Weaknesses in prime Tyson.

[Elroy The Great]

on a difficulty scale, how difficult was tysons resume ?
1-10, 1 being the easiest.

who was his best win ?

again, everyone looks like a beast when theyre steamrolling over bums.

[Elroy The Great]

Buster fight was rigged, Holyfield took PEDs to beat him and even then he still couldn't completely KO Tyson despite being roided to the gills.

Mike losing to Lewis had nothing to do with psychology, Lewis was simply too big. The Tyson-Lewis fight was the turning point of the Heavyweight division. It marked the arrival of the Super Heavyweights, guys who are over 6'5' and weight 250+ pounds. The Super Heavies have a massive, unfair advantage over the normal sized Heavies who weigh around 215-220 pounds. Not even the supposed Golden Age Heavies, like Ali, Foreman, Frazier etc... would be able to compete with the Super Heavyweights, they'd all get massacred.

any proof for the bold ?

mike has fought and beaten guys as big as lewis (golota, savarese, the truth, biggs). to say ''lewis was too big'' is a joke. lewis was too good !

if you were a scared bum or over the hill, mike would beat that ass.

[IronDanHamza]

Tyson had a list of flaws.

A lot have people have mentioned his inside game or lack of it, I think he could fight on the inside just not conistently, too often he would just hold and look to reset as oppose to working. And it also left him vunerable.

I think his head movement, whilst sharp early, always got slower and more stationary as the fight went on.

Another glaring weakness was his feet, he often crossed them when being overly eager and left himself terribly out of position.

He made up for the flaws with his speed, power, explosivness, chin, but these strengths can only last you so long and it showed in the end.

[Anthony342]

any proof for the bold ?

mike has fought and beaten guys as big as lewis (golota, savarese, the truth, biggs). to say ''lewis was too big'' is a joke. lewis was too good !

if you were a scared bum or over the hill, mike would beat that ass.

Yeah, too big, plus they fought in 2002 when Tyson was so shot, he was almost a corpse. He only lasted another 3 years.

[Anthony342]

Tyson's main weakness was between the ears. He usually couldn't handle guys often who could take his punches for a few rounds, that could also come back with hard shots of their own, but mainly it was discipline. If he had kept working as hard as he did early on for his entire career and stuck with Rooney and Cayton, it would've been interesting to see. Still don't see him beating Lewis, at least not the first time, but could see him catching him with a good shot and winning a rematch, leading to a trilogy. Holyfield probably still wins, but nowhere near as easily, at least not in the first 6 rounds, but see Evander weathering the early onslaught and winning a decision, probably 7 rounds to 5, 115-113.

[billeau2]

Are people confusing the inside game with clinching specifically? Personally I don't see any heavyweights these days who can fight inside worth a damn. Juggy makes a great point about the reach and Tyson's perceived reach problem...shorter men use their height as an advantage, marciano did it Tyson did it...They make their opponent punch at a moving target, they move fast in and out of range, and when they get in range they try to stay there because the other guy by logical inference is out of range.

I think I know where some of this banter about Tyson's clinch position and pushing comes from: in point of fact Holyfield managed to triangulate Mike and push him off balance consistantly....he did this by using a Ju jutsu trick, when Mike set, Holy, instead of stepping back and away, pushed in at the point between Tyson's two legs and back about a foot. But Holy was singular in accomplishing this! And it was primarily the first fight!

Mugwump imo makes a great point. Tyson had problems psychologiclly. I can also agree with Jugs that these could relate to motivation which is a psychological problem after all. Here is my two cents:

Dempsey who Tyson studied, and Tyson fought in a style that does not do well over time. It is explosive and takes a lot of movement. Its great when moving up the ladder because you dispatch opposition quickly but, as time goes on, as Iron Dan pointed out about the head...the head maybe stops moving in the later rounds, you don't make the adjustment with the feet you need to, or stay in range and chase a puncher in an attempt to close, instead of come in at an angle...There is so much that has to be done. The heavyweights that fought into the later years did not generally fight in this style because its a young man's style of fighting. Tyson just became a puncher with short arms and legs in their twilight and he really was never a fighter that could make a lot of adjustments in the ring besides harder! Faster! lol.

[Elroy The Great]

Yeah, too big, plus they fought in 2002 when Tyson was so shot, he was almost a corpse. He only lasted another 3 years.

strange how a guy will be in shot stage when they step up their comp.

[Elroy The Great]

on a difficulty scale, how difficult was tysons resume ?
1-10, 1 being the easiest.

who was his best win ?

again, everyone looks like a beast when theyre steamrolling over bums.

anyone

[Hawkins]

anyone

I would say it would be Spinks followed by Holmes then Ruddock.

After his release from prison he lost most of his big time fights. Regardless, I would probably classify his pre-prison opposition in the 4-5 range and his post-prison opposition in the 6-7 range based on Holyfield and Lewis alone.

[Elroy The Great]

I would say it would be Spinks followed by Holmes then Ruddock.

After his release from prison he lost most of his big time fights. Regardless, I would probably classify his pre-prison opposition in the 4-5 range and his post-prison opposition in the 6-7 range based on Holyfield and Lewis alone.

id put razor above those other 2. holmes and spinks were both cashing out (even though holmes went to to fight more fights).

watching a young tyson beat up a 40 y/o guy (after a 2 year layoff) was not impressive, imho.

pre prison resume, id give it a 4-4.5/10 as well.

he didnt see a semi live body until he fought pinklon (dope and booze fiend during this period).

i shouldnt be rough on tucker (questionable resume himself). he just didnt have the fortitude to deal with tyson. still, a good win.

the truth was a good win and was razor.

besides holmes and spinks, no one he beat had a legacy. they were just ''the next guy up''.

post release resume = 2/10; 15 opponents, only 2 worth mentioning.

he beat up those he was supposed to beat and was pretty much hapless vs legitimate opponents.

imho, if a fight fan wants to look at a carefully crafted career, tysons should come to mind. i forget the source (prob espn), his own managers knew tysons reign would be brief. that his opponents were picked specifically.

would have stayed that way if he didnt fall prey to don king.

to add, i think mike was railroaded with that washington cvnt. he wanted sex, she wanted money/attention.