Cus D'Amato - a realistic appraisal

Ayup lads, think it's high time I got my 'article cherry' popped on this version of 606, so thought I'd gather up some of your thoughts on the late Cus D'Amato who, like a certain 1980s Heavyweight he reared (whose name temporarily eludes me), has become a bit of a polarizing figure over the last few years, with opinions ranging from some hailing him as the greatest trainer of all time, to others suggesting that history has treated him too kindly, and that much of his legacy is a matter of style over substance.

Before we get too far in, I think we should make one distinction straight away; D'Amato clearly did have something special, and was a superb trainer. But is his place amongst the elite greats of training deserved? There can be little doubt that he's certainly one of the most famous trainers of them all. Ask a casual boxing fan (buys the odd pay per view, took an interest in Bruno in the nineties and so on) who Eddie Futch was, and chances are a lot of them will stare back blankly without offering an answer. Ask those same people who D'Amato is, and most will be able to tell you, due to his connection with Mike Tyson who, like it or not, has been by far the most famous and recognisable boxer of the last twenty-five years.

And there lies the crux of the argument. Some feel, rightly or wrongly, that D'Amato's legacy has merely been living on off the back of Tyson's name and, while I (and I'm sure many others) don't wish to speak ill of the dead, there is a case to be heard for this.

Judging purely by statistics, D'Amato does not match up all that well with some of his other contenders when it comes to deciphering who was boxing's greatest trainer. He may have worked with some other world champions at various stages of their career, but in terms of fighters who D'Amato actually 'built' himself from scratch in to world champions, there are three - Floyd Patterson, Jose Torres and Mike Tyson, all of whom, while being excellent fighters, would fall short of the true elite greats of their respective divisions, perhaps with the exception of Tyson in the eyes of some.

At a glance, then, it seems that D'Amato has a fair bit of catching up to do with the likes of Futch, Ray Arcel, Angelo Dundee, Lou Duva, Eddie Thomas, Charley Goldman and a few others, all of whom's name can be linked with more fighters who, ultimately, reached the highest level to become a world champion. However, as we all know, statistics don't always tell the whole story, and there are certain factors which have effected these numbers in D'Amato's case, namely the loathsome IBC (International Boxing Club) who were in operation in D'Amato's home state of New York from the late forties to the late fifties.

It's here were I believe D'Amato does deserve massive credit, and ironically his refusal to do business with the IBC (and in particular Jim Norris who headed them) may be the greatest and most significant contribution he made in the sport. Unlike men such as Doc Kearns before him, one accusation that you could never throw at D'Amato was being primarily motivated by money. As Gilbert Odd wrote, 'D'Amato cherished his independence above everything else', and at a time when shady figures with links to the underworld - Norris being a prime example - had a major say in the happenings in boxing, D'Amato's stance should be celebrated. Had he worked with the IBC, there's every chance that many of his stable would have been elevated to world title shots, but D'Amato's principles proved unshakable, although this did cost him a young Rocky Graziano, who had been originally unearthed by D'Amato but then defected elsewhere.

It is also to D'Amato's credit that he steered Floyd Patterson to the Heavyweight title without the help of the IBC. However, one critisism that has been levelled at D'Amato is that, while he was brilliant at making a fighter in to a champion, his efforts once they got there left a lot to be desired. The fact that Patterson faced possibly the poorest level of competition that any lineal Heavyweight champion ever has during his reign suggests that there is truth in this, and it is perhaps a little surprising that a man who had campaigned so valiantly against the corruption and unfairness of the monopolizing IBC was now allowing deserving contenders such as Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams and Eddie Machen to be frozen out of the title picture.

You could argue that D'Amato's supposed protection of Patterson was born of a genuine affection for him, which may excuse it in the eyes of others. But while it is nice (and probably rare) to see genuine relationships built between a fighter and a trainer, it is of little use if it begins to be a problematic factor on the professional side of things. Another critisism of D'Amato is that he was something of a one-dimensional trainer, who only had the capability to work with fighters who had the knack of being able to apply to 'peek a boo' style. Pat Ford, a former Featherweight title challenger, backed this up when he gave his reasons for leaving D'Amato's camp just four months after joining it in 1981, stating that D'Amato was too insistant on using the peek a boo style, and wouldn't listen when Ford argued that, as a tall Featherweight, he should try to utilise his jab and height instead.

Likewise, Wilfred Benitez began working with D'Amato in the early eighties in the hope of reviving his career, which was in danger of going in to free fall. However once again, it seems that D'Amato's stubborn streak got the better of him, and for similar reasons to Ford, Benitez was soon departing from D'Amato's camp, saying "I don't train because they keep on repeating things over and over. I already know all those things. I do my own thing. I don't need all his training." Although Benitez himself was a volotile character, I think many would have shared his reluctance to totally overhaul a style which had brought him so much success, rather than just tweak it in certain areas, which is what he probably went to D'Amato for.

Moreover, the fact that Floyd Patterson seemed a more complete all-round fighter (and certainly a less mentally-fragile one) after his split from D'Amato than before it, would seem to lend to the theory that D'Amato was perhaps a little too controlling over his fighters and too set in his ways to let them expand or develop their styles.

D'Amato was a great training talent, but it is understandable, in my eyes, that some question whether or not he deserves the huge amount of praise and worship he receives to this day. I think the idea that Tyson's name has enhanced his legacy more than his actual achievements as a trainer warrant holds a fair amount of truth, unfortunately. Others will no doubt disagree, but when I look at D'Amato I see an excellent trainer, but not one of the very greatest of all time. Are we too harsh / too quick to praise D'Amato these days? Do you agree that his legacy has been blown slightly out of proportion due to his involvement with Tyson, who is the epitome of a polarizing figure but also one who brings many casual fans to the sport?

Would be great to get your opinions, so fire away if you're interested lads. Cheers.

Good article Chris and think I tend to agree, made the point on another thread that whilst I don't think Patterson ever has the beating of Liston it is fair to question whether keeping a psycologically weak fighter like Floyd away from Liston for so long would have done much for his confidence, which I think was reflected in the fights.

Also think his work with Tyson can be questioned. Made him a terrific fighter no doubt but as you rightly say his physical dimensions suited Cus' style. However do wonder the wisdom of covering up Mike's indiscretions as Cus is widely accepted as doing whilst at the same time bringing him up to be one of the youngest world heavyweight champions ever. Personally, however well intentioned think this brought Mike up to believe actions did not have consequences which IMO only contributed to some of the less savoury incidents in his later life.

Agreed on his legacy being slightly overblown by the Tyson relationship.

The whole "Cus and The Kid" angle to the Tyson story was one that got much of the public interested. Coupled with the fact that Tyson was knocking out all his early opponents.

For me his lack of faith in putting Patterson in with fighters such as Cleveland Williams , Zora Foley and Sonny Liston can be viewed 2 ways.
His genuine caring for his charge or wanting to hold onto the cash cow.

A good trainer whose reputation was elevated by the whole Tyson story in my humble opinion.

Tough to judge a trainer without working with them. I would probably say Tyson was always going to be a Heavyweight World Champion and many would have taken him there. Cus played little part in his pro career for obvious reasons and, at least according to Atlas - who perhaps isn't the most reliable source, wasn't there for much of his amateur career.

As for Patterson not sure protection was the sole reason for his career path. Wasn't it Cus who put one of his boxer into a fight he thoughthe would lose, for the experience? I believe the fights had more to do with Cus's refusal to do business with certain people in the industry, and anyway that's matchmaking/management not training.

Tough to argue he should be ranked alongside the greats because of his lack of versatility of boxers, and as far as I know hasn't turned careers around. He's not the guy I know most about though.

Cheers for those contributions, fellas. It's interesting that while D'Amato often saw himself as a father figure as well as a trainer to his charges (particularly in the cases of Patterson and Tyson) and that he also often preached to them the importance of confidence, a warrior's mentality and self-belief, his two most successful fighters are, oddly enough, often labelled as mentally weak characters.

However, badgerhands, with regards to why exactly he kept Patterson away from Liston, Williams, Machen and Folley, I'm willing to give D'Amato the benefit of the doubt and stick with my belief that it was a genuine affection and worry for Patterson which caused it, rather than the thought of financial gain. D'Amato had numerous chances to 'sell his soul' in return for big money from the IBC in the early fifties, and having been vindicated for not doing that in the shape of Patterson winning the title, I doubt he'd have been looking to abandon those particular principles at that time.

Excellent article Chris.

I probably agree that he was a very good trainer; but not one of the say 5 or ten best of all time.

Scottrf wrote: As for Patterson not sure protection was the sole reason for his career path. Wasn't it Cus who put one of his boxer into a fight he thoughthe would lose, for the experience? I believe the fights had more to do with Cus's refusal to do business with certain people in the industry, and anyway that's matchmaking/management not training.

Thanks for dropping in, Scott. Yes, it is often said that D'Amato matched Patterson with Joey Maxim in 1954 knowing that Patterson would lose (although the majority of ringside observers felt he deserved the decision) but that the experience would be good for him. However, this was before Patterson had won the title, and as I said in the article it's reasonable to accept that while D'Amato did a fine job with his fighters before they won a world crown, it was what happened once they got there which takes a little of the shine away from his legacy.

As you and I both have said, D'Amato certainly did have people at the IBC with whom he'd never do business in the first half of the fifties, however by 1956-1957 the grip of the IBC was being reduced after it went in to gradual melt down, and hence the matching of Patterson with non-entities such as Rademacher, Harris and London ahead of men such as Liston and Williams becomes unforgivable, and something which D'Amato can't claim to have been powerless to stop.

Good contribution mate, cheers.

It's Sir. Badgerhands now Chris!!!

Fair point on Patterson.

I guess I've always viewed D'Amato with a healthy dose of suspicion however.

Not so much due to his years with Patterson but more as rowley mentioned his covering up of Tyson's early indiscretions. Which looking at the whole picture certainly in my opinion helped to create the trainwreck that Tyson became.

Liston was clearly the best Heavyweight for 2 or 3 years before Patterson fought him.

I believe the Patterson/D'Amato relationship is the basis for Rocky III with Rocky and Mickey?

Great article here Chris - i'm afraid I cant really add anything here but enjoying the read!

I guess my take on Cus is from the viewpoint of his last great heavyweight - Tyson. I didnt know that much about him apart from that. I was aware of his famed peek-a-boo technique but thats about it.

Cheers for a very very interested article and increased my knowledge of a legendary trainer.

Cheers Daz and you're welcome, glad you enjoyed it. Well worth taking a look at D'Amato without all the Tyson fanboys butting in with their usual recycled lines; he was definitely an interesting man and character, oddly though there are a lot of things we now know about him which didn't emerge until after he'd died.

TYSON woz the greatest, would neva have lost if Gus Tomato was not have dyed FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are a bad man Jeff!

I think D'Amato's influence on Tyson is a bit underestimated here
He was more of a father figure to Tyson and most certainly took him under his wing so to speak
Tyson is one of the most complex characters in Boxing and remains so.D'Amato kept him on the sort of straight and narrow and whilst it might be argued some of the moral codes instilled into the young man were questionable they would be preferable to the ones ingrained by prison or instilled by Don King.
Without D'Amato I think Tyson would have ended up going off the rails sooner .Noone since has been able to have any real control or influence on him.

skidd1 wrote:I think D'Amato's influence on Tyson is a bit underestimated here
He was more of a father figure to Tyson and most certainly took him under his wing so to speak
Tyson is one of the most complex characters in Boxing and remains so.D'Amato kept him on the sort of straight and narrow and whilst it might be argued some of the moral codes instilled into the young man were questionable they would be preferable to the ones ingrained by prison or instilled by Don King.
Without D'Amato I think Tyson would have ended up going off the rails sooner .Noone since has been able to have any real control or influence on him.

Certainly Tyson was better off for D'Amato's influence. However, Cus did not raise Tyson well. He certainly taught him to box well, but with regards to his perhaps paternal responsibilities he may have let Tyson down. Everything he did with regards to a young Tyson was always done with a wider aim of making Tyson the greatest fighter ever. I remember hearing a story of how a young Tyson confided to Cus that he had no confidence in his appearance, and that he thought girls would be disgusted by his appearance. Cus, in response, got up, left the room and returned some minutes later with a stick. He handed it to Tyson and said, "you'll need this to fight off all the girls who'll be chasing after you once you're heavyweight champion of the world".

As a trainer I think he gets a fair appraisal from most fans, I think your article is very well balanced Chris. I agree that he was probably not the most flexible trainer, semmingly he knew of know other way to coach than to teach peek-a-boo. Although he was undoubtedly an absolute master at teaching that particular style. A great trainer, no doubt, but perhaps just not as great as Arcel, Brown, Futch et al.

Im not sure if people have seen the Duke It Out documentary which features Cus and Ali .They are both hamming it up but some classic Ali both in and out of the ring and some interesting insights from both
Cus "play" spars with Ali .His style is almost exactly that of the young Tyson.
He seemed to get on very well with Ali as well.

Yes it's great Skidd1, would love to see that again, if it's the one I'm thinking of(Ali is simply incredulous when Cus says that he'd not beat Joe Louis).
I recall a maxim of Cus D'Amato's was that fear and nerves are good, because they indicate that the athlete is on his/her toes.With his innate awareness of how to motivate, I have always thought he was decades ahead of his time.

He allowed boxers to express their vulnerabilities to him.As a mentor, second to none.It was touching that he allowed Iron Mike to live with him, and tried to imbue him with a set of values.As simply a "trainer" for prize fights?Well, I have agree with the thrust of the article.

andygf wrote:Yes it's great Skidd1, would love to see that again, if it's the one I'm thinking of(Ali is simply incredulous when Cus says that he'd not beat Joe Louis).
I recall a maxim of Cus D'Amato's was that fear and nerves are good, because they indicate that the athlete is on his/her toes.With his innate awareness of how to motivate, I have always thought he was decades ahead of his time.

He allowed boxers to express their vulnerabilities to him.As a mentor, second to none.It was touching that he allowed Iron Mike to live with him, and tried to imbue him with a set of values.As simply a "trainer" for prize fights?Well, I have agree with the thrust of the article.

That is the one .He says something like "What do you mean Joe Louis would whip my ass"
He predicts Joe Frazier nailing him with a hook. Says it straight to him .Tells Ali he wouldn't work on the inside as well
Ali at his sparkiest as well.Some good impressions of Frazier and Foreman.Trying to find it on youtube.Its on ESPN classics I think

Its interesting to note that Teddy Atlas thinks that it was Cus D'Amato's failure to set Tyson boundries and instill discipline that contributed to Tysons later problems.

Tyson was obviously a fragile character and like many athletes some respond better to words of encouragement and some respond better to a kick up the backside. Knowing when to give each one is neccessary for the best results.

Thee has also been a suggestion that D'Amato realised he was running out of years and wanted one last heavyweight champion. With that in mind he was willing to fast track Tyson and let him get away with lack of discipline just to keep him pacified. Atlas felt it was wrong to give Tyson this preferential treatment and that D'Amatos constant getting Tyson out of trouble and mollycoddling him left Tyson with severe problems when D'Amato died that better discipline would have prevented.

There may be some truth in what Atlas says as the relationship between Tyson and D'Amato seemed unusually close for trainer and student. Perhaps if D'Amato had been younger then he may have taken a more stricter approach.

manos de piedra wrote:Its interesting to note that Teddy Atlas thinks that it was Cus D'Amato's failure to set Tyson boundries and instill discipline that contributed to Tysons later problems.

Tyson was obviously a fragile character and like many athletes some respond better to words of encouragement and some respond better to a kick up the backside. Knowing when to give each one is neccessary for the best results.

Thee has also been a suggestion that D'Amato realised he was running out of years and wanted one last heavyweight champion. With that in mind he was willing to fast track Tyson and let him get away with lack of discipline just to keep him pacified. Atlas felt it was wrong to give Tyson this preferential treatment and that D'Amatos constant getting Tyson out of trouble and mollycoddling him left Tyson with severe problems when D'Amato died that better discipline would have prevented.

There may be some truth in what Atlas says as the relationship between Tyson and D'Amato seemed unusually close for trainer and student. Perhaps if D'Amato had been younger then he may have taken a more stricter approach.

Manos ..Its hard to judge really.Tyson had grown up in such a tough neighbbourhood already into gangs and stuff .Guess Cus realised what was coming.By that I mean pots of money ,fame etc etc .Now that has sent a lot of young people off the rails who didnt have Tysons problems initially
I remember when he came to the UK and bought a few luxury cars just because he could .The salesman couldnt believe his luck .Probably made him 20k in one day!!
On his release from jail signing a 30 million deal to fight a guy noone had heard of.Very hard to stay on the rails and focussed with those sorts of distractions
I do think Cus saw Tyson as his last shot
I suppose it shows there is more to being a trainer than just teaching a guy how to box and I dont know how he would of reacted to a strict disciplinarian of a trainer.Its a fine line with a guy like Tyson
I dont think Angelo Dundee had an easy time with Ali either though

Thanks for your contributions lads, been good getting your different views on this.

I think between you all there has been a general truism discovered, that Cus was too lenient on Mike because he knew that he did not have long to see his latest champion.
I believe that Cus was an ethical guy, but he did make mistakes with Tyson.
This selfishness is understandable though. It was noted that with Cus and his family, Mike was adifferent person, and seeing footage of a teenage Mike eating at the family table, minding his language, I can appreciate how ,for however temporary, he was a rehabilitated character.Hindsight is a wonderful thing, as they say....and sadly ironic that Cus' death started the de-habilitation process.

Not much to add myself, just great article Chris and nice to see all the familiar names from old 606 on here.

slash912 wrote:Not much to add myself, just great article Chris and nice to see all the familiar names from old 606 on here.

Good to see that you made it over, slash.

Do foster parents always have an easy time with their charges? He was orphaned at 13 and involved in pretty crime as an adolescent. There is only so much one person or a coach can do, D'Amato wasn't a social worker. At a certain age its up to Tyson to make his own decisions, his coach can't do everything for him. Actually, during his early career Tyson was oddly well mannered, certainly boxing kept him on the straight and narrow.

Many fans talk about him 'losing it' around the time of the Douglas fight. But, by that time he had amassed a record of 37-0 - not doing to badly. Across the whole pantheon of sports stars, Tyson wouldn't be the first to let fame and success go to his head. Sugar Ray, with his 30 personnel entourage (a word he literally coined), and old big head Ali - hardly innoccent in this area. Again, Heavyweight boxer aren't known for being mild mannered people, Tyson is pretty much par for the course. If Tyson is ever forwarded the opportunity to meet D'Amato again, he should get on his knees and thank the guy. Discovered at the age of 13, without Cus its likely no one would have heard of Mike Tyson. If Tyson experienced a few personal problems in later life, he should look at himself.

D'Amato was not prolific in the number of fighters he trained, but then he was not so much rent-a-coach figure like a Freddie Roach. He specialised on a small number of fighters and in that regard he was successful. He took Patterson, Tyson and Torres from literally no where, to world titles. Since working with D'Amato, his proteges coaches in Atlas and Rooney have built up successful careers in the coaching business.