any further? How many LHW's did Rocky fight? At least you can make the case that Spinks filled in quite nicely and had some solid wins at heavyweight.

We were arguing about Dempsey to, I can't see how him beating Jess Willard's and Gunboats Smiths be any more credible than the average rate opponents Tyson beat up. Those guys had multitudes of losses on their records.

Keep in mind, I'm only comparing. I fully agree Tyson does not have the greatest set of wins under his belt, but very, very few heavyweights actually do. Only half of the ATG hw's actually have real credible opponents. Their greatness is based on other things.

Louis greatness comes by the way of 25 defenses, Holmes mainly because he almost beat Rocky's record and fought in a better era. Rocky is great because he never lost. I don't even know why Dempsey is great other than being interesting to watch. Holyfield is great because of his 4 time world champion status.

so really you have Ali, Foreman and? fill me in? those are the only 2 ATG hw's off the top of my head that have career defining wins over amazing opponents.

so why does Tyson come across to you as having such a horrible resume? they were an average set of wins that your typical ATG heavyweight has, he dominated his time and unified, add the fact that he's the youngest champ ever and he's looking pretty good in terms of ATG hw status.

no.7 or 8 for me, as I have said before.

I guess you can throw Fraziers win over Ali in there to.