The true definition of the phrase "when he was in his prime"

[Johnnybur]

When people start talking about a certain fighter being in his prime, what they are really talking about is how good the fighter was up until their first loss. People always talk about a Prime tyson being the baddest man ever to lace up the gloves. Well when he got that ass knocked out in 1990 by Buster Douglas, he was in his prime. That was as prime as he was ever going to get. That is why tyson was overrated. He was like 25 or 26 when that happened. It doesnt get any more prime than that. So to all you Tyson "nuthuggers" (that appears to be the term that everyone on here likes to use), take tyson for what he was. An average HW that had above average power. A 20 year old Tyson couldnt even knock out James "Quick" Tillis. Tillis was knocked out by Tommy Morrison in the first round. No way he should be a Hall of Famer. His greatest win was probably beating a old ass Larry Holmes or a blown up cruiserweight named Michael Spinks. Holyfield beat that ass, Lewis beat that ass, but oh yeah he beat the Trevor Berbicks, and the Pinklon thomas's, and the Peter Mcneelys of the world. Maybe if there were a separate Hall of Fame for boxings biggest punchers then maybe he could make that, along with the David tua's, and the tommy morrison's, and the Hasim Rahmans of the world.

[TheGreatA]

A bit hypocritical coming from a Klitschko fan.

[Benny Leonard]

So even though it is a bit of a bait thread....


This will end the thread:

Can any version of Tyson post-Rooney beat the version that Rooney trained from Berbick to Spinks?

[Johnnybur]

A bit hypocritical coming from a Klitschko fan.

how is that hypocritical at all? and where does the fact that im a wlad fan come into play at all in my post. you lost me dude. at least reply with something of substance.

[TheGreatA]

how is that hypocritical at all? and where does the fact that im a wlad fan come into play at all in my post. you lost me dude. at least reply with something of substance.

I thought you would get it on your own.

When Wladimir was Tyson's age (when Tyson was the world champion), he was being knocked around the ring by journeymen like Ross Puritty.

He was also twice knocked out in his late 20's with 40+ pro fight experience.

His best win is over a bloated cruiserweight Chris Byrd who used to fight at 140 lbs as an amateur when he was 20 years old. Ray Mercer was an old man when he fought Wladimir, and old man Holmes beat Mercer in his prime.

There are late bloomers and early bloomers. Wladimir is the former, while Tyson was definitely the latter. Anyone who has seen him fight at his peak, and out of it, should instantly be able to recognize the difference.

Now keep in mind that I'm not one of those who make Tyson out to be this invincible beast. I've argued against these people. He had his strengths and his weaknesses but you are severely underrating his abilities and his resume.

[Johnnybur]

So even though it is a bit of a bait thread....


This will end the thread:

Can any version of Tyson post-Rooney beat the version that Rooney trained from Berbick to Spinks?

Actually you didnt end the thread, you just made it longer. The only difference between the two tyson versions your talking about is maybe he had a little more head movement with Rooney. But if you watch the Buster Douglas fight, he was slipping punches and moving his head beautifully in the first couple of rounds. My point is in order to be a great hall of famer like some people try to make Tyson out to be, there are other attributes that make a fighter great. Besides freakish power in both hands and pretty good speed for a HW, Tyson had none of those. Therefore, he was never going to be great. Do you think Michael Jordan would have been the greatest B-Ball player of all time if he lacked self-discipline. Hell no. Its a big part of what makes a hall of famer different than a good fighter. And Tyson had no other attributes that Ali, or Frazier or Marciano had.

[Fox McCloud]

Apparently the prime of both Rafael and Juan Manuel Marquez was only experienced before their first professional fights, which they both lost.

Your logic is flawed.

[Jim Jeffries]

Apparently the prime of both Rafael and Juan Manuel Marquez was only experienced before their first professional fights, which they both lost.

Your logic is flawed.

Add Hopkins to that list, and Barrera's biggest wins came after his first loss, if I'm not mistaken.

[Benny Leonard]

A 20 year old Tyson couldnt even knock out James "Quick" Tillis. Tillis was knocked out by Tommy Morrison in the first round

Let's start with this.

Notes: Tyson's longest fight up until that point was 6 rounds. Given he had a short amateur career and was being rushed as a Pro and was only 19/20 at the time, it was explained that Tyson's confidence in his stamina to go the distance wasn't high. So at a certain point, Tyson went on cruise control. As each round went on, he gained experience and grew confidence that he could extend the fight. By the last round and the time the fight was over, Tyson said it wasn't as that bad at all. This is when he knew he was ready to move to the next stage.

In the very next fight against Mitch Green he also went the distance but his attitude and maturity were way above his previous fight. You could see it in the way he fought and the way he talked after the fight.
We call this the "maturation process" of a fighter/person. Tyson just matured incredibly fast for a fighter. You can see this from his first pro fight to his fight with Berbick...and then from Berbick to Spinks. It's pretty incredible how fast he matured as a fighter technically and mentally as far as confidence goes. But take away the training which was key to his success (with motivation that adds into all of this) and he goes down.

Tua knocked out Ruiz in the first yet how many others have come close to it?

Big Punchers always have that chance to take someone else out.

And what do we do with the list of opponents other "ATG" fighters haven't been able to knock out yet others have?

When people talk about a young Tyson they don't just talked about his power but his overall ability as a boxer/fighter.



To look at just his POWER is an ignorant viewing of a young Tyson and many have fallen into this trap because of that ignorance. Even at his peak, if he didn't knock someone out it was seen as a failure yet we don't play this game with many others because their lack of power or ability to go in for the kill.

[Johnnybur]

I thought you would get it on your own.

When Wladimir was Tyson's age (when Tyson was the world champion), he was being knocked around the ring by journeymen like Ross Puritty.

He was also twice knocked out in his late 20's with 40+ pro fight experience.

His best win is over a bloated cruiserweight Chris Byrd who used to fight at 140 lbs as an amateur when he was 20 years old. Ray Mercer was an old man when he fought Wladimir, and old man Holmes beat Mercer in his prime.

There are late bloomers and early bloomers. Wladimir is the former, while Tyson was definitely the latter. Anyone who has seen him fight at his peak, and out of it, should instantly be able to recognize the difference.

Now keep in mind that I'm not one of those who make Tyson out to be this invincible beast. I've argued against these people. He had his strengths and his weaknesses but you are severely underrating his abilities and his resume.

How am I underrating his resume? He has no resume to talk of. Who are these fighters on his resume that you speak of? I just named two of them, Spinks and Holmes. thats it. but as I read more of your posts it seems like you do know what your talking about for the most part and I guess the comparison between wlad and tysons career had some good points, but in no way has wlad been made out to be some unbeatable beast or the baddest man on the planet like Tyson was labeled. And your right about underrating tysons abilities. He had a great ability to intimidate his opponent before the fight, but seeing how thats not really a boxing skill, I cant give him too much credit for that.