The young/prime Mike Tyson

[juggernaut666]

But lost every round to Tommy Morrison..

Morrison was tough guy to beat for anyone when in shape.morrison beating him only proved foreman was way over his head....again you speak and think without analyzing,it was actually the strongest guy ever foreman was up against in his entire career.Only a fool will persue me on this as ive already hit you with REAl quotes regardless but well nothing more to be said look whom im replying to..... .....

[Mugwump]

I've no idea when this "prime" period of Tyson occurred. Indeed, the entire notion of "prime" is a fundamentally arbitrary and artificial contrivance which bears little scrutiny.

Basically what you mean is - Tyson was "prime" when he was beating everyone. The moment he started to get beat he "stopped being prime". The notion that Tyson could be "prime" and beaten is an idea too terrifying to behold. Which is the very reason empty rhetorical devices such as "prime" were invented by empty headed people.

[Mugwump]

I've hard time taking anyone seriously who brings Holyfield and Lewis in the discussion of prime Tyson.

Why, because a "prime" Tyson would never - could never - lose to either? Whose to say either Lewis or Holyfield were "prime"?

If a fighter currently in his "prime" feels under-the-weather on fight night and this affects his performance - is his "prime" suspended until the next fight?

If a fighter deemed not to be in his "prime" somehow pulls off an amazing victory - is he back to being "prime" again? It seems a bit daft him not being "prime" despite pulling off arguably his greatest victory.

Do you realise how ****** this sounds?

Given that fighters have won world-titles against top quality opposition despite being older than Tyson was when he fought either Lewis or Holyfield means he has no excuses.

The moment you step into that ring you are "prime" whether you like it or not. Fight results aren't suffixed with the letters "P" or "NP".

It's a made-up convention meant to ring-fence fighters from their results. No one with a shred of intellectual honesty takes it seriously.

[Mugwump]

I should add - this nonsensical concept of "prime" near uniformly over-emphasises the importance and value of athletic ability whilst diminishing the gradual accrual of experience during the same time to a practical footnote.

Sure, Tyson's speed and agility going into the Lewis & Holyfield fights weren't what they were when he was knocking over tin cans in his youth.

But good fighters offset any degradation in their athleticism with knowledge and experience. Ask any of the great boxing trainers which attribute gives the most ****-for-the-buck - wisdom or power? Yet the development of boxing-smarts in opposition to the loss of physical vigour is never discussed whenever we bounce back to the tiresome subject of Mike's Mythical Prime.

Bernard Hopkins is the most obvious example of a fighter who as he got older - boxed smarter.

According to traditional notions of "prime" - Hopkins was a better fighter when he was younger and quicker. But anyone who has witnessed Hopkins' evolution with age sees through this nonsense from the start.

The fact that Tyson singularly failed to improve his ringcraft and boxing smarts as he got older is no-one's fault but Tyson's. Had he put in the same level of effort that PROFESSIONALS such as Hopkins have - he had every reason to approach the Holyfield and Lewis fights with confidence.

As stated - there is no such thing as prime. There is only the "here and now" and what you do within its confines is entirely in your hands. If a fighter doesn't believe he has the wherewithal to beat his opponent he has no business entering the ring with him. And he certainly has no excuses.

[sonnyboyx2]

Morrison was tough guy to beat for anyone when in shape.morrison beating him only proved foreman was way over his head....again you speak and think without analyzing,it was actually the strongest guy ever foreman was up against in his entire career.Only a fool will persue me on this as ive already hit you with REAl quotes regardless but well nothing more to be said look whom im replying to..... .....

You claim, "Morrison was the strongest guy Foreman ever faced in his career"?? but what about Ron Lyle, Ken Norton, Gerry Cooney, Evander Holyfield ??

[jiopsi]

Why, because a "prime" Tyson would never - could never - lose to either? Whose to say either Lewis or Holyfield were "prime"?

If a fighter currently in his "prime" feels under-the-weather on fight night and this affects his performance - is his "prime" suspended until the next fight?

If a fighter deemed not to be in his "prime" somehow pulls off an amazing victory - is he back to being "prime" again? It seems a bit daft him not being "prime" despite pulling off arguably his greatest victory.

Do you realise how ****** this sounds?

Given that fighters have won world-titles against top quality opposition despite being older than Tyson was when he fought either Lewis or Holyfield means he has no excuses.

The moment you step into that ring you are "prime" whether you like it or not. Fight results aren't suffixed with the letters "P" or "NP".

It's a made-up convention meant to ring-fence fighters from their results. No one with a shred of intellectual honesty takes it seriously.

Because that Tyson wasn't on his prime. Anyone logical and fair would see that, why is that so hard to admit? He lost his speed, his greatest strength became his greatest weakness.

You're just inventing irrelevant scenario's, Tyson's prime is easily defined. It's when he dominated heavyweight-division, when he had it all, speed, power, technique, defense, Rooney, Jacobs, Cayton. Then became his personal problems, marriage that cost him 125M, Jacobs died, Cayton sued him, he fired Rooney, stopped training, **** charges, jail and so on. Tyson's career was halted by a such collective force, more than others in boxing history, that it's clouds his overall boxing ability, and hampers his greatness.

Now Tyson isn't the greatest because of his career, mostly because he lost to himself, but he's easily the best fighter boxing history has seen, in prime. If he weren't sidetracked by all of the insane controversy at his age, no doubt he would have been the unanimously the greatest fighter ever.

[Mugwump]

Because that Tyson wasn't on his prime. Anyone logical and fair would see that, why is that so hard to admit? He lost his speed, his greatest strength became his greatest weakness.

You're just inventing irrelevant scenario's, Tyson's prime is easily defined. It's when he dominated heavyweight-division, when he had it all, speed, power, technique, defense, Rooney, Jacobs, Cayton. Then became his personal problems, marriage that cost him 125M, Jacobs died, Cayton sued him, he fired Rooney, stopped training, **** charges, jail and so on. Tyson's career was halted by a such collective force, more than others in boxing history, that it's clouds his overall boxing ability, and hampers his greatness.

Now Tyson isn't the greatest because of his career, mostly because he lost to himself, but he's easily the best fighter boxing history has seen, in prime. If he weren't sidetracked by all of the insane controversy at his age, no doubt he would have been the unanimously the greatest fighter ever.

Were the tin-cans that Tyson fought when he was "prime" (and the world's greatest fighter - evah!) also in their "prime"?

I mean, I just want to get this straight because bowling over guys who aren't "prime" doesn't strike me as a particularly convincing argument for being "prime".

[jiopsi]

Were the tin-cans that Tyson fought when he was "prime" (and the world's greatest fighter - evah!) also in their "prime"?

I mean, I just want to get this straight because bowling over guys who aren't "prime" doesn't strike me as a particularly convincing argument for being "prime".

Doesn't matter, he fought the champions and contenders of the era, and unified the division with the style no other has done before, or after.

What your argument fits more, is for the public evaluation of greatness, throwing two names together and making conclusions of boxing ability based on result of one match in 20 years of career, usually different points of their career.

[Mugwump]

Doesn't matter, he fought the champions and contenders of the era, and unified the division with the style no other has done before, or after.

Hang on - you can't make a big deal about Tyson's "prime" without extending the same courtesy to his opponents.

On the one hand you're excluding the majority of Tyson's career (in which he was soundly defeated by two universally acclaimed heavies whilst at an age that has never precluded success) because he wasn't "prime" - yet you are perfectly prepared to include Tyson's results against fighters who - by your own reasoning - were demonstrably not prime.

What your argument fits more, is for the public evaluation of greatness, throwing two names together and making conclusions of boxing ability based on result of one match in 20 years of career.

No - I'm considering Tyson's career as a whole rather than cherry-picking the good times (which maybe weren't so good after all) and deeming them representative.

By pushing this line of reasoning you're simply going further and further toward unravelling it. If we accept this "prime" nonsense then I'd argue those fighters who are competing with Tyson for the label "Greatest Ever" are better still. If Tyson fans can pick a narrow band of his career as being representative then why can't Ali or Holyfield or Lewis etc. etc.?

The whole notion is an exercise in rhetorical sophistry and circuitous reasoning. When Mike Tyson was great - he was great. When Mike Tyson wasn't great - he wasn't Mike Tyson. Meh!

[juggernaut666]

You claim, "Morrison was the strongest guy Foreman ever faced in his career"?? but what about Ron Lyle, Ken Norton, Gerry Cooney, Evander Holyfield ??

Morrison was arguably a top 3 hardest hitter of all time everyone that fought him said so including Foreman.You're so stuck on Holyfield you had to include him as well