Question about Mike Tyson...

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • realheavyhands
    Undisputed Champion
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Jul 2004
    • 4519
    • 107
    • 0
    • 11,370

    #21
    tyson ruined alot of good fighters that were champions becuase he dominated them. they knew there was no way of beating him. tucker, thomas, berbick and tyrell biggs were never the same after they fought tyson. i think biggs thomas and tucker had the potential to be great fighters. and holmes was only 38 when he fought tyson and he came back in his forties and almost beat everybody he destroyed mercer and almost beat holyfield when he was injured ,foreman wouldnt even fight holmes.homes also said the only fighthe would take is a rematch with tyson. in that rudduck fight tyson skills were gone . as soon as damato died tyson skills started diminishing . he threw nothing but haymakers but becuase of his atheticism he got away with it. and still was nearly unbeatable. until he met holyfield who was probably on steriods so his athetacism alone wasnt enough .

    Comment

    • LondonRingRules
      Undisputed Champion
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • Nov 2005
      • 1581
      • 133
      • 0
      • 8,332

      #22
      Originally posted by Dirt E Gomez
      Losing to Douglas in 90 is his biggest problem. And not only did he lose, he lost in amazing fasion. MIke won 1 or 2 rounds at best before be knocked the **** out.

      He begins his comeback, then goes to jail. When mike leaves jail and faces Holyfield he's only like 30. If you're out of your prime at 30 then there's no way you can be a great of all time... that simple. Longevity of your career means something.
      ** You never had a prime, that's your trouble.

      Plenty of HOF heavies were done by age 30. Jeffries was retired. Frazier only won 2 fights after turning 30. Max Baer was 4 yrs removed from his last title shot and ready for retirement.

      Tyson already had a HOF career before Douglas. No heavy ever dominated so fast and so completely, and really only one other fighter dominated like Tyson and that was Wilfredo Gomez.

      Spinks and Holmes were HOFers. Nobody else even beat or knocked down Spinks and nobody ever KOed Holmes and the absolute ease he blasted these two out have become highlight classics. Nobody ever beat more former, current, or future champs than he did.

      Tsyon has a mediocre record over the past 15 years, yet guys still got title shots just because of a win over a shot Tyson. That's major respect. IBRO ranks him 13th all time, just behind Lewis. You chaps really should study up.

      Comment

      • Mr. Ryan
        Guest
        Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
        • Mar 2004
        • 23437
        • 1,301
        • 1,090
        • 29,664

        #23
        Originally posted by Vanilla Gorilla
        I'm neutral on this situation but I just want to clarify something or get another opinion. Many of you dont consider Mike Tyson an "all time great" am i correct? was that his fault? I know he never ducked anyone so he knocked out the best his weight class had to offer and when there wasnt anyone else, Spinks moved up to fight him. He beat all the top contenders during that time(85-92). The fact that none of them could be considered great isnt Mike's fault.

        You have to recognize that at only 20, he became the youngest heavyweight champ of all time and you cant do that unless you beat some top contenders. So, he beat up the best fighters that were available for him. Lennox and Bowe werent around yet and Evander was still a rising star in the Cruiserweight division. My point is he didnt exactly have great fighters to fight when he was at his peak. Had he not gone to prison for **** maybe this question would not be asked.
        I consider Mike Tyson to be a great fighter, but not great on the level of Muhammad Ali. He had an excellent career and it wasn't so much who he beat, it was how he beat them. He knocked out some serious opponents, like Thomas, Berbick, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks. These guys were no pushovers. He dominated the division for about 4 years, which is a pretty decent reign. That era was not as bad as many claim, it just happened to follow the greatest heavyweight era of all time.

        You don't really need great fighters if you can put up great performances. Demolishing Spinks and Holmes, two guys who had never been stopped previously, those were great performances. Tyson was supposed to take on Holyfield in 1990, but then he ran into Douglas. The funny part is, Douglas was a late replacement for Razor Ruddock. Just goes to show you that you can't take any opponent for granted.

        Tyson did however duck a few people after he got out of jail. Most famously, he dumped the WBC title he won from Bruno and paid Lewis 3 mil so they wouldn't have to fight in 1996.

        Comment

        • Vanilla Gorilla
          The Devils Advocate
          Gold Champion - 500-1,000 posts
          • Jul 2006
          • 761
          • 74
          • 30
          • 7,596

          #24
          Originally posted by versatile2k6
          the hype was over after the douglas fight

          nope. The hype was never really over until the second Holyfield loss.

          Comment

          • BKM-
            05-
            Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
            • Jan 2006
            • 8589
            • 920
            • 1,092
            • 49,234

            #25
            Originally posted by Vanilla Gorilla
            nope. The hype was never really over until the second Holyfield loss.
            The hype was over after Lewis imo. Most people picked Tyson to win at that age against a prime Lewis

            Comment

            Working...
            TOP