where does the peak tyson fit in

[TKODoll]

i think sayng mercer culd beat him is Quite an insuly actuli and i think he could beat ne version of holyfeild when he was at his peak he didnt need to ashow he could get out of adversity because he never had ne due to being so good

In ENGLISH, please.

[Warhawk46]

While I can respect everyone's opinions, I think it must be made clear as to when Mike Tyson's "prime" was. For certain it was not after he was released from prison. At this point he was exactly what some people here have written: a headhunting KO artist. He had lost the immense skills he once possessed.

In truth, Tyson was the most complete fighter since Joe Louis. During his prime, even though it was short, he was a defensive master who really only got tagged by a few decent shots in 35 fights!!! Rooney had molded him into a defensive jaggernaut. Besides this he also possessed nearly as fast hands as Ali. Remember Tyson did not shoot the jabs all that often, although he was able to double and even triple the jab to get inside with great effectivness. In truth, his jab is underrated. But one must remember that Iron Mike through powerful punches with lightening speed. His power combinations almost equaled Ali's; watch films and you will see this.

Besides his excellent defense and incredibly fast hands, Tyson possessed excellent punching technique. Not since perhaps Louis has a fighter been so technically precise in his punching technique. Perhaps there have been a few others since then, but not many. No on can dispute this.

Also, during his "prime" he was not a mental nut-case, not like he was once his personal life collapsed around him. Remember, he was so young and had lost the two most loved figures in his life: first D'Amato and then Jimmy Jacobs. When Jacobs dies Don King swooped in like a vulture. Shortly later Tyson fired Rooney and with this last move, his greatness left. In his first fight without Kevin Rooney he was lacking. Defense was poor, headmovement minimal. Precision punching gone, headhunting was in. His punchers were wider, less discipline. In fact, since he canned Rooney he has been a lazy fighter and lazy in training.

While I am not trying to say Mike Tyson is the greatest fighter ever, and I dont think he is, I think too many people (and biased and unknowledgable media influence doesnt help) forgot who the Prime Tyson was and what type of fighter he was. When looking at the fighter who fought Lewis or Williams or even Holyfield for that matter, think of an opposite fighter. While the others were undisciplined and lacked motivation or skills, prime Mike was disciplined, motivated and incredibly skilled.

[Yogi]

In his first fight without Kevin Rooney he was lacking. Defense was poor, headmovement minimal. Precision punching gone, headhunting was in. His punchers were wider, less discipline.

Have you ever seen Tyson's fight with Nino Ribalta?

If so, you probably noticed the lack of head movement from Tyson for the vast majority of the fight when compared to some other fights of his during his "prime", the lack of combination punching throughout, and his relying on trying to land single bombs to end the fight during the last 7 or 8 rounds...And the funny thing is he had Kevin Rooney in his corner for that one, so how do you explain that rather crappy performance where Tyson himself said the following words during the post-fight, "I had a bad night"?

I don't know what you think, but maybe it had something to do with a "prime" Tyson's stylistic weakness and tendencies against taller fighters who used some effective movement behind a jab and the ability/knowledge to tie Tyson up when on the inside (which was Ribalta's gameplan). Sort of like how the much more talented (than Ribalta), Buster Douglas later proved when he knocked out a prime Tyson in 1990.

And if you're going to come back at me with "excuses" for that Tyson loss to Douglas, then I would tell you to be consistent with that thinking, as Tony Tucker had a bunch of crap to deal with before facing Tyson (including a drug problem which had just became known to those around him, a changing of both his manager & trainer in the weeks leading up to the Tyson fight, and he was also in court on the eve of the fight fighting with his former manager, Dennis Rappaport...Tucker also supposedly busted his hand in the very first round when he shook Tyson up with that uppercut), and if you were to be consistent you must also think that stuff made the difference between a Tucker win and a loss against Mike.

Tucker was more competitive with Tyson than Tyson was with Douglas, so...well, you can figure out the rest.

[Warhawk46]

He had an off-night against Ribalta, but he also looked much better than he did against Douglas. Tyson was aggressive and landed pretty much when he wanted to against Jose Ribalta. And his defense WAS much better than it was against Douglas...watch the fight. Tyson hardly got hit with a meaningful punch. Against Douglas he got landed flush time after time after time.

I challenge you to learn more about a subject before going off into a rant about another person's post. I was not trying to anger anyone by my previous post. I simply stated obvious factors that should be in any discussion concerning Mike Tyson. It is those who cop out and go with the "Tyson never beat anyone who stood up to him..." line that warrant no respect. People who disagree with me are great, its what keeps these boards worth coming to.

However, Tyson (and Marciano and others) do not get a fair shake from many people when discussing their greatness. I am simply pointing out facts concerning a young and prime Mike Tyson.

I think everyone knows he was far from his best when he returned from prison. If you dont know this, watch his fights and watch his pre-prison fights. For those of you who throw out the "he was only 29 year old" when concerning fighters there is no magical age when a fighter is still in his prime. Much of it has to do with fighting style: smarmers, ala Dempsey, Tyson, Frazier, Marciano etc are going to burn out faster. That's just the way it is as opposed to a fighter who can control a fight with a jab, ala Holmes, Ali, etc.

I would appreciate intelligent, respectful discussion further on the matter if anyone is willing.

[Yogi]

He had an off-night against Ribalta, but he also looked much better than he did against Douglas. Tyson was aggressive and landed pretty much when he wanted to against Jose Ribalta. And his defense WAS much better than it was against Douglas...watch the fight. Tyson hardly got hit with a meaningful punch. Against Douglas he got landed flush time after time after time.

I challenge you to learn more about a subject before going off into a rant about another person's post. I was not trying to anger anyone by my previous post. I simply stated obvious factors that should be in any discussion concerning Mike Tyson. It is those who cop out and go with the "Tyson never beat anyone who stood up to him..." line that warrant no respect. People who disagree with me are great, its what keeps these boards worth coming to.

However, Tyson (and Marciano and others) do not get a fair shake from many people when discussing their greatness. I am simply pointing out facts concerning a young and prime Mike Tyson.

I think everyone knows he was far from his best when he returned from prison. If you dont know this, watch his fights and watch his pre-prison fights. For those of you who throw out the "he was only 29 year old" when concerning fighters there is no magical age when a fighter is still in his prime. Much of it has to do with fighting style: smarmers, ala Dempsey, Tyson, Frazier, Marciano etc are going to burn out faster. That's just the way it is as opposed to a fighter who can control a fight with a jab, ala Holmes, Ali, etc.

I would appreciate intelligent, respectful discussion further on the matter if anyone is willing.

First off I noticed something on the bottom of the first page of the forums, so happy birthday, bro. I hope you have a good one.

Now as far as your challenge goes, I'm quite capable of speaking my opinions of Mike Tyson, thank you very much, as I was about your current age (you're 22 today, aren't you?) when Tyson was causing havoc in the division, and at that time I was following the sport about as close as anybody possible could. Even to this day I still have plenty of reading material left over from them days and own the vast majority of the fights of Tyson's earlier days (or "prime"), including his fight against Nino Ribalta. And in that fight I was not impressed with Tyson's performance, when compared to some other fights from his younger days...He landed some good combinations on Ribalta in the early goings, but after landing his patented right to the body/right to the head combination in the second round, which dropped Ribalta, Tyson became a one punch at a time headhunter for basically the rest of the fight (although I can recall a good right hand/left hook combination late in the fight that knocked Ribalta's mouthpiece flying, but those combinations from Mike were few and far between). Tyson may have been the aggressor in that fight, but for most of it he was a plodding aggressor looking to land one bomb at a time. And Ribalta was somewhat competitive with Mike in that one, and was able to neutralize Tyson to an extent with movement, the long left jab (he landed a bunch of those), and clinching when Tyson got in on him (Ribalta came back on Tyson a couple of times with flurries, but practically every time Tyson landed one of his single power shots, Nino was tying him up right away, as well as pushing Tyson's head down on a few occasions...wasn't pretty from Ribalta, but it was an effective strategy). I also don't see Tyson's defense being that much better than what it was for Douglas, as in both fights and for the most part, he neglected to use that head movement that he became known for (Tyson moved his head in both fights during the first couple of rounds, and then pretty much gave up on it for the rest of both fights).

As far as your "he looked much better than he did against Douglas" comment, don't you think that opinion of yours might have something to do with the quality of opponent he was up against (personally, I wouldn't say Tyson looked "much better")? Ribalta wasn't a particularily bad fighter and was a useful fringe contender type during that time, but there's no way he was anywhere near as talented as was Douglas when Buster was at his best (against Tyson, the first 6 or 7 rounds against Tucker, and also against the muscular & chinny, Mike Williams, which were the three best displays of Buster's overall talents). But even though there was an obvious talent difference between Douglas and Ribalta, they did have similiar attributes and used similiar styles against Tyson, and both were effective in some way with it (James Tillis also used something similiar, and that's another fight where Tyson abandoned the combination punching and head movement for the majority of the last half/two-thirds of the fight).

On to other things...

Listen, I'm not one to discredit Tyson's opponents during his reign as champion, as he did fight guys who were talented heavyweights in their own right (as far as pure talent goes, that era is certainly better than the one that exists currently). And no, I wasn't angry with your previous post. But what I don't like to see is people put Tyson (or any fighter for that matter) under an extreme microscope and then come up with excuses for a performance of his. I try to look beyond that because then you'd have to do that with every single fighter in history and decide what they were going through during the pre-fight buildup. Every single fighter in history has a personal life outside of boxing, and of course that means it's very, very likely they had things going on that could be deemed or viewed from the outside as an distraction. I presented an example of what Tony Tucker went through before facing Tyson (which you didn't respond to and I'd like you to if you don't mind...I can also quote documented "excuses" for a number of Tyson's opponents if I so choose), but for me, a prime Tyson defeated Tony Tucker in that 12 round fight. But I also consider Tyson's prime to include his fight with Douglas, as well, and likee most people and basically all the Tyson fans do, I'm not one to discredit that victory by Buster by saying Tyson wasn't in his prime...I also don't consider Tyson's prime to be after his prison stint, nor do I judge a fighter's prime by going strictly on his age.

[Warhawk46]

Yogi, I can honestly say you are an intelligent poster who gives much thought into what he writes. It shows in your posts.

I would agree with you in saying that Tyson did not look particularly effective against Ribalta. However, I find this fight to be entertaining. Tyson had a poor performance, but he was still able to control the fight, something he couldnt do against Douglas. In effect, he was also able to control the fight against TNT Tucker...and even though he didnt knock Tucker out like many of his opponents, he still really dominated the fight. He pressed the action against both Ribalta and Tucker. Now, he did not use as effective headmovement against these two fighters than he did against, say Mitch Green or countless other fighters. However, Tyson did employ pretty good defense in that he was rarely hit with a meaningful shot.

Ribalta was a tough SOB that night. He brought his A game, as did many when they fought Tyson. Usually, it didnt matter. Ribalta was not afraid of Tyson and fought a very smart fight, as you alluded to.

I am not a Tyson fan who will say he was "far past his prime when he fought Douglas". I consider him prime until prison basically. However, make no mistake, he was a much less disciplined and did not employ the skills he once had in his arsenal against Douglas, or for that matter against Frank Bruno back in 1989. Basically, the Tyson of this time was lazy and believed the nonsense about him being "unbeatable" and "invincible". No fighter was or ever will be unbeatable. A fighter must be prepared to win every time they set foot into the ring. Tyson lost this focus, this truth about boxing. He had yes-men around him; no Kevin Rooney in his corner telling him he will never fight the perfect fight, and that he could always get better. This loss in discipline contributed greatly to Tyson's quick loss of greatness.

Now, after he lost to Douglas, I think he was humbled somewhat. Right away he hired Ritchie Giachetti, Holmes old trainer, and came back with fire to dispatch of two victims in the first round. One of these men was Alex Stewart who had recently fought several hard rounds with Holyfield, even taking it to him at points. After this Tyson fought the #2 challenger (he himself was #1) in Ruddock and fought two memorable bouts, and really basically ruined Ruddock (Lewis would finish the job a little while later with a 2 round TKO).

Prison ended the greatness Mike Tyson had. After prison it was all smart matchmaking and marketing on King's part. Tyson's skills were vastly eroded by then and he would never again recapture the form he once had.

[catskills23]

Prime tyson beats anyone in history . He was too elusive, too fast and hit too hard . Prime tyson is one of the quickest heavyweights in history . I am not just talking about his handspeed he was very quick on his feet too . Any fighters that tried to run on him got beat down eg tyrell biggs . Ali could try and run from tyson but tyson would just systematically beat him down . Foreman could try and trade with tyson and end up mostly hitting thin air and end up on the deck . There are 2 ways you can fight tyson run and hold and loose a boring decision or stand and trade and end up on the deck . Even george foreman and muhammed ali said during tysons prime that they didnt think they could of beaten tyson and thats what dam near every boxing analyst thought , why has nearly everyone changed their minds since then ? .

[Yogi]

Yogi, I can honestly say you are an intelligent poster who gives much thought into what he writes. It shows in your posts.

I would agree with you in saying that Tyson did not look particularly effective against Ribalta. However, I find this fight to be entertaining. Tyson had a poor performance, but he was still able to control the fight, something he couldnt do against Douglas. In effect, he was also able to control the fight against TNT Tucker...and even though he didnt knock Tucker out like many of his opponents, he still really dominated the fight. He pressed the action against both Ribalta and Tucker. Now, he did not use as effective headmovement against these two fighters than he did against, say Mitch Green or countless other fighters. However, Tyson did employ pretty good defense in that he was rarely hit with a meaningful shot.

Ribalta was a tough SOB that night. He brought his A game, as did many when they fought Tyson. Usually, it didnt matter. Ribalta was not afraid of Tyson and fought a very smart fight, as you alluded to.

I am not a Tyson fan who will say he was "far past his prime when he fought Douglas". I consider him prime until prison basically. However, make no mistake, he was a much less disciplined and did not employ the skills he once had in his arsenal against Douglas, or for that matter against Frank Bruno back in 1989. Basically, the Tyson of this time was lazy and believed the nonsense about him being "unbeatable" and "invincible". No fighter was or ever will be unbeatable. A fighter must be prepared to win every time they set foot into the ring. Tyson lost this focus, this truth about boxing. He had yes-men around him; no Kevin Rooney in his corner telling him he will never fight the perfect fight, and that he could always get better. This loss in discipline contributed greatly to Tyson's quick loss of greatness.

Now, after he lost to Douglas, I think he was humbled somewhat. Right away he hired Ritchie Giachetti, Holmes old trainer, and came back with fire to dispatch of two victims in the first round. One of these men was Alex Stewart who had recently fought several hard rounds with Holyfield, even taking it to him at points. After this Tyson fought the #2 challenger (he himself was #1) in Ruddock and fought two memorable bouts, and really basically ruined Ruddock (Lewis would finish the job a little while later with a 2 round TKO).

Prison ended the greatness Mike Tyson had. After prison it was all smart matchmaking and marketing on King's part. Tyson's skills were vastly eroded by then and he would never again recapture the form he once had.

That's a very fair post, Warhawk, and I do believe I initially labeled you as yet just another one of the numerous Tyson fanatics (albiet a very well written one, which in and of itself, should've clued me in)...Sorry 'bout that.

"I consider him prime until prison basically."

That's my views on that, as well. Nobody in their right mind or in the know is going to argue that Tyson was 100% prepared (both physically and mentally) for his fight with Douglas, but if one was to use that as the main reasoning as to why Tyson lost to Douglas...I ain't buying it. Personally, I don't think it would've mattered what Tyson showed up on that night, because I don't see any reason why one should think he would've won the fight, no matter what. He wasn't just edged out by Buster in that fight...he was thoroughly dominated by a fighter who used the exact style that other Tyson opponents hinted would work successfully against him (the use of jabs, angles, movement, smart clinching, and being tough/determined enough to take a few and hang in there). But if one was to say something like, "Tyson would've beat Douglas if he *fill in excuse*", then it's only fair to say the same thing about someone like Tony Tucker against Tyson (considering the competitiveness and pre-fight dealings surrounding both fights), don't you think?...Fair is fair, and it's a side I normally take when one wants to excuse Tyson's performance in that Douglas fight.

But getting back to Tyson's "prime"...Yeah, I share the same view as you do, and it's mainly because after losing to Douglas, Mike got right back on track and was as dominating as he had been earlier. He came back and utterly destroyed a fairly decent heavyweight in Alex Stewart, and then had those two victories against what I thought was one of Tyson's very best opponents during his pre-prison days. Considering the opponent he was up against, I actually consider Tyson's performance in the Ruddock rematch to be one of the best of his career. Unlike more than a few of Tyson's intimidated earlier opponents, there was no doubt Ruddock wanted the fight and certainly proved that he came to fight on both occasions (the two were scheduled to duke it out in a 1989 championship fight, but it never came off at that time...Ruddock WANTED the Tyson fight ever since then).

Anyways, in that rematch with Ruddock, Tyson looked excellant during the early going, and really put his punches together well. Tyson did fade a little during the last half of the fight (he did that in his younger days, as well), which gave Ruddock a chance to land that punishing left hook/uppercut of his on occasion (along with some good right uppercuts, as well), but Tyson stood in there and still had control of the fight (busted Razor's jaw in the process). For a total performace against a very willing opponent, I was much more impressed with that Tyson than I was with say the one who fought the likes of Tillis, Zouski, Ribalta, Smith, and Tucker. The way I see it, if a fighter was so far past his prime like some would say, he wouldn't have been able to come up with that type of all-around performance and I certainly wouldn't have been so impressed with it.

[Warhawk46]

A fair and well-thought post. However, I do feel Tyson's skills were not as sharp as they had been previously. Douglas dominated Tyson in Tokyo that night. However, I think Tyson would have beaten Douglas in a rematch. Mike fought terribly that night and it was a poor performance from the get-go. He looked disinterested and lethargic.

However, I am in no way trying to downplay Buster's achievment. He was brilliant. I only wish he could have fought with similar fire and discipline against Holyfield instead of just cahing his check. We might have seen a competetive bout.

I agree Tyson's "Prime" was before prison. After he got out he was so far removed than what he had been. And to those who try to downplay his greatness, a record of 40-1 is not bad. This was Tyson's "first career".

If only his personal life had turned out differently he might have been able to challenge Marciano's record. Of course, fate would not allow it. Tyson seemed doomed to collapse under the intense weight of what he created in such a short timespan.

[oakleyno1]

surely you can see the tyson who fought michal spinks who had beaten larry holmes TWICE although the wins are debatable and when he fought berbick the man hu took holmes 15 rounds although i do not rate berbick myself, if he had fought like that agaist lennox lewis id say a round 2 or 3 KO. lewis jab is very very good however so was holm es even past his prime and so was michal spinks and numberous other opponents. Also do not forgot lewis's chin isnt all that either (btw i rate lewis in my top 12 of all time). agaist someone such as joe frazier who needs a few rounds to get into things i think Tyson would of Koed him in round 2 or 3 aswell basically like the foreman fight, dont forgot ali nearly stopped joe in round 2 of their second fight. (joe is in my top 10) there are many other examples i could use the only fighters that could of beaten him are ali/clay foreman or prehaps liston..Im not another mindless tyson fan however if you watch his peak fights you can surely see a peak tyson was top 5 at the very least of all time