Anyone have any memories of Mills Lane?

[MusoMeanderings]

he blew the first Allen/Popkins bout when somehow little Mills was breaking a shyte fight clinch in the corner and Poppy somehow miraculously flew 20' out the ring to burst into tears on the arena floor, either a DQ or TKO as he quit that fight.

Hop def did a Cintron that night. And in his last fight, too. And he did quat in the first Dawson fight.

[Tatabanya]

I should just spend all my time on this website here in the history section! THIS is the kind of stuff I crave for. Information/trivia/sources and nuance.

I didn’t know any of this…

However, playing devil’s advocate…for the top to bottom rejuvenation of Tyson’s career in the last 8-10 years, for a LONG while there (especially around the Tyson/Lewis/Holyfield era, Mike looked to be one of those typical “riches to rags” tales that a lot of athletes (especially boxers…DOUBLE ESPECIALLY for those under Don King) were prone to.

With all his botched TV interviews, public flogging of his image (whether or not how much of it was true with the Givens marriage), and his usage of drugs and financial illiteracy, Lane simply had the same perspective as I’m sure many people had of Tyson around that time.

To fast forward in 2024 and see him become really beloved figure amongst sports fans again (and not black listed from ESPN, Showtime and other television avenues considering his guilty conviction from females) is nothing short of a miracle.

I can’t think of a single other athlete (or celebrity) that’s been convicted of something such as what he was convicted only to bounce back into an almost entrepreneur-like success.

I’m almost tempted to say Michael Jackson but he never was convicted. He had a couple (or a few) settlements to squash the cases.

I’m not saying that Mills Lane was right, I’m just trying to understand why he could’ve said what he said. Regardless, it’s really messed up how he spent the last years of his life like that…especially after being such a sturdy, authoritative referee.

Thank you for the post, Tatabanya.

Thank you for appreciating it, brother.

From a certain point of view, the fall and resurrection of Tyson - at the time sentenced as "evil" by the establishment - may symbolize the ultimate resilience of a human being who has always shown all his flaws in a brutally honest manner, as opposed to those who were held up as a positive example against him, and who took advantage of a situation for their own interests.

The saintly figure of Holyfield, created by the media after the bite fight against the "demon" Tyson, and the rise to fame of Lane, who was even rewarded with a TV show and authored a book that no one would have cared about without Tyson's bite, are still very fresh in my mind. Incidentally, does anyone remember the theatrics of Holyfield's heart being "healed" by a touch from preacher Benny Hinn?

The reversals of fortune in the lives of Tyson, Holyfield and Lane in later years are a clear demonstration of how reality is different in each observer's eyes. And that the same reality sometimes deals different cards at different stages of life. There is, of course, a political issue at play, too. Obviously in the 1990s someone had wanted to use Tyson as an example: 'don't think you can do whatever you want just because you are young, rich and famous'. But many people did the exact same things, perhaps in secret. And they certainly weren't subjected to the same media pillory that Tyson was exposed to.

[TintaBoricua]

Thank you for appreciating it, brother.

From a certain point of view, the fall and resurrection of Tyson - at the time sentenced as "evil" by the establishment - may symbolize the ultimate resilience of a human being who has always shown all his flaws in a brutally honest manner, as opposed to those who were held up as a positive example against him, and who took advantage of a situation for their own interests.

The saintly figure of Holyfield, created by the media after the bite fight against the "demon" Tyson, and the rise to fame of Lane, who was even rewarded with a TV show and authored a book that no one would have cared about without Tyson's bite, are still very fresh in my mind. Incidentally, does anyone remember the theatrics of Holyfield's heart being "healed" by a touch from preacher Benny Hinn?

The reversals of fortune in the lives of Tyson, Holyfield and Lane in later years are a clear demonstration of how reality is different in each observer's eyes. And that the same reality sometimes deals different cards at different stages of life. There is, of course, a political issue at play, too. Obviously in the 1990s someone had wanted to use Tyson as an example: 'don't think you can do whatever you want just because you are young, rich and famous'. But many people did the exact same things, perhaps in secret. And they certainly weren't subjected to the same media pillory that Tyson was exposed to.

Indeed. When you’ve been around long enough in life, all those stories that parents and the elderly tell you that seem as casual wisdom and observations all of a sudden ring truer the older one gets.

It’s why we tend to be more skeptical, cautious, and unfortunately cynical the more time goes by.

This is all akin to something I think about all the time (regarding not knowing where life is going to take you):

-In 2007 two young boxers (an undefeated challenger and an undefeated champion) squared off for middleweight unification…an in his prime Kelly Pavlik and in his prime Jermaine Taylor. If, knowing what you know, had been around that time and told people that Bernard Hopkins would outlast these two young men career-wise and that he wouldn’t just be fighting for scraps (he would be fighting high profile, significant fights), people would’ve called you insane. Lo and behold, Kelly Pavlik got befuddled and just up and quit after 2 decision losses, and Jermaine Taylor took two violent stoppages following that fateful initial fight. Not only that, the rumors of alcoholism and law troubles that Pavlik was running into at the time later came to be confirmed. Taylor, outside the ring, got the worst of it. Firearm charges and a messy divorce all but bookended a once promising fighter’s career into a tragic story. Pavlik is now doing better and even had an interesting episode on Rogan’s podcast. Taylor, to the best of my knowledge, is today either in the penitentiary or struggling to make ends meet. My heart goes out to Taylor who, for all we know, was a victim of pugilism exerting its ugly rear end and affecting their personality or demeanor for the worst. Hopkins would continue to fight way past these two kids’ best days and is still today a vocal and well-respected individual who bet on himself and still has his faculties intact (though he is prone to rambling on too long when asked a simple question). Lol

-Or take the example of the four kings of the late 70’s/early 80’s (Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns). You look at those four fighters and think about all the wars they’ve been in (some especially more than others like Duran and Hearns), and then years down the road you see the effects pugilism has had on them and you’d swear if anybody was going to go first, it’d be maybe someone like Duran or definitely Hearns because of how long they fought and the numerous blows they took. Leonard seems articulate even in 2024 and one could’ve ascertained that maybe, because of Hagler’s rigidity in training and frugal nature (and walking away when he was still a solid fighter) that HE would outlive all of them and yet HE was the first to pass away.

Life is a crapshoot.

And also, I agree with Holyfield’s inclination to be portrayed as a saint when cast in the [back then] shadow of Mike Tyson’s ongoing faults.

The media can inform but it can also have enormous power to, not necessarily lie, but mislead. It’s almost the same, but different. I remember back in maybe 2009-2010 catching flak from my brother and best friend for saying Holyfield must be really broke and having to feed the numerous kids from multiple women he’s had (a religious man). I found out more about this as I started reading books on boxing (especially in Tom Hauser’s numerous publications).

Tyson has astonishingly reinvigorated his image while someone as Holyfield (who was portrayed as a generally saintly man) fell by the wayside. Us longtime boxing fans know who he is, but I don’t think the upcoming youngins will generally know who he is or was unless they go out of his way to research him whereas Tyson has a podcast, a dispensary, an upcoming high profile fight (whatever one wants to make of it), etc.

Life’s been really good to Tyson so far in lieu of the swindling he was subjected to early in his career even in his career high paydays.

[billeau2]

Indeed. When you’ve been around long enough in life, all those stories that parents and the elderly tell you that seem as casual wisdom and observations all of a sudden ring truer the older one gets.

It’s why we tend to be more skeptical, cautious, and unfortunately cynical the more time goes by.

This is all akin to something I think about all the time (regarding not knowing where life is going to take you):

-In 2007 two young boxers (an undefeated challenger and an undefeated champion) squared off for middleweight unification…an in his prime Kelly Pavlik and in his prime Jermaine Taylor. If, knowing what you know, had been around that time and told people that Bernard Hopkins would outlast these two young men career-wise and that he wouldn’t just be fighting for scraps (he would be fighting high profile, significant fights), people would’ve called you insane. Lo and behold, Kelly Pavlik got befuddled and just up and quit after 2 decision losses, and Jermaine Taylor took two violent stoppages following that fateful initial fight. Not only that, the rumors of alcoholism and law troubles that Pavlik was running into at the time later came to be confirmed. Taylor, outside the ring, got the worst of it. Firearm charges and a messy divorce all but bookended a once promising fighter’s career into a tragic story. Pavlik is now doing better and even had an interesting episode on Rogan’s podcast. Taylor, to the best of my knowledge, is today either in the penitentiary or struggling to make ends meet. My heart goes out to Taylor who, for all we know, was a victim of pugilism exerting its ugly rear end and affecting their personality or demeanor for the worst. Hopkins would continue to fight way past these two kids’ best days and is still today a vocal and well-respected individual who bet on himself and still has his faculties intact (though he is prone to rambling on too long when asked a simple question). Lol

-Or take the example of the four kings of the late 70’s/early 80’s (Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns). You look at those four fighters and think about all the wars they’ve been in (some especially more than others like Duran and Hearns), and then years down the road you see the effects pugilism has had on them and you’d swear if anybody was going to go first, it’d be maybe someone like Duran or definitely Hearns because of how long they fought and the numerous blows they took. Leonard seems articulate even in 2024 and one could’ve ascertained that maybe, because of Hagler’s rigidity in training and frugal nature (and walking away when he was still a solid fighter) that HE would outlive all of them and yet HE was the first to pass away.

Life is a crapshoot.

And also, I agree with Holyfield’s inclination to be portrayed as a saint when cast in the [back then] shadow of Mike Tyson’s ongoing faults.

The media can inform but it can also have enormous power to, not necessarily lie, but mislead. It’s almost the same, but different. I remember back in maybe 2009-2010 catching flak from my brother and best friend for saying Holyfield must be really broke and having to feed the numerous kids from multiple women he’s had (a religious man). I found out more about this as I started reading books on boxing (especially in Tom Hauser’s numerous publications).

Tyson has astonishingly reinvigorated his image while someone as Holyfield (who was portrayed as a generally saintly man) fell by the wayside. Us longtime boxing fans know who he is, but I don’t think the upcoming youngins will generally know who he is or was unless they go out of his way to research him whereas Tyson has a podcast, a dispensary, an upcoming high profile fight (whatever one wants to make of it), etc.

Life’s been really good to Tyson so far in lieu of the swindling he was subjected to early in his career even in his career high paydays.

People are programmed by the media. Those media figures are "plugged into" tropes, and people are conditioned to forget all complexity regarding human beings. It is getting much worse IMO. At least Tyson and the Bstard maker (Hollyfield) have some redeeming qualities... Ellon Musk? Meghan Markle and her r e t a rded inbred prince? ****** Harris? Awful people with no redeeming value to speak of. Even Nixon, who was an evil crook... Was a great diplomat regarding China lol... The media is giving us absolute crap... Very scary. The message is, "You can be an awful, talentless hack, but if you get media attention and are part of the right groups, you can be a role model! Don't believe us? watch as a CEO wrecks a company, strong arms the board and gets a raise! Yay Muskie! Or the talentless actress who cannot do anything!But her and her re tarded husband will tell you how to raise your kid."

[Tatabanya]

People are programmed by the media. Those media figures are "plugged into" tropes, and people are conditioned to forget all complexity regarding human beings. It is getting much worse IMO. At least Tyson and the Bstard maker (Hollyfield) have some redeeming qualities... Ellon Musk? Meghan Markle and her r e t a rded inbred prince? ****** Harris? Awful people with no redeeming value to speak of. Even Nixon, who was an evil crook... Was a great diplomat regarding China lol... The media is giving us absolute crap... Very scary. The message is, "You can be an awful, talentless hack, but if you get media attention and are part of the right groups, you can be a role model! Don't believe us? watch as a CEO wrecks a company, strong arms the board and gets a raise! Yay Muskie! Or the talentless actress who cannot do anything!But her and her re tarded husband will tell you how to raise your kid."

It's just the natural "evolution" of what Frank Zappa had predicted in 1973 (!), in his song "I'm The Slime":

I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I'm the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozin' out
From your TV set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't go for help . . . no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

That's right, folks
Don't touch that dial

Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

[TintaBoricua]

It's just the natural "evolution" of what Frank Zappa had predicted in 1973 (!), in his song "I'm The Slime":

I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little has changed
I'm the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I'm the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I'm the slime oozin' out
From your TV set

You will obey me while I lead you
And eat the garbage that I feed you
Until the day that we don't need you
Don't go for help . . . no one will heed you
Your mind is totally controlled
It has been stuffed into my mold
And you will do as you are told
Until the rights to you are sold

That's right, folks
Don't touch that dial

Well, I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

I am the slime from your video
Oozin' along on your livin' room floor

I am the slime from your video
Can't stop the slime, people, lookit me go

I just listened to it for the first time after this post. Good post.

[Willie Pep 229]

People are programmed by the media. Those media figures are "plugged into" tropes, and people are conditioned to forget all complexity regarding human beings. It is getting much worse IMO. At least Tyson and the Bstard maker (Hollyfield) have some redeeming qualities... Ellon Musk? Meghan Markle and her r e t a rded inbred prince? ****** Harris? Awful people with no redeeming value to speak of. Even Nixon, who was an evil crook... Was a great diplomat regarding China lol... The media is giving us absolute crap... Very scary. The message is, "You can be an awful, talentless hack, but if you get media attention and are part of the right groups, you can be a role model! Don't believe us? watch as a CEO wrecks a company, strong arms the board and gets a raise! Yay Muskie! Or the talentless actress who cannot do anything!But her and her re tarded husband will tel1l you how to raise your kid."

Nixon's trip to China was in no way a diplomatic success EXCEPT to end the Vietnam War.

Nixon gained, in the 1973 cease fire deal, nothing more in Vietnam than LBJ had in 1968.

In 1968 it was called "cutting and running" but come 1973, Nixon would take the exact same deal, as the 1968 deal, and call it "peace with honor." And get away with it.

What Nixon did, that was brilliant, was to manipulate the American mind set. Nixon defanged the scary panda bear of communism.

Nixon visited China in Februray 1972, and the political cartoonist reduced Mao to a 'Charlie Chan' character. The big scary communist bear had been reduce to a clownish figure.

Then, and only then, could Nixon dump Vietnam (which he did in August) and have the American people buy the BS about "peace with honor."

30 years selling a fear for political gain, and then washing it away with a photo-op. That's brilliant politics, not great government.

A year later he brought Brezhnev to America and he too was reduced to a funny little man with bushy eyebrows, who drove too fast.

Thus with both bears being defanged we could walk away from Siagon and claim "honor."

Sorry for the digression it's a pet peeve of mine.

[QueensburyRules]

Nixon's trip to China was in no way a diplomatic success EXCEPT to end the Vietnam War.

Nixon gained, in the 1973 cease fire deal, nothing more in Vietnam than LBJ had in 1968.

In 1968 it was called "cutting and running" but come 1973, Nixon would take the exact same deal, as the 1968 deal, and call it "peace with honor." And get away with it.

What Nixon did, that was brilliant, was to manipulate the American mind set. Nixon defanged the scary panda bear of communism.

Nixon visited China in Februray 1972, and the political cartoonist reduced Mao to a 'Charlie Chan' character. The big scary communist bear had been reduce to a clownish figure.

Then, and only then, could Nixon dump Vietnam (which he did in August) and have the American people buy the BS about "peace with honor."

30 years selling a fear for political gain, and then washing it away with a photo-op. That's brilliant politics, not great government.

A year later he brought Brezhnev to America and he too was reduced to a funny little man with bushy eyebrows, who drove too fast.

Thus with both bears being defanged we could walk away from Siagon and claim "honor."

Sorry for the digression it's a pet peeve of mine.

- - What he did was legitimize Mao's China who benefitted the most by adopting Western technology and better diplomatic relations.

Nixon could've coasted on the rest of his presidency and gone down as a decent prez but for his tragic flaw of congenital paranoia that created that looney plumbers gang that broke into Dem Headquarters to mine their info. He was already well ahead in the polls before that idiocy, and even won his reelection after the idiocy had been exposed.

[billeau2]

Nixon's trip to China was in no way a diplomatic success EXCEPT to end the Vietnam War.

Nixon gained, in the 1973 cease fire deal, nothing more in Vietnam than LBJ had in 1968.

In 1968 it was called "cutting and running" but come 1973, Nixon would take the exact same deal, as the 1968 deal, and call it "peace with honor." And get away with it.

What Nixon did, that was brilliant, was to manipulate the American mind set. Nixon defanged the scary panda bear of communism.

Nixon visited China in Februray 1972, and the political cartoonist reduced Mao to a 'Charlie Chan' character. The big scary communist bear had been reduce to a clownish figure.

Then, and only then, could Nixon dump Vietnam (which he did in August) and have the American people buy the BS about "peace with honor."

30 years selling a fear for political gain, and then washing it away with a photo-op. That's brilliant politics, not great government.

A year later he brought Brezhnev to America and he too was reduced to a funny little man with bushy eyebrows, who drove too fast.

Thus with both bears being defanged we could walk away from Siagon and claim "honor."

Sorry for the digression it's a pet peeve of mine.

I think stopping the Vietnam war marriage a little more than an only lol. I'm certainly not advocating Nixon.

[Willie Pep 229]

I think stopping the Vietnam war marriage a little more than an only lol. I'm certainly not advocating Nixon.

I understand. My word choice is wanting. I just cringe at the belief that Nixon had made some great diplomatic breakthrough. Remember even Spock made it sounds like it was profound. That annoyed me. LOL

It was still just a manipulation of us.