Who's prime is more overrated ?

**ironalex** · 08-01-2009, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by poet682006

For starters Tyson was limited by his body type. Having a short reach he was locked into fighting one way which left him with no "plan B" if things didn't go right (this is the same reason Marciano and Frazier would never be number one). His stocky build and non-existent neck also played against him as it left him unable to turn his upper body adequetly to deal with someone giving him angles. This left him with the choice of either turning his entire body to position himself or punching ineffectively from a poor postition. Later, as he muscled up more, he was also unable to punch while turning (a key argument against weight lifting for fighters). Short-armed pressure fighters have a serious vulnerability against fighters like George Foreman and Sonny Liston and that in and of itself would preclude them from being the Heavyweight GOAT. Fighters like Tyson, Marciano, and Frazier could fight Foreman 100 times and they would LOSE the vast majority of them. The limitations of their bodies make it a nightmare stylistic matchup for them. Cuss himself told Tyson repeatedly he could never hope to beat Foreman: Someone a past-prime Ali defeated with relative ease.

While Tyson had quick feet straight ahead he was relatively clumsy and slow-afoot laterally. This was trouble against a mover with more in mind than mere survival (ie. someone using movement offensively as opposed to running for their lives).

As is apparent from watching any of Tyson's fights where the opponent wasn't focusing solely on survival Mike was NOT that difficult to hit. The idea Tyson was some kind of defensive wiz was a myth started by Hank Kaplan for whom Tyson could do no wrong. Even members of the D'Amato/Rooney team said that was a myth, that Tyson's offense was his defense and fighters running like hell simply aren't going to score with any regularity. Those chickens came home to roost in the Douglas fight.

Additionally, Tyson was not a good inside fighter as someone with his body type is normally expected to be. Tyson wanted to fight at mid-range where he could leap into his punches for maximum leverage. Them Apples is something of an expert on Tyson and his style (and, I might add, a Tyson FAN rather than a nuthugger) and can confirm this. Watching film of his fights with a critical eye will also confirm this. Tyson would tie up on the inside to provoke the ref into breaking the fighters and putting Tyson back out at the range he was comfortable at (this is partly a point in Tyson's favor as he conserved energy by allowing the referee to force the break rather than working his way back out). This is one of the reasons why Tyson was not a consistant body-puncher: Fighting from mid-range practically begs a fighter to head-hunt.....which was what Tyson wanted in any case.

Finally, Tyson's endurance was not that good. Like a young Foreman Tyson consistantly gassed around the 6th or 7th round in those fights that went that far. He slowed down rapidly after that point and relied on his early points lead and the fact that his opponent was usually in survival mode to secure the decision (at that point, against an opponent content to merely survive, Tyson could pick off some of the late rounds without actually doing anything other than being aggressive). Against a fighter who could absorb or deflect Tyson's early aggression AND hit him back was would simply take over after the mid-point of the fight.

Now. You wanted an analysis of Tyson's flaws and you now have it. Next?

Poet

You say tyson was a one trick pony, but when did Foreman ever fight in the inside? the stereotypical prime Ali never fought in the inside, does that limit and make him one dimensional too?...you say that tysons body limited him, i say it made him, it made him a more effective fighter as he knew how to use his height "disadadvantage" to his advantage, i agree his body shape does limit his options, but so does most fighters, Ali had long arms, and was tall and slender, he didnt have the body shape to stay in the inside? in fact mostly what he used to do was tie the guy up much like Tyson apparntly used to do. In fact only a few heavyweights are great inside fighters, normally its the lighter south american fighters who dominate that field.

slow laterally? not at all, quite the opposite actually, his side to side movement was phenemonial...i agree he found trouble with "runners" who are less afraid of him but this was due more to his mental weakness then his pyshical capabilities, not every fighter has the desire of a JCC. A prime example of a heavyweight with slow foot movement is Joe Louis, George Foreman etc, and they didnt do too bad did they?

Of course you are going to hit someone if you are throwing a 10 punch combo, one is bound to hit, the majority however WERE SLIPPED, and then brutally countered. Where are you getting this supposed "cus said this...cus said that" information from? source please?

He Inside fought when needed, the Tubbs fight etc, but yes mainly at mid range, however as prev. mentioned, Ali kept most fighters at distance and then tied up his oppenent, and didn't go to the body much, is that such an awful thing? using what you are best at, however you dont criticise other fighters the way you do Tyson...you must be a secret admirer or something.

Tyson had good endurance, not the best by no means, but "was not that good" is down playing his endurance. Many heavyweights have this problem as they run less then lighter fighters, Frazier is the only heavy i can think of who had superb conditioning, and yes, i know jack johnson, louis, dempsey etc had good conditioning but they fought in a different style to a 12 ROUND PACED FIGHTER...they were flat footed, expended very little energy, (which im not saying is a bad thing, was very good given the rounds they had to do)...Tyson on the other hand is agressive, side to side, moving his head constantly and throws punches with bad intentions which is bound to take a lot of steam out of you, for doing that, i think he has quite good endurance actually...Tyson wasnt the only succesful heavyweight without great endurance, Foreman, Liston etc

Alex.

**ironalex** · 08-01-2009, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Ylem122

dempsey seems to be a bit lighter on his feet then tyson and fraizer seems to stick a bit closer to the opponet.

i still stick with tyson being more overrated personally i dont find his ability to hit other people to be the most skill full or atleast it looks like he only spared 5 rounds his boxing carrer but at the same time spent an all together like 4 years non stop on the heavy bag. then there also the keeping his life on track though atleast he kept boxing into 05 it seems like he just didnt care any more. he could have had the same record as the likes of roy jones but he gave up a real boxer would have just tried harder.

all these what ifs well what if it was never there to begin with.

nonono, Tyson was known for sparring A LOT. rooney got him doing 15 rounds a day. Do you really think a guy with 20 odd amateur fights would be as good as Tyson with little sparring? lol.

**Poet682006** · 08-01-2009, 10:59 AM