Prime RJJ vs Prime Tyson: why are they judged differently?

The recent rumours of RJJ's retirement brought up the question of his legacy, and whether the rapid and marked decline of his latter career should (or how much it should) affect one's judgement of where he should be placed in the list of ATGs.

It seems common that people judge him on his prime and give little thought to his recent showings. I don't have a problem with this at all.

However, it is interesting to me that no-one seems to judge him as being 'exposed', whereas many consider 'prime Mike Tyson' to be a myth clung onto by the less knowledgeable boxing fan. For many, that myth was busted by his post Douglas/prison performances.

For my part, I am not sure it is fair to treat the cases so differently. I think that there ae some stars that burn bright but for less time than others. I think Tyson's mental failings and the fact that he peaked as a physical specimen at such a young age could explain his slide, in the same way that the loss of RJJ's reflexes could be used to explain his own fall from the pinnacle.

I can see the difference in personalities being a factor, as well as perhaps fewer top quality victories for Tyson vs the 2 or 3 standout ones in RJJ's 'W' column. But then again, Tyson can't be accused of avoiding anyone.

I am not a huge fan of either, though I rate them both highly - so no bias or angle from my side.

I am just interested to know: Why are they judged differently by so many?

Rossi, let me start by saying, like you im not particularly a fan of either guy...though do think both were gifted boxers.

From my own opinion & I would be confident in thinking others...I think the reason RJJ gets alot more lee-way is down to a couple of reasons, one which you mention in your article.

As you pointed out RJJ has a few big names on his resume, something which is sorely lacking from Tyson's.

Your point about Tyson's 'star burning bright but shortly' is a valid one and perhaps had he added a real star name in their prime onto his resume...the scope he would have been given with regards to tainting his legacy could have been alot greater.

As it was he simple seemed to fold whenever he came across an 'immovable object'. In my opinion if he didnt have his opponent beaten mentally before stepping into the ring then he was in trouble once in their. Case in point Douglas, Holyfield & to a lesser extent Lennox Lewis.

Because RJJ had names on the resume to prove he could deal with those at the top, he can now essentially become cannon fodder and few will bat an eyelid because we know in his hayday he would of dealt with them easily.

The second...and perhaps bigger reason why people judge them so differently...and you kind of touched on it, is purely down to the actual talent of the men in question.

Tyson certainly had his strong points...his power and that 'fear/intimidation which he had...but in comparison to the skillset of RJJ you would have to say their is a huge gulf in class...

When people look at contrasting fighters from different era's and debate could one beat the other you will find it common place that many would say RJJ had the skills to beat or at least match most great fighters from era's past....

Tyson..well it is much more difficult...some give him a shot against certain fighters...others none at all. One thing lots say is if he didnt have them out of their within 4 rounds he would most likely go on to lose.

In summary I think the problem lies that many people...and even fans of Tyson will either have..or would have to admit to there being questions about the man....just how good was he?...Was he simply a power puncher who got found out?....Did he really have the ability to beat the other heavyweight greats?...

Contrast that with RJJ and everyone admits that he was one of the most gifted fighters to step into the ring...he barely lost a round during his prime and beat the likes of Hopkins, Tony, Tarver etc.

Roy Jones was never truly exposed in the way which Tyson was...he showed he could meet and mix it with the best. He had the W's that mattered in his column...Tyson doesnt.

So I think they are the reason's why there is such a polar difference in terms of the lee-way given to both men's legacy.

I actually think you will find that even RJJ though is slowly starting to slip in people's ATG list.

He will often be talked about as one of the 'most naturally gifted' boxers in history...but when it comes to his ATG status people probably will have him lower than where he perhaps should be....because he has stayed around for to long. And for me knowing when to walk away from this sport is something which should be considered when looking at people's legacy and status's.

By the way...welcome to the board (havent seen you here before)...and good Original Post.

Its a good question and there are clear similarities between the 2. Yet they are both looked at very differently as you say.

It seems there is no middle ground with Tyson. You are either in the he was the "bestest boxer ever and would beat every heavy ever on the same night if he had to camp". Or he was a bum who was exposed every time he met anyone who wasn't afraid of him or who had a good jab and chin etc etc. The truth for me lies firmly in between the 2.

Both were ridiculously talented. I'm loath to mention Tyson's prime but its clear he did peak over a short number of years. But during those years he was an absolute beast. Much more than a power puncher/intimidator.. His head movement, hand speed and combination punching were scary. Throw in his power and a good chin and he was an extremely good heavyweight. I don't see how anyone can hold the Lewis loss against him and I don't even hold the Holyfield fights against him too much as the 3 years in prison coupled with the fact he'd stopped doing everything that made him so good.

I'm not a huge Tyson fan but appreciate that he was better than some give him credit for and its a good question you've posed.

RJJ had more years in his prime and moved all the way up to HW to win a title, the media love that sort of stuff just look at manny.

Such a shame that his athletic skills deserted him and he kept on fighting.

However I also rate Tyson highly..... Think it can be agreed that both have tarnished their legacy going on too long are they were diminished, but how good they were in there primes still puts them right up there In The HOF

Thanks for the comments, guys.

I agree that Tyson's skillet is underrated, actually. But it seems a high level of opposition, or at least a few highly rated names, is the evidence required by most to judge someone highly.

All the more reason to lament the fact that the top names face eachother so infrequently these days.

If you gave me a choice of 3 minutes in a ring with prime RJJ or 3 minutes in a ring with prime Tyson, I'd take RJJ every time. Tyson was a scary, scary guy in his prime.

Excellent article, even though I have a few very minor quibbles with it.

Jones' career began to nose dive when he was aged thirty-five, which is a whole different kettle of fish to Tyson, who was still just twenty-three when Douglas beat him - and still only thirty (hardly ancient for a Heavyweight) when the supposedly washed up Holyfield tore away his aura once and for all.

Jones would hardly be alone as a fighter whose star began to wane in his mid thirties, whereas saying that Tyson conveniently became over the hill at twenty-three / twenty-four is far more fanciful, and does seem to be a case of his biggest fanatics simply having their cake and eating it. Far more understandable for Roy to decline when he did than for Mike, in my eyes at least.

I think the shouts of 'exposed' with regards to Tyson come primarily from the fact that Douglas (and, to a lesser extent, Holyfield) seemed to combine all the things which people suspected could be a factor in beating Tyson and oiled them in to one fantastic machine, even if it did only operate for that one night in Tokyo. Tillis had shown what a well-timed jab and consistent movement around the ring could do against Tyson, and likewise Tucker had demonstrated that if you kept him at range early doors, his attack became a little less ferocious and easier to handle in the latter rounds. As devastating as Tyson was in that first reign, there were small (very small, in fact) chinks in his armour.

On the other hand, Jones had seemingly no real weakness which routinely cropped up in his pomp. Tarver and Johnson got to him with big shots to turn the lights out, but it's not as if several others had looked like they could perhaps do the same in the decade or so which had gone before. I think there was always a possibility, no matter how small, that a fighter of Douglas' style and dimensions could beat Tyson, even if it was a fully focused and absolute peak Mike, whereas I don't think the likes of Tarver and Johnson could ever have hoped to beat Jones when he was at his very best.

As I said, very good article but I do think a distinction should be made between the two - and this is coming from someone who rates the pair of them much higher than a lot of others on here.

Good point about Tyson's decline starting at such a young age. It does discount any justification based around physical decline.

Interesting point about RJJ, and Tarver/Johnson being able to get to his chin. This kind of suggests that he may always have had a suspect chin, but was so good that no one tested it.

I haven't seem enough of his fights to be sure, but I don't recall him taking any full blooded shots up to and including Ruiz.

Does anyone remember him ever getting caught by a big shot but taking it well?

Too me it dpretty obvious why they are judged differently,

Roy Jones Jr got old when he started to lose, he had a prime of about 6 years
Mike Tyson self imploded and had a prime consisting of 2 years

Roy JonesJr in his prime was the best fighter i had ever seen albeit against weaker opposition. His win vs a prime Toney is as good a win as any ove the last 2 decades, p4p #1 and 2 going at it with #2 coming out on top

Jones was the fighter of the decade, Tyson was at the top for 86-88 and that's about it

He was an animal in his prime but it was so short

Jones had a near 10 year period at the top in which he won across several weight divisions. I think his decline is ust a pretty straightforward case of a fighter fighting on too long past his best. When you throw in the weight loss he underwent at that age also to go from heavyweight to light heavyweight then that probably didnt help either.

Tysons situation is quite different I think. He has a loss to Douglas when he should have been at his eak and then a gap from the sport during prison. His subsequent losses to Holyfield and Lewis were when he was ast his best but there is still no certainty that he would have beaten then even at his best. Its far easier to believe Jones at his best would have comfortably beat the likes of Tarver and Johnson than Tyson at his best would beat Holyfeild or Lewis. Thats why I think there are more question marks about him. Difficult to evaluate what mental and physical effect the jail spll had on him also.

I find Jones career much easier to evaluate than Tysons. I think Jones is just a pretty straighforward case of a fighter getting old and fighting on with diminished ability.

jones had the better managed and more succesful career. he stayed out of prison, fought more fights in his prime and was far more likeable. hence why people are keen to see his career in a positive light. tyson made too many enemies and made his achievements easier to belittle.

i do think people are a little soft on jones though. tarver did not just catch his chin, he totally outboxed him 3 times in a row, whilst he himself was no spring chicken. jones was fantastic, and entertaining. but he was not unbeatable, and eventually found a guy who had his number, not much different to holyfield having tysons number.

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:If you gave me a choice of 3 minutes in a ring with prime RJJ or 3 minutes in a ring with prime Tyson, I'd take RJJ every time. Tyson was a scary, scary guy in his prime.

isnt that the most obvious comment anyone has ever posted on here?

id rather have 3 mins with RJJ than danny williams for god sake. one could knock my head clean off, the other could simply render me unconscious.

Lance wrote:i do think people are a little soft on jones though. tarver did not just catch his chin, he totally outboxed him 3 times in a row.

Not sure which fights you were watching, I have to say. Tarver put in a terribly negative performance in the first bout and clearly lost it - can't fathom where all these cries of 'robbery' come from in regards to that first installment. Got it spot on second time out, of course, but again, the third fight was a truly turgid affair in which Tarver did only just enough, and this was against a clearly over the hill Jones.

Besides, even if Tarver had been as dominant as you claim, I think it's clear that by 2004 / 2005, Jones had practically nothing left in the tank. Tarver's own age is a little irrelevant; whatever his birth certificate says, he was a damn sight fresher and closer to his best than Jones was, much like the Lewis-Tyson scenario two or three years before.

i thought jones slide came when he had to stop taking certain "supplements"

88Chris05 wrote:

Lance wrote:i do think people are a little soft on jones though. tarver did not just catch his chin, he totally outboxed him 3 times in a row.

Not sure which fights you were watching, I have to say. Tarver put in a terribly negative performance in the first bout and clearly lost it - can't fathom where all these cries of 'robbery' come from in regards to that first installment. Got it spot on second time out, of course, but again, the third fight was a truly turgid affair in which Tarver did only just enough, and this was against a clearly over the hill Jones.

Besides, even if Tarver had been as dominant as you claim, I think it's clear that by 2004 / 2005, Jones had practically nothing left in the tank. Tarver's own age is a little irrelevant; whatever his birth certificate says, he was a damn sight fresher and closer to his best than Jones was, much like the Lewis-Tyson scenario two or three years before.

tarver jones 1 is the worst robbery i have ever seen. it was clear jones lost almost every round. all the commentators and press at ringside had tarver clearly ahead from what i remember. i wouldnt say tarvers age was irrelevant. jones had never been in any hurtful wars. people excuse his losses because father time has made him slow down. same could be said of tarver at the time. im not trying to be too harsh on jones, as ive always liked him, i just think this particular part of his career should not be swept under the carpet in the same manner as the lebedev and green fights will come to be.

To be fair age was always going to effect Jones more than most fighters because he relied so heavily on his athletic ability, without which he wasn't half the fighter, it's much of the reason why I rate Marquez and Hopkins so highly.

Sorry, Lance, I don't wish to sound blunt, but if you consider Jones-Tarver I the worst robbery you've ever seen then you need to watch a few more fights! Most ringsiders felt Jones had done enough, as did the HBO team. Tarver fought like a mouse in the final four rounds, I'm sad to say. He complained bitterly about it, of course, but I had Jones a couple of points up and that's being kind to Tarver.

There's just no way Tarver won it. The only time he let punches go freely was when Jones was backed up on the ropes in the first eight rounds.

As Ghosty says, Jones' style wasn't really suited to getting long in the tooth, which is why him still being the pound for pound number one at thirty-four / thirty-five, a full decade after he first became a candidate for that title, is such a remarkable feat in my opinion.

Back to the original question, and I don't think that they are judged differently by most fans. No one will use the post-Lewis years to judge Tyson, and no one will judge Jones on his post Tarver years. And the judgements will rightly conclude that RJJ is a greater P4Per than Tyson.
I find the idea that Tyson's post prison form should be dismssed as strange , yes he clearly wasn't as good, but his physically he was less diminished than a post ban Ali, yet Ali went on to cement his legacy, with the Frazier and Norton trilogies, and the immense performance and Foreman, whilst Tyson was ruthlessly exposed by Holyfield and then Lewis, it is also worth noting that at the very end to their careers, Ali went out on hid shield against Holmes and Berbick, whilst Tyson simply quit against Williams and that Irish guy.
I followed Tyson's career from the Tillis fight until the end, and was a huge fan of his, at his best of was a superb fighter, but ultimately he failed to deliver the career his talent deserved, whilst RJJ did, it just a shame that he can't now let it go.

I cant see how Tarver/Jones 1 was even a robbery, nevermind one of the worst ever seen.

What was significant about the fight for me was that for pretty much the first time ever Jones looked beatable. He didnt look anywhere near as good as his pre heavyweight form. At the time, most people put that down to the hangover of having to drop 20lbs and come back down from heavyweight. But given how the rest of his career would follow, and his age, I think that with hindsight its a reasonably straightforward case of a fighter deteriorating in ability. I dont believe at all Jones simply got found out in any way or ran into a fighter that had his number. The subsequent loss to Johnson, a fighter he would without doubt have comfortably beat pre heavyweight I think pretty much confirms that it was father time more than anything else that was Jones downfall.

horizontalhero wrote:Back to the original question, and I don't think that they are judged differently by most fans. No one will use the post-Lewis years to judge Tyson, and no one will judge Jones on his post Tarver years. And the judgements will rightly conclude that RJJ is a greater P4Per than Tyson.
I find the idea that Tyson's post prison form should be dismssed as strange , yes he clearly wasn't as good, but his physically he was less diminished than a post ban Ali, yet Ali went on to cement his legacy, with the Frazier and Norton trilogies, and the immense performance and Foreman, whilst Tyson was ruthlessly exposed by Holyfield and then Lewis, it is also worth noting that at the very end to their careers, Ali went out on hid shield against Holmes and Berbick, whilst Tyson simply quit against Williams and that Irish guy.
I followed Tyson's career from the Tillis fight until the end, and was a huge fan of his, at his best of was a superb fighter, but ultimately he failed to deliver the career his talent deserved, whilst RJJ did, it just a shame that he can't now let it go.

Exposed as what? A shell of his former self?

Was he fighting Evander Holyfield of Evan Field? I find it miraculous in almost biblical proportions that a boxer could resurrect his career after such a serious illness in the manner Holyfield did. Was he sick in the Moorer fight or not taking the substances Mr Field gave him?

And please stop using Ali as any kind of measuring stick. He was unique and his kind will never be seen again.

It is terms like 'ruthlessly exposed by Holyfield an Lewis' that prompted my original post. I just think it's a boxer past his prime (which is not just dictated by age) getting beaten by other very good fighters.

Now now, Az, let's be reasonable here; if Tyson can get credit and rave reviews for this demolitions of Bruno and Seldon and be tipped for a new reign of terror over the division come late '96, then it's only fair that he can take a kicking for the defeat (and more so, the manner of it) against Holyfield.

Going in to that fight, it was Holyfield, rather than Tyson, who was considered a shell and way over the hill, a fact reflected in the odds being offered for a Holyfield victory.

Now I'll admit, the significance I place on what transpired in Holyfield-Tyson I has waned a little in recent times; as much as I don't like giving his obsessive fanatics any ammunition, Tyson had boxed just eight rounds in the previous five years - that's no preparation for Holyfield, even if it is a shopworn version, and it was clear as the fight went on that Tyson had lost some of that legendary bite (well, until the second fight, anyway!).

Along with the 'Evan Fields' debace (and I'll admit, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Holyfield was pulling the wool over our eyes for years), I don't think Tyson's claims to greatness can be written off completely by that fight, but it's still a black mark against him and his legacy, without question.

Seldon was knocked out by a punch that didn't even land.

I was one of those who feared for Holy's life and recall waking up the next day, reading teletext and nearly passing out. Then I watched the fight and could not believe how good Holy was in comparison to how he fought against Bowe and Moorer in particular. Almost a different fighter.

Then a friend of mine who also saw the fight and is a regular in the gyms and ingests all manner of roids just said "that man is on gear". But there is no evidence. None also until Ben Johnson was caught.

People say Tyson had a short peak....a shooting star. He was champion for 4 years and had 9-10 defences in his first reign I believe (can't be bothered to boxrec it). That is no shooting star. How many defenses did Frazier, Foreman, Rocky and so many others have?

Likewise though, Az, how many other Heavyweight champions have, in any capacity, been described as 'past their best' or no longer in their 'prime' at the age of twenty-four like Tyson was?

In total, Tyson's career spanned seventeen years if we discount his prison term, and he only appeared to be 'great' for about a third of that, so I'd say that the 'short peak' and 'shooting star' descriptions do carry some weight.

His first title reign is certainly underappreciated in some quarters, though. It's odd, but in the past few years (and, I suspect, for a few more years to come) having the sheer temerity to rate either of the two men mentioned in this thread title seems to translate as knowing nothing about boxing in the eyes of some boxing snob types; while they do attract some truly clueless followers, it's also a disservice to them at the same time.

Its not that he was passed his peak. His demise started as soon as he left Rooney. Add to that his excesses and wild party life, he not just passed it but became disinterested. Boxing is an unforgiven sport in which those who but corners get exposed. Tyson not only cut corners, he ignored it.

As for RJJ, in a few years, he will be regarded as a genuine top 10-15 ATG. His unique talent deserves it.

azania wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:Back to the original question, and I don't think that they are judged differently by most fans. No one will use the post-Lewis years to judge Tyson, and no one will judge Jones on his post Tarver years. And the judgements will rightly conclude that RJJ is a greater P4Per than Tyson.
I find the idea that Tyson's post prison form should be dismssed as strange , yes he clearly wasn't as good, but his physically he was less diminished than a post ban Ali, yet Ali went on to cement his legacy, with the Frazier and Norton trilogies, and the immense performance and Foreman, whilst Tyson was ruthlessly exposed by Holyfield and then Lewis, it is also worth noting that at the very end to their careers, Ali went out on hid shield against Holmes and Berbick, whilst Tyson simply quit against Williams and that Irish guy.
I followed Tyson's career from the Tillis fight until the end, and was a huge fan of his, at his best of was a superb fighter, but ultimately he failed to deliver the career his talent deserved, whilst RJJ did, it just a shame that he can't now let it go.

Exposed as what? A shell of his former self?

Was he fighting Evander Holyfield of Evan Field? I find it miraculous in almost biblical proportions that a boxer could resurrect his career after such a serious illness in the manner Holyfield did. Was he sick in the Moorer fight or not taking the substances Mr Field gave him?

And please stop using Ali as any kind of measuring stick. He was unique and his kind will never be seen again.

Ruthlessly exposed as a fighter that was seriously cutting corners, and had underestimated his opponent in Holyfields case, and as one that could no longer cut it against Lewis, he looked like he was just going through the motions and had lost an real desire to win, and as for using Ali as a measuring stick, I'll use who I effing well like, esp. when judging where other HWs rate as ATGs. Ali sets the bar as far as I'm concerned. As a previously have said I rate Tyson very highly in terms of ability, and he should have had an even better career than he did.

Tyson came out of prison a shadow of himself. He had poorer head movement, was slow on his feet, threw conbinations with half as many punches and he loaded up, so his punches didn't flow. Still powerful, but he came out a different fighter. Life ruined him.

Jones, who was heavily reliant on reflexes and speed lost them due to age. His inability to accept this was abhorrent. Age ruined him.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Tyson came out of prison a shadow of himself. He had poorer head movement, was slow on his feet, threw conbinations with half as many punches and he loaded up, so his punches didn't flow. Still powerful, but he came out a different fighter. Life ruined him.

Jones, who was heavily reliant on reflexes and speed lost them due to age. His inability to accept this was abhorrent. Age ruined him.

Mate I'm not sure it's that simple- the decline was evident before prison, from the first Bruno fight onwards in my opinion, and certainly after the Douglas fight. What I do remember is that upon his release from prison, what he had lost in skill he had gained in ferocity- watch the second Bruno fight for an example of what I mean, and most observers thought he would destroy Holyfield. I would also say that whilst his boxing was no longer as skillfull, there was little obvious physical decline- he was still very fast and strong but it now appeared that he thought he could simply destroy his opposition through sheer brutality, and when Holyfield proved that wrong, then that really was the end for him.Your point about life destroying him certainly has some validity-there are so many elements in his life that could have led to his downfall that it's hard to nail which was the most significant.

azania wrote:Its not that he was passed his peak. His demise started as soon as he left Rooney. Add to that his excesses and wild party life, he not just passed it but became disinterested. Boxing is an unforgiven sport in which those who but corners get exposed. Tyson not only cut corners, he ignored it.

As for RJJ, in a few years, he will be regarded as a genuine top 10-15 ATG. His unique talent deserves it.

Proper agree with this. In that recent boxing news poll he was something silly like #74 of all time. For me Definitley Top 10 of All TIme

I think Tyson went down hill when Gus Tomato died, either that or when he married Robin Cousins

horizontalhero wrote:

azania wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:Back to the original question, and I don't think that they are judged differently by most fans. No one will use the post-Lewis years to judge Tyson, and no one will judge Jones on his post Tarver years. And the judgements will rightly conclude that RJJ is a greater P4Per than Tyson.
I find the idea that Tyson's post prison form should be dismssed as strange , yes he clearly wasn't as good, but his physically he was less diminished than a post ban Ali, yet Ali went on to cement his legacy, with the Frazier and Norton trilogies, and the immense performance and Foreman, whilst Tyson was ruthlessly exposed by Holyfield and then Lewis, it is also worth noting that at the very end to their careers, Ali went out on hid shield against Holmes and Berbick, whilst Tyson simply quit against Williams and that Irish guy.
I followed Tyson's career from the Tillis fight until the end, and was a huge fan of his, at his best of was a superb fighter, but ultimately he failed to deliver the career his talent deserved, whilst RJJ did, it just a shame that he can't now let it go.

Exposed as what? A shell of his former self?

Was he fighting Evander Holyfield of Evan Field? I find it miraculous in almost biblical proportions that a boxer could resurrect his career after such a serious illness in the manner Holyfield did. Was he sick in the Moorer fight or not taking the substances Mr Field gave him?

And please stop using Ali as any kind of measuring stick. He was unique and his kind will never be seen again.

Ruthlessly exposed as a fighter that was seriously cutting corners, and had underestimated his opponent in Holyfields case, and as one that could no longer cut it against Lewis, he looked like he was just going through the motions and had lost an real desire to win, and as for using Ali as a measuring stick, I'll use who I effing well like, esp. when judging where other HWs rate as ATGs. Ali sets the bar as far as I'm concerned. As a previously have said I rate Tyson very highly in terms of ability, and he should have had an even better career than he did.

So because he didn't measure up to Ali's achievements, he under achieved. Great argument there boy. Mark down every HW in history then.

I think this may be the perfect time to revive Windy's old poem regarding Iron Mike, which has passed in to 606 folklore!

Don't speak to me of Ali
Or slow, flat - footed Louis
Of boring Larry Holmes
Or glass - jawed Lennox Lewis
Of Foreman, or of Frazier
Facts are much too clinical
Just let me tell you all about
Mike Tyson at his pinnacle.

With Atlas in his corner
He'd have whipped them all, I swear
Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey,
Tunney, Sharkey, Baer
I've even learned to thpeak like him
And tho hath my friend, Dennith
Tho much to we both revere
Mike Tyson at his zenith.

The handspeed and the footspeed
The movement of his head
The lethal combinations
That filled a man with dread
The hooks and jabs and uppercuts
That rendered strong men weak
Belonged to just one heavyweight
Mike Tyson at his peak.

On Friday nights my friends and I
Sit round our TVs
To pay homage to the Iron One
And watch his DVDs
Do we watch his losses ?
Surely, friend, you jest !
The Iron Mike of whom you speak
Was not Tyson at his best.

We get in from our Snooker Clubs
With six packs and with curries
And watch him batter Tony Tubbs
Without a moment's worry
Of course, we skip the Douglas fight
For I've said a hundred times
The Tyson who fought Buster
Was not Tyson in his prime.

If Cus D' Amato hadn't died
If he hadn't gone to jail
If there hadn't been Desiree
If he hadn't gone off the rails
The Pope would beautify him
There's be statues in the Sistine
And underneath, the plaques would read
Mike Tyson. Perfect. Pristine.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Only Windy, I guess! Great stuff.

Genius Chris, windy's battles and ongoing slapping down of the Tysonkings and Damonknights of this world were truly things of beauty.

I'd forgotten all about that poem, cheers Chris. I think Windy had a soft spot for damon knight (as did I) - utterly fanatical when it came to Tyson but always pleasant with it. Tysonkings was a condom filled with offal.

The problem with tyson is that opinions of him appear split between him being the GOAT and massively over-hyped and not much in the middle.

I tend to have him in the middle i.e. brilliant fighter and in and around the top 10 heavies (which is a compliment) but not the unstoppable wrecking machine he was made out to be and had he not gone to prison I think he'd have lost a few during that time.

I agree with the comments re: Jones i.e. diminished ability resulting in his downfall albeit his resume is quite poor IMo for someone regarded so highly.

Both tremendous however both maybe praised too highly

horizontalhero wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:Tyson came out of prison a shadow of himself. He had poorer head movement, was slow on his feet, threw conbinations with half as many punches and he loaded up, so his punches didn't flow. Still powerful, but he came out a different fighter. Life ruined him.

Jones, who was heavily reliant on reflexes and speed lost them due to age. His inability to accept this was abhorrent. Age ruined him.

Mate I'm not sure it's that simple- the decline was evident before prison, from the first Bruno fight onwards in my opinion, and certainly after the Douglas fight. What I do remember is that upon his release from prison, what he had lost in skill he had gained in ferocity- watch the second Bruno fight for an example of what I mean, and most observers thought he would destroy Holyfield. I would also say that whilst his boxing was no longer as skillfull, there was little obvious physical decline- he was still very fast and strong but it now appeared that he thought he could simply destroy his opposition through sheer brutality, and when Holyfield proved that wrong, then that really was the end for him.Your point about life destroying him certainly has some validity-there are so many elements in his life that could have led to his downfall that it's hard to nail which was the most significant.

You're right he was on the decline before he went to prison but he definitely came out of prison different boxer. He was slower and threw less instinctive combinations which contained fewer punches. His head movement was terrible (for him) and this was made worse by the fact it was primarily independant of his footwork. A pre-prison Tyson's head and feet were in unison. He hadn't gained any ferocity or brutality, he had only lost self control. I think there is a distinct difference.

I don't know if he was as instinctive as many seem to believe he was. I read that Atlas (and later Rooney) devised a scheme whereby he memorised combinations based on numbers and his trainers used to shout out numbers and he would throw combinations accordingly. Still a great fighter and I have him at 5 in my list of HW.

[quote="azania"]

horizontalhero wrote:

azania wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:Back to the original question, and I don't think that they are judged differently by most fans. No one will use the post-Lewis years to judge Tyson, and no one will judge Jones on his post Tarver years. And the judgements will rightly conclude that RJJ is a greater P4Per than Tyson.
I find the idea that Tyson's post prison form should be dismssed as strange , yes he clearly wasn't as good, but his physically he was less diminished than a post ban Ali, yet Ali went on to cement his legacy, with the Frazier and Norton trilogies, and the immense performance and Foreman, whilst Tyson was ruthlessly exposed by Holyfield and then Lewis, it is also worth noting that at the very end to their careers, Ali went out on hid shield against Holmes and Berbick, whilst Tyson simply quit against Williams and that Irish guy.
I followed Tyson's career from the Tillis fight until the end, and was a huge fan of his, at his best of was a superb fighter, but ultimately he failed to deliver the career his talent deserved, whilst RJJ did, it just a shame that he can't now let it go.

Exposed as what? A shell of his former self?

Was he fighting Evander Holyfield of Evan Field? I find it miraculous in almost biblical proportions that a boxer could resurrect his career after such a serious illness in the manner Holyfield did. Was he sick in the Moorer fight or not taking the substances Mr Field gave him?

And please stop using Ali as any kind of measuring stick. He was unique and his kind will never be seen again.

Ruthlessly exposed as a fighter that was seriously cutting corners, and had underestimated his opponent in Holyfields case, and as one that could no longer cut it against Lewis, he looked like he was just going through the motions and had lost an real desire to win, and as for using Ali as a measuring stick, I'll use who I effing well like, esp. when judging where other HWs rate as ATGs. Ali sets the bar as far as I'm concerned. As a previously have said I rate Tyson very highly in terms of ability, and he should have had an even better career than he did.

So because he didn't measure up to Ali's achievements, he under achieved. Great argument there boy. Mark down every HW in history then.[/quote

That's not what I'm saying at all, but you may recall Tyson is king and others clowns going on about prime tyson being the best ever- I just trying to put his career in perspective.

azania wrote:I don't know if he was as instinctive as many seem to believe he was. I read that Atlas (and later Rooney) devised a scheme whereby he memorised combinations based on numbers and his trainers used to shout out numbers and he would throw combinations accordingly. Still a great fighter and I have him at 5 in my list of HW.

I change gears in my car instinctively but i didn't when I was learning to drive, if you catch my drift.

Ive learned by numbers and taught by numbers.

It's great and a very common way to learn new motor skills or develop muscle memory. If I'm padding someone it's much more effective to shout "12 or 14 " to command a complex comination/sequence such as double jab, scouts layback, right hand, left foot forward, left hook, roll outside, right uppercut, left hook. Imagine having to say the words at the required speed, its impossible.

Instinct is the ability to select the correct number (combination) at the correct time for a given situation in the ring. Tyson had this ability.

[quote="horizontalhero"]

azania wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

azania wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:Back to the original question, and I don't think that they are judged differently by most fans. No one will use the post-Lewis years to judge Tyson, and no one will judge Jones on his post Tarver years. And the judgements will rightly conclude that RJJ is a greater P4Per than Tyson.
I find the idea that Tyson's post prison form should be dismssed as strange , yes he clearly wasn't as good, but his physically he was less diminished than a post ban Ali, yet Ali went on to cement his legacy, with the Frazier and Norton trilogies, and the immense performance and Foreman, whilst Tyson was ruthlessly exposed by Holyfield and then Lewis, it is also worth noting that at the very end to their careers, Ali went out on hid shield against Holmes and Berbick, whilst Tyson simply quit against Williams and that Irish guy.
I followed Tyson's career from the Tillis fight until the end, and was a huge fan of his, at his best of was a superb fighter, but ultimately he failed to deliver the career his talent deserved, whilst RJJ did, it just a shame that he can't now let it go.

Exposed as what? A shell of his former self?

Was he fighting Evander Holyfield of Evan Field? I find it miraculous in almost biblical proportions that a boxer could resurrect his career after such a serious illness in the manner Holyfield did. Was he sick in the Moorer fight or not taking the substances Mr Field gave him?

And please stop using Ali as any kind of measuring stick. He was unique and his kind will never be seen again.

Ruthlessly exposed as a fighter that was seriously cutting corners, and had underestimated his opponent in Holyfields case, and as one that could no longer cut it against Lewis, he looked like he was just going through the motions and had lost an real desire to win, and as for using Ali as a measuring stick, I'll use who I effing well like, esp. when judging where other HWs rate as ATGs. Ali sets the bar as far as I'm concerned. As a previously have said I rate Tyson very highly in terms of ability, and he should have had an even better career than he did.

So because he didn't measure up to Ali's achievements, he under achieved. Great argument there boy. Mark down every HW in history then.[/quote

That's not what I'm saying at all, but you may recall Tyson is king and others clowns going on about prime tyson being the best ever- I just trying to put his career in perspective.

I don't recall that and I couldn't give a monkeys what others say about Tyson. Great fighter and top 10. But never the best or a godzilla killer. So it seems your points were aimed at those who thought of him as a dragon slayer or something.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

azania wrote:I don't know if he was as instinctive as many seem to believe he was. I read that Atlas (and later Rooney) devised a scheme whereby he memorised combinations based on numbers and his trainers used to shout out numbers and he would throw combinations accordingly. Still a great fighter and I have him at 5 in my list of HW.

I change gears in my car instinctively but i didn't when I was learning to drive, if you catch my drift.

Ive learned by numbers and taught by numbers.

It's great and a very common way to learn new motor skills or develop muscle memory. If I'm padding someone it's much more effective to shout "12 or 14 " to command a complex comination/sequence such as double jab, scouts layback, right hand, left foot forward, left hook, roll outside, right uppercut, left hook. Imagine having to say the words at the required speed, its impossible.

Instinct is the ability to select the correct number (combination) at the correct time for a given situation in the ring. Tyson had this ability.

I rate Tyson highly. I reckon only two boxers in history would have beaten him more often than not and those are Ali and Holmes. I was just repeating what I read.

Az, I fully agree with you, and my points were aimed at those who rate him as a Godzilla killer (nice term BTW). I guess that I was trying to say that for my money his decline was caused more by his attitude/ mental shortcomings than by his physical decline.

I would agree with that and add that his mental attitude led him to believe he didn't need Rooney. Add to that the amount of Yes men he surrounded himself with. Had he remained focused he would have been a nailed on top 10 ATG and not just at HW. He was that talented. Alas his mental shortcomings give the doubters all the ammo they need.

superflyweight wrote:I'd forgotten all about that poem, cheers Chris. I think Windy had a soft spot for damon knight (as did I) - utterly fanatical when it came to Tyson but always pleasant with it. Tysonkings was a condom filled with offal.

A condom filled with offal. Just about the best insult I have ever heard. brilliant .

horizontalhero wrote:

superflyweight wrote:I'd forgotten all about that poem, cheers Chris. I think Windy had a soft spot for damon knight (as did I) - utterly fanatical when it came to Tyson but always pleasant with it. Tysonkings was a condom filled with offal.

A condom filled with offal. Just about the best insult I have ever heard. brilliant .

Sounds like a description of haggis.