The Myth Of Mike Tyson

[butterfly1964]

Hes a dumbass for saying Holyfield was the only great Heavy in the 90's, a 40+ year old George Foreman was a better heavy than Evander in the 90's.

then why do you have him in your avatar?

[RockyMarcianofan00]

then why do you have him in your avatar?

PWND!!!!

No but i think that evander is an earlier 80's Crusier Evander because he looks smaller, which is why he specified better HEAVY then 90'S Evander

but if not PWND!!!!

[butterfly1964]

PWND!!!!

No but i think that evander is an earlier 80's Crusier Evander because he looks smaller, which is why he specified better HEAVY then 90'S Evander

but if not PWND!!!!

the point is he's bad mouthing holyfield and he has him in his av. whether the pic was holy in the 80s or holy in the 30s it's still holy. if i said 70s ali wasn't that good, and i had a pic of him in the 60s, or even the pic i have of him now in the 90, it would be wierd, wouldn't it? but still you do have a point.

[Heckler]

When was Ali's prime? according to ali fans: 60-65(?) he was inexperienced and green, so he was only prime for 2 fight before his layoff? Even though his biggest wins came later..

Now i'd like to have your opninion on this please.

Sure... 66-67. Before his layoff he was the champion with 29 fights under his belt and at the age of 25 had physically matured.

There's a large difference between Ali's situation and Tyson's... It's 3 and a half years. Ali is acknowledged as 'past his best' after 3 1/2 years of inactivity whereas Tyson is said to be past his prime 8 months after he reached it even though he continued fighting. This is why the situation is difficult to understand and thus i wanted some clarity from the all knowing Tyson fans on this board.

[Yogi]

That's obviously a card of Holyfield when he was a part of the 1984 U.S. Olympic Team.

[Heckler]

Ah, watching Marciano & Ali in that "fight" they did is still one of the most embarrassing things I ever seen in this sport, if not THE most. Just...well, not a pretty sight.

I agree, the casio calculator sitting on my desk is probably more advanced then the computer they used 36 years ago. Old man marciano who had to wear a hairpiece vs untrained Muhammad Ali in that amazing extravaganza.

[LondonRingRules]

Sure... 66-67. Before his layoff he was the champion with 29 fights under his belt and at the age of 25 had physically matured.

There's a large difference between Ali's situation and Tyson's... It's 3 and a half years. Ali is acknowledged as 'past his best' after 3 1/2 years of inactivity whereas Tyson is said to be past his prime 8 months after he reached it even though he continued fighting. This is why the situation is difficult to understand and thus i wanted some clarity from the all knowing Tyson fans on this board.

** It's quite simple Einstein. There is more than a physical prime, there is a mental prime, which is why Joe Walcott and Archie Moore are so well known because their mental prime occurred after they passed their physical prime.

When Tyson stopped training and no longer had a professional corner or honest management behind him, he was not the same fighter. You can win on natural talent for a while, but if you ain't training you will be exposed.

How well would Ali have done half trained with King managing him and having Tyson's 3 stooges in his corner when he was blinded against Liston?

No need to answer. We already know.

[BKM-]

Nope, I wouldn't say he was "fully trained" because there were strong rumours that he was slacking off in training during the lead up to the fight, and judging by the fact that he wasn't as "cut" as he was for say the Berbick fight (the Tyson that fought Spinks physically looked not one bit different than the one who fought Douglas), I'd venture to say that there's some truth to that...Also consider all the out of the ring **** that was happening with Tyson at that time like, his marriage troubles, managerial problems, Jacob's death, his fragile mindset (assaulting parking lot attendants a year earlier, driving his wife's car into a tree shortly after the fight, ditto for the incident when throwing his furniture out of the windows of his home, etc., etc...Tyson was an admitted "manic depressive" previous to the fight), his drinking problems (which is something he says he gave up in an interview a couple of months before the Douglas fight), etc., etc...A whole bunch of stuff that would've made some very convient excuses for you Tyson fans had he lost.

Also watching the Spinks fight...where's this great head movement, jab, or combination punching that was supposed to be a great trademark of a "prime" Tyson (with Rooney). Don't see much of any of those things, and all I really saw was a fighter who only swarmed in throwing mostly singular power punches as he looked for a quick knockout...You know, the same things that are supposed to be a description of what Tyson fanboys say was an indicator that he was past his best.

i.e. I've heard the "on the night he beat Spinks he could've beaten anybody in history" statement so often over the years, and it's quite often made by those who are very quick to excuse his loss to Douglas as a depleted verison of Mike...

But what I want to know is...What the hell is the difference?!

The Tyson who beat Spinks was ripped, fast, DID use headmovement but the point is, the fight only lasted 91 seconds!! What kind of moron could be able to see all of Tyson's ability's if he's going for the early ko and he ends it in 1 and a half minute. Man you are so biased. And he was motivated that night, even after Lewis tried to **** him up mentally when he came in his lockerroom. He was ready and Rooney pumped him up like usual. See, he LISTENED to his corner when he was with Rooney, when he was with Don King, he didn't give a **** about all the things that he thought because he thought he was superman and couldn't get hurt.

And like i said one time in another thread, sometimes things that happen before a fight can have positive effects on a fighter. You'd think that Buster Douglass' mother dying would be the worst thing that could happen to him before a fight right YOGI? No. The things that happened before the Spinks fight made Tyson more angry and gave him more determination, and it ended up in a 91 seconds destruction of a great fighter.

I know you never watch the Spinks, Douglass or any other Tyson fight, unlike me(I watch them nearly every day) but keep talking, you make no sence and it ends up with me owning you.

Oh yeah, dont worry about the bad karma, i'll give you more as soon as i can you sack of ****.

[catskills23]

Tyson did throw a few combos against Spinks, but the vast majority of the time he was loading up on single powershots (not much of a jab, swarming in, etc.)...Also he didn't NEARLY move his head as much during the Spinks fight as he did for the first half of the Douglas fight, and that is plain as ****ing day. In fact, even against Bruce Seldon Tyson moved his head a bunch more in that short fight than he did against Spinks.

And during the broadcast of it, Leonard was also critical of Tyson (with Rooney) doing those similiar things when he faced Tony Tucker, so...look it up.

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense, but that's not suprising.

You are obviously a moron who knows nothin about boxing . Yes tyson did move he head a bit against douglas but he was standing directly in front of douglas while doing so wheres against spinks he moved his head and moved from side to side and gave angles . All boxing experts from ray leonard, george foreman to teddy atlas who hates tysons guts admit that the tyson who fought douglas was not the same guy who fought under rooney . Even after the bruno fight which was tysons first fight after rooney experts noticed that tysons boxing skills were in decline and ring magazine for the first time in tysons career started looking at the heavyweight division to see what fighters could beat a declining tyson .

[BKM-]

You're right, he knows nothing about boxing. If you disagree with the experts, then you can **** off.