Keyboard warriors/ WUMS vs Mike Tyson

Don't ever take the bait! Just wasted a half hour of my life on Youtube in a pointless argument on Mike Tyson vs Douglas. Some people say he was the most overhyped champ in history others say the most talented, like b-hop that argument never goes away. What gets me was the posts that said that Tyson fought tin cans, never beat anyone good, even in his unbeaten years. Not a chance a HOF etc. Whatever your opinion of Mike it can't be denied he had serious talent in the squared circle. Unified the diversion before most kids his age had picked up their diplomas! The argument I had with this berk was about Tyson's opposition. namely Pinklon thomas, Tubbs etc. His argument was that they were bums who didn't take the fight to Tyson and were scared and mostly looking to survive. Now I agree none of them are greats but they were top class pros of the day. And that means they knew far more about the insides of the buisiness than these champs of the sofa will ever know. I don't know how much of this forum has actually tried the sport firsthand but I have for a couple of years now and had the chance to spare with a pro (along with 4 others) with a 0-6 record. This guy was smaller than most of us yet took us 3 rounds each one after the other with no break and we were all gassed with bruised ribs by the end, the rounds were competitive and I remember hitting him with my hardest right and it didn't even seem to faze him. A fighting man is a tough man at any level and I can't begin to manage how tough these heavies were at the top. These guys would not have been "scared" of Tyson just because the newspaper told them to be, this for me underlines that Tyson was simply at one stage...unique.

Some of them certainly were intimidated by Tyson I think (Spinks, Bruno etc) but I dont by the argument that they all were or that anybody that isnt automatically beats Tyson.

I wouldn't pay attention to those kind of prats to be honest, mate.

Yes, Tyson does attract hyperbole as well as deluded fan boys to some extent (you know the ones I mean - "A prime Mike Tyson would knock out any other Heavyweight who ever lived in one round easily" and the like) - but what those on completely the other side of the spectrum don't realise is that they're just as bad, and their claims of Tyson being a hype job who'd have been exposed by the likes of Schmeling, Marciano and Quarry - nevermind Ali, Louis or Holmes - are just as fanciful.

Fanciful at best, that is. Just plainly wrong might be more appropriate.

It does irk me that, in some silly quarters, it's seen as a sign of 'knowledge' to dismiss him completely, along with the likes of Roy Jones. Nonsense, the lot of it.

I really do find ridiculous when I read things like: If you weren't scared of Tyson then you had him beat.

88Chris05 wrote:I wouldn't pay attention to those kind of prats to be honest, mate.

Yes, Tyson does attract hyperbole as well as deluded fan boys to some extent (you know the ones I mean - "A prime Mike Tyson would knock out any other Heavyweight who ever lived in one round easily" and the like) - but what those on completely the other side of the spectrum don't realise is that they're just as bad, and their claims of Tyson being a hype job who'd have been exposed by the likes of Schmeling, Marciano and Quarry - nevermind Ali, Louis or Holmes - are just as fanciful.

Fanciful at best, that is. Just plainly wrong might be more appropriate.

It does irk me that, in some silly quarters, it's seen as a sign of 'knowledge' to dismiss him completely, along with the likes of Roy Jones. Nonsense, the lot of it.

Just Rocky and Floyd Patterson.

Seriously, crispears, i wouldn't worry too much about some of the folk who contribute to youtube. A good number of them make waingro and gordy, of blessed memory and formerly of this parish, look like Isaac Newton and Hugh McIlvanney rolled into one package of genius. Tyson is possibly the only fighter of which most of them will have heard.

The truth about Iron Mike, of course, falls somewhere between the competing wild claims that are made for or against him. No, he wasn't the greatest of all time, even at his best. He could be made to look short of ideas and frustrated if his opponent wasn't terrified of him. Some good judges were voicing the opinion that a tall, strong fighter with a ramrod jab and ticker to match would be a hell of a challenge for Mike well before Douglas proved them right.

On the other hand, not too many heavyweights have achieved as much in as short a space of time as Tyson. I would single out his wins against Berbick, Tubbs, Biggs, Holmes and Spinks as seriously impressive demolitions of fighters who, although mostly past their peak, were still regarded as class acts and dangerous opposition at the time. It's easy to be wise in hindsight.

In some respects, Tyson was the modern-day equivalent of someone like Dempsey. Apparently indestructible, both men ultimately came up short against their best opponent. However, that doesn't mean that they're not deserving of a high(ish) place in heavyweight history. Dempsey, by virtue of the fact that his comet blazed for longer, has the call ahead of Mike, but Tyson isn't a million miles behind him, for me. I'd have both at the lower end of a top 10, Tyson possibly in tenth position.

Captain, I actually wrote an article on the direct comparisons between Tyson and Dempsey a few months back, which was based on members of 606v2 collectively judging Dempsey to be the third greatest Heavyweight of all time, with Tyson languishing a whole ten spots behind him, in thirteenth.

Such a gap baffled me, as I really didn't see any reason for it. And to be honest, I decided then (and I maintain this position now) that Tyson actually belongs ahead of Dempsey in the all-time Heavyweight pecking order.

Dempsey overrated on here, Tyson underrated maybe, or perhaps it was a combination of both, but I really don't see any reason why Tyson shouldn't at the very, very least, be in the same company as Jack. The more I think about it these days, I tend to have Dempsey only just sneaking in at number ten , with Tyson a couple of spots ahead.

You make a decent case, Chris as ever. The main strike against Tyson is that he was essentially done as a great fighter after just over three years at championship level, which is a fraction too short for me to place him ahead of Dempsey, for all the holes in Jack's CV. I know that Mike won a couple of belts a few years later, but between Seldon and Bruno, it was hard to tell which was the more petrified of the ogre in the opposite corner, and the fights add little to a rational assessment of Mike.

I've just jotted down the top ten as I see it at this second and I've got Dempsey at 9 and Tyson at 10, which doesn't make me too unhappy.

Perfectly valid points there, captain. I wouldn't necessarily object too heavily to someone having Dempsey higher, you understand. More to the idea that Tyson doesn't even belong in the same bracket, which is often passed off as fact by Tyson's harshest critics.

I agree that a distinct lack of longevity on Tyson's record - even if there were extenuating circumstances - is a black mark against his achievements, but longevity in the championship class isn't really a USP of Dempsey's either, if we factor in his three year hiatus from title fights between 1923 and 1926. You could argue that Tyson's three years as a titlist included more high points than Dempsey's seven, and I'd also contend that Tyson beat the better opposition, too.

That said, Jack did of course perform with much, much greater valour and dignity in trying to relight the flame of his prime years against Tunney than Mike did against Holyfield, but although hypothetical match ups should be little more than a tie breaker in deciding who ranks above who, I can't get the thought from my head that the Tyson of, say, 1988 would simply be too big, too quick and too elusive for any version of Dempsey you care to mention.

Besides the point though, I guess. If the general feeling is that the pair of them aren't separated by all that much then I'm not too fussed which way anyone sees it.

I always said there was something up with Tyson that night whilst many others prefer to believe he was just found out.

Basically looking at the way Douglas fought he was a bit of a one-trick pony, jab jab jab cross and tie up if someone got inside. The way Holyfield exposed Douglas for the medicore boxer he was was is testament to that. Given that Holy basically went out of his way to outjab Douglas leaving Buster clueless as to what to do.

I thought Tyson basically had a poor showing. His usual great inside work was far too easily negated by Douglas' holding tactics and that's where he lost the fight for me.

Be fair Douglas turned up in immaculate shape for Tyson, the same cannot be said for that of his fight with Holyfield. The two can't be compared for me.

However I personally think the Buster Douglas upset was a 50/50 of Buster being ready to go through hell and Tyson not properly showing up due to not training, out of the ring disputes (Putting it lightly) etc.

Unfair, I think, Super D. It wasn't Douglas's holding that put him a mile ahead on any sane scorecard that night (so not the two Japanese judges, then). Against Tyson, Buster was a formidable heavyweight - motivated, fit, utilising a world class jab and an extremely effective overhand right to perfection. We can't compare that Buster Douglas with the uninterested sack of flab that took a paycheck against Holyfield. Evander didn't exactly "take away" Douglas's jab, since Buster decided not to throw it or, indeed, any punches at all.

Tyson may have been below his best in Tokyo, but that had most to do with what he was allowed to achieve on the night. Sure, his mind was a mess, but that had been the case for 18 months already, and hadn't stopped him crushing Spinks, Bruno and Williams. Douglas may have been a lazy so-and-so and a serial underachiever, but for his night of nights, I think that it's wrong to attempt to downplay his performance in any way.

Tyson could have been the greatest, but he wasn't.

He couldn't have been, mackem. That is part of the problem when assessing Tyson - he was a fearsome heavyweight for sure, and gives anybody a tough time at his peak - but there is no way of convincing me, nor many others I'd hazard to guess, that Tyson would ever get too near the likes of a prime Ali, Holmes, Lewis and perhaps a few more.

As has been said countless times before though Chris once you get past Ali and Louis you are really into cigarette paper territory as to what you split them and for me you can take any two from a list of Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey, Foreman, Johnson and Jeffries and make an equally compelling an argument as to why any should rank above or below the other depending what criteria you choose to emphasise. Holmes has his lack of unification fights and dumping the titles to a light heavy, Marciano has the relatively small size and age of his oppo, Johnson has the poor opposition and failure to fight the best challengers and so it goes. You may well be right that Tyson does not deserve to be five or six places below Dempsey but by the same token neither do any of the guys I have mentioned above.

As for Tyson, he is one of those guys like Calzaghe who it seems or certainly seemed for a while no middle ground could be held, he was either a hype job feasting on people beaten before they entered the ring or the greatest ever who in his PRIME © would have beaten any heavyweight ever before Gus Tomato died, as tends to be the case but is a somewhat dull answer the truth tends to lie in the middle.

Fists of Fury wrote:He couldn't have been, mackem. That is part of the problem when assessing Tyson - he was a fearsome heavyweight for sure, and gives anybody a tough time at his peak - but there is no way of convincing me, nor many others I'd hazard to guess, that Tyson would ever get too near the likes of a prime Ali, Holmes, Lewis and perhaps a few more.

For me, none of us witnessed a peak Mike Tyson. They say, heavyweight's peak later in life (size, strength and ring smarts). I don't think Mike would have developed into something stronger, but, his ring smarts and his mental capacity to withstand adversity would have increased by completing his career under the tutelage Cus.

Mike didn't get that chance. He was at his peak in the beginning. This wasn't his peak though?? This was just the best version of Mike we had the chance to watch. What he may have developed into, with his "adopted father" at his side, is frankly mind blowing.

However, the facts reamin, Tyson was great in the beginning, ferocous, fast, powerful and skilled, had a bully's mentality, beat some average-to-decent opponents, had a fragile a mind set, behaved like a coward, and self destructed before we had the chance to see him at his peak.

Mike could have been the greatest but he most certainly wasn't anywhere near.

rowley wrote: he was either a hype job feasting on people beaten before they entered the ring or the greatest ever who in his PRIME © would have beaten any heavyweight ever before Gus Tomato died, as tends to be the case but is a somewhat dull answer the truth tends to lie in the middle.

It may be mundane, but I believe the greats would have beaten Tyson under Cus. He was only a boy in heavyweight terms. Had he had the guidance of Cus into his early mid 30's then we may have witnessed a peak Tyson. Like I say we only saw the best version of Yyson we were ever going to see, not the best version that he could have become.

All speculation though. Facts remain. Weak mind = Top 10-20.

Outside of Ali and Louis, as has been said, its practically a lottery as to who is third. For me its Holmes. Totally dominated the division for 8 years, took on all comers and beat them. Something like 20 defences which is comparable to Louis and with a similar quality of opposition. Those 3 are ahead of the casing pack.

Then the rest. In assessing them you have to take into consideratrion several factors. 1) Ability. 2) Quality of opposition. 3) Longevity. 4) Potential head to head.

1) Ability - Tyson was frightening. Excellent attacking fighters with eceptional handspeed and power in every punch he threw. Wonderful defensive fighter which is often ignored by many. But the way he slipped punched and was always in a position to strike was amazing.

2) Quality of opposition - Well he beat the best available during his reign with ease and unified the title. Should his loss against Douglas count against him? Of course it should. The argument that he wasn't prepared and took him lightly is obvious and probably true. He lacked the sharpness of previous fights, the movement from the waist. To me, he just stood there throwing single punches. Not many combinations. But Douglas put up a wonderful performance and an in shape Tyson would have had difficulties with that version of Dougles. It was a systematic beat down.

3) Longevity. This is where I take exception with many who describe Tyson as a shooting star. He reigned for 4 years and had 9 defences. Rocky reigned for 4 years and had 5 defences. No shooting star issue there.

4) Head to Head. How would Tyson fare against the others ie Dempsey, Rocky, Frazier, Lewis, Foreman. For me he beats them all relatively easily with the exception of Foreman. Lets not forget that it was the shell of the shell of Tyson who Lewis beat. Its akin to giving credit to Berbick for beating Ali.

For me therefore, Tyson is clear 4th in ATG stakes. Much as I like Dempsey, I cant see Tyson having any problems in despatching him and fail to see how Jack ranks above Iron Mike.

Az,

To begin with Tyson's main strength/abilty was to use ALL of his attributes to Maximum Effect. Not many fighter are able to do that consistantly over the course of a fight.

Based on talent, I have him top 3.

I've always maintained that to beat Tyson you have to display exceptional footwork and a near perfect jab to keep him at bay. Holmes had that. Douglas showed it. Ali had it. Louis had a terrific jab but was ponderous sometimes with his fiitwork. Due to that I'd have Tyson beating him but not Holmes or Ali.....even though Holmes had those lapses where he was decked. When Tyson hurts you, he normally finishes things.

Outside of Ali and Louis, as has been said, its practically a lottery as to who is third. For me its Holmes.

That's about half a dozen times I've agreed with something you've posted in the last seven days, Az. I think I've been working too hard.

superflyweight wrote: I think I've been working too hard.

You're a solicitor working in Scotland, of course you've been working too hard.

If only I'd had the necessary foresight to specialize in criminal law, jeff. Two years doing that in Glasgow and I could have retired off the earnings.

I think Tyson matches up pretty well against the best that Heavyweight history has to offer, on the whole.

Foreman may have made short(ish) work of him, and I'd still back George in that one, but outside of that he has a fighting chance against anyone.

Ali and Liston I'm happy to make warm (but not red hot) favourites against Tyson. Ali had the legs, the jab and the knowledge of the dark arts to weather the storm and possibly stop Tyson late on. I think Liston's ramrod jab from the mid round onwards and simply evil uppercuts would spell trouble for Mike. Not beyond the realms of possibility that Tyson could decision Ali or take Liston out early, but more often than not I'd back him to be stopped in the championship rounds.

Those names aside, he's no worse than evens against anyone, for me. I don't see how the slow starters such as Marciano and Frazier, giving away thirty-odd and twenty pounds respectively, can have anything more than a prayer against Tyson. Mike takes them both out early, I'd say, and does the same to Dempsey, only he may need two or three more rounds to get the job done there.

I'd back him against Lewis something in the region of 60:40, he'd likely decision Jeffries if the fight took place within Tyson's own era, would probably be a little too strong and busy for Johnson, while bouts with Louis and Holmes are just about as close to being pick'ems as you can get.

Tyson may be a little thin on record to a certain degree, but as a Heavyweight force when at his best, he scaled heights which very few others have managed.

Agree that the truth with Tyson lays somewhere in the middle. The likes of Spinks & Bruno created this myth that every fighter was beaten by fear before the first bell rang - which wasn't true. Douglas showed that you could face Tyson down with the right mentality - but you had to have the ability to back it up, and Tyson himself (pre prison) was a fighter of great ability; speed, power, head movement, footwork, it was all there.

Thing about YouTube is it has endless edits of Tysons greatest KO moments, which probably accounts for most of these trolls knowledge - add that to the fact the comments are virtually unregulated and you have a morons playground. Best not to get involved.

I would back Tyson to take out Jeffries. Jeffries was a huge man in his own era but Im not sure his durability carries the same against genuine top heavyweights of his own size or bigger. With Tysons power and accuracy I just cant see Jeffries lasting the distance.

Just checked shah's thread regarding top ten heavyweights on a head to head basis and I've got Tyson at number 4 behind Ali, Foreman and Lewis and just ahead of Liston. On reflection, I'm still pretty happy with that.

Otherwise, he's round about number 10/11 in my list of all time heavyweights and I wouldn't have too many problems with someone placing him as high as 8.

Tyson beat plenty of fighters with a jab and good tickers....

Problem is the Tyson in 1990 bore no resemblance to the Tyson in 86....

Not as quick and no head movement....

People disrespect Tyson........who for me circa 87...beats everyone in history bar Ali and Holyfield.....and pickem against foreman...

Anyone before the seventies needn't apply...

But records speak louder than words and he belongs between 10-15....

However he wouldn't lose to just anybody with a ticker who was tall with a jab in his pomp..

and he was finisjhed when Lewis beat him...

As for jeffries..the slug with no defence...

Maybe he'd hear the third bell.....

I mean he was banged at will by Corbet, Sharkey and Fitz....

Berbick was durable too...

[quote="Super D Boon"]I always said there was something up with Tyson that night whilst many others prefer to believe he was just found out.

Basically looking at the way Douglas fought he was a bit of a one-trick pony, jab jab jab cross and tie up if someone got inside. The way Holyfield exposed Douglas for the medicore boxer he was was is testament to that. Given that Holy basically went out of his way to outjab Douglas leaving Buster clueless as to what to do.

I thought Tyson basically had a poor showing. His usual great inside work was far too easily negated by Douglas' holding tactics and that's where he lost the fight for me.
[/quote

Interesting how opinions differ - I always thought that his inside game was one of his weaker areas, and would offer the fights with Green, Smith, And rounds 2 to 5 of the Thomas fight as evidence of this; he was almost passive in the clinches and waited for the ref. the separate them rather than fight his way out of them. Imagine a Frazier or a Marciano in the same fights and you'll see what I mean.
Conversely his best performances against Tucker, Holmes and Spink were all fought with a bit a daylight between him and his opponent, more mid range than long range, but not on the inside.
For me Tyson's best qualities are the ones that we often over look- good punching technique, good balance and foot work, good speed. All the fundamentals he did really well, whereas things like his head movement, combination punching and inside game have been overrated, as they tended to drop away quite quickly after the first couple of rounds.
One thing I definitely agree though, to beat him at his very best would have taken one hell of a performance, and outside of Ali no one would better than even money against him, and that includes Foreman.

Have to second what Horizontal said - Tyson was awesome from about mid range and docile on the inside. When he had the opponent going then came inside he was ruthless but when the opponent had his wits about him Tyson was strangely muted and allowed himself to be tied up in knots.

I disagree about Foreman though, Tyson was something of a boxing historian and understood the importance of styles. Latter day Ali gets beaten by Tyson (if he hasnt been reduced to a gibbering wreck) more often than not and earlier Ali around williams time wins fair comfortably. Foreman however (if allowed to push as he did in the frazier fight) destroys Tyson utterly and if he isnt I give Tyson no more than 30% chance of beating him. I think Lewis was more suited to beating Foreman than Tyson

First of all I think this is an excellent article + debate.

I remember on the original 606 I got flamed for talking up Tyson as one of the truley great HW's of all time. As others have alluded to, the two main things which polarise people's perception of Tyson (especially "expert fans") is the fact that the average person on the street thinks Tyson smashes anyone and everyone, and that second his "prime" (use the term with caution) was so short so as to invalidate any claim to be an ATG.

What I would say to that is: a) Just because the average man on the street says he is the best makes his rating no higher or lower than anyone else, and b) that Tyson's prime and the circumstances surrounding his career 1988-90 was so unique as to make it very difficult to rate his place in history. By this I mean that from Douglas onwards (or maybe even just before the Tillis fight) Tyson's mind and dedication was slipping and by the time he got out of prison and so on, he was shot mentally as a fighter. This in my opinion is quite unique amongst supposedly great fighters. In 99.9% of the time, it is their bodies which start to slide first, look at Louis, Ali, SRR, Jones Jr, etc etc. They all have the desire and mental dedication to fight at the highest level, but not the reflexes and stamina. Tyson was different, his decline was mental, which in turn lead to slacking off training, abandoning his bob/weave swarming style into a straight-lined slugger.

I'm not excusing all of his losses, or trying to apply revisionist history, I just think that such were the extraordinary events leading up to and culminating in Tyson's decline that certain exceptions should be made when juding his place in history. For example, people say "OK he was out of the game for three years and came back shot, therefore he isn't an ATG, Ali was away for three years and look what he still accomplished". To that I would say that while Ali's exile and subsequent return and achievements were truely exceptional, he wasn't in prison, he didn't have the same emotional trauma, he still had his family and suppporters to fall back on etc. Tyson had no one but Don King and was still only in his 20's. Like I said, I know most boxers have some version of a hard luck story, its what usually drives them into boxing, but Tyson's was exceptional for a number of reasons and should be accounted for.

In regards to how he stacks up to other ATG's, I'd make Ali, Lewis and Liston slight favourites against him, Lison especially. I actually think however, that provided we are talking about "prime" (I know) Tyson with his proper trainers, I think he is the perfect fighter to take on Ali, pariticularly with his left hook and combinations. Ali struggled to land on Frazier in FOTC, so a motivated Tyson stands a good chance IMO.

I usually have him 8-10 on my list. However, had he kept out of all the stuff that brought him down, I genuinely think he would be up there with Louis and Ali no question. The star that shines twice as bright lasts half as long.

Tyson reigned for 4 years and had 9 defences. Hardly a shooting star. Compare his time at the top with other champions. Only Ali, Holmes, Lewis and Louis beats that I believe. Can't include K2 as they have never unified.

Holmes never unified. Theoretically neither did Lewis if you mean holding all four titles is neccessary to count.

manos de piedra wrote:Holmes never unified. Theoretically neither did Lewis if you mean holding all four titles is neccessary to count.

Holmes was the accepted best. He beat Weaver who went on to claim the WBA belt. Lewis was unified champion when he beat Holyfield and even though relinquished some, was still the real World Champion. But its all semantics.

Im not arguing that just merely pointing out that the criteria you use above is not consistent. You appear to be excluding the Klitschkos on the basis of never having fought each other as oppose to not unifying or being the recognised best.

Fair enough. I still dont see how one of the longest title holders in the history of the division can be called a shooting star.

I can sort of see why because his success came when he was young and he was finished at a young age when most heavyweights now are only reaching world level. His title reign on its own is not bad compared to most other heavyweights but actual longetivity as a fighter overall maybe not so much. The likes of Holmes, Lewis or the Klitschkos might not technically meet the definaition on long reigning undisuted champions but they were top tier heavyweights for over a decade well into their later years so in that sense they enjoyed greater longetivity. Same with guys like Frazier or Holyfield Tyson bursting on to the scene at such a young age before exiting invariably has a big impact though.

I understand that. But he was around for 7 years before jail robbed him of some good years.

I would say Lewis was the unified champion as quite frankly no one cared about the WBO heavyweight title at the time, it had briefly been held by Bowe but had no history and no relevance.

If everyone used Az criteria...then Virgil Hill would be ranked higher than Conn.....etc....

Holmes beat a lot of chaff...

and lost to a skinny 175er.....

not interested in longevity If you are beating stiff after stiff.....

Zanon.....Frazier...Bey.......Berbick.......leon spinks......OSSIE OCASIO....

I didn't mean Tyson was a shooting star, I mean he didn't reign as long as he should have, and as brilliant as he was, he didn't maximize his potential as a boxer IMO, rather than referring to how long he held the title/s.

Still at his absolute best, he would have a chance of beating anyone in history in my opinion. I rate him that highly. (Nomex suit at the ready).

its the whole "prime" tyson that irks most fans, because lets face it we can now look back in hindsight at his whole career like we would do anybody else, we dont just stop and say how great naz was before barrera, or just remember foreman before the ali defeat. of course foreman gets kudos for walking through greats like frazier, and so does tyson for his early reign. but the fact remains that tyson lost to the best heavies of his generation, and there is only one person to blame for that and thats tyson.

most of the great heavies were great heavies throughout there career normally untill the very end, tyson was great for 3 years and then got average for the rest of his career and needs marking down for this.

Well yes, in the strictest letter of the law, Tyson did lose multiple times over to the best Heavyweights he faced in general, but there's no question that fights against Holyfield and Lewis would have been very, very different had Tyson fought them when he was in his best years, even if they had still managed to beat him.

Leaving that aside, however, I still think an argument can be made that Tyson's actual fist title reign is a lot better than some people give him credit for. His victims, collectively, read better than all but a small handful of Heavyweights', and I consider it remiss to see the likes of Dempsey's wins over Willard, Gibbons and Carpentier, or Marciano's over Charles, Louis and La Starza, touted as brilliant ones while Tyson's wins over the likes of Spinks, Tucker and Holmes are wiitten off as being nothing to write home about.

I'll never give him the overwhelming benefit of the doubt the way some others do for the Douglas defeat, however. Douglas took on a 'prime' Tyson (feeling off-colour and / or taking it easier than is acceptable in training doesn't constitute being past your prime, I'm afraid) and beat him.

tysons prime was when lewis was making his pro debut, im sure it would have been different in that case!! but prime for prime i still have lewis as favourite. the fact was is he was 30 years old when he was beat by holyfield, how many fighters have been shot at 30! lewis gets beaten with a stick for being lazy in his defeat to rahman, how does tyson get away with it for doing it most of his career. i dont buy into the excuses of him falling apart after gus dieing etc, contributed yes but just as much as losing his hunger after getting alot of fame and money early on in his career. (something that nearly every atg fighter has had to deal with and nearly all did it alot better with it)

Tyson was jailed and out of the sport for four years. Its bound to have a big impact. Few fighters have been able to come back after a length of time like that and get back to their best.

compelling and rich wrote:tysons prime was when lewis was making his pro debut, im sure it would have been different in that case!! but prime for prime i still have lewis as favourite. the fact was is he was 30 years old when he was beat by holyfield, how many fighters have been shot at 30! lewis gets beaten with a stick for being lazy in his defeat to rahman, how does tyson get away with it for doing it most of his career. i dont buy into the excuses of him falling apart after gus dieing etc, contributed yes but just as much as losing his hunger after getting alot of fame and money early on in his career. (something that nearly every atg fighter has had to deal with and nearly all did it alot better with it)

I agree with some of what you're saying, but when you compare Tyson's personal life + history with say for example Ali, who was also out of the game for a similar length of time I would put forward that there is a significant difference between the two. For example, first Tyson was in prison, while Ali was in boxing exile yet could still live a relatively normal life. Tyson lost D'Amato, Rooney (his own fault mind), but also Cayton and his other handlers who had up until that point looked after him well. He had no family or reliable support figures while Ali had numerous family members not to mention the NOI. So just on that basis I would suggest you can't generalise Tyson's rise+fall in general terms.

Having said that, that is not to dismiss or belittle the harships other fighters had/have to face. Just look at Someone like Ron Lyle or Sonny Liston. Its just I don't think you can compare somone like Tyson with someone like Lewis who had a relatively comfortable upbrining and support structure, and which therefore gave him a more solid foundation on which to build his boxing career.

When you look at Tyson's background and what he had for support, it was always likely he wouldn't stay straight for very long, but that shouldn't dimish from what a fantastic fighter he was, if only for a somewhat curtailed period. I agree that a good deal of what went wrong with Tyson is his own fault, but that a fair part of it can be attributed to things outside his control which in turn interferred with how great he was/could have been in the ring whe compared with other ATG's.

BTW, for the record, I would favour a late 80's version of Tyson to beat any version of Lewis, and Holyfield for that matter, particularly if he hadn't been introduced to Evan Fields.

I was speaking in terms of his general background/personal life and how this contributed to his eventual downfall in the ring. The fact that when he went through difficult times (of his own making or otherwise) he had no support structure, particularly when compared to other ATG's.

compelling and rich wrote:tysons prime was when lewis was making his pro debut, im sure it would have been different in that case!! but prime for prime i still have lewis as favourite. the fact was is he was 30 years old when he was beat by holyfield, how many fighters have been shot at 30!

It's not quite as uncommon as it may seem at first, to be honest, particularly for a swarming type of fighter like Tyson. You only need to look at the three most lauded and notorious Heavyweight swarmers before him to see what I mean. Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier; all of them retired (save for Smokin' Joe's regrettable, one-fight comeback) at the age of thirty-two, and all of them decidedly past their sparkling best at around the time of hitting the big 3-0, with not that many notable moments between them when past that barrier.

Wilfred Benitez, Tony Canzoneri, Vicente Saldivar etc - there are a surprising number of fighters, classed without hesitation as 'great', who burned out at the highest level at a comparable age to Tyson, or in some cases an even younger age.

As Manos has already alluded to, I'm not sure Tyson's first defeat against Holyfield is all that fair a reflection of him as a fighter (the second fight, of course, will always remain an ignominious and shameful black mark against him, though). He'd boxed a total of eight rounds (including rounds not completed) in the previous five years. That's no preparation for Evander, even a battle-worn version. I appreciate that Holyfield was the huge underdog, and that he was perhaps past his absolute best too, but upon watching the fight it's clear from the off just who had deteriorated more of the pair.

Thats a good point, the swarming style takes a huge toll on the body due to the amount of punishment one has to absorb to get in range to do their work.

I also think Tyson's decline was compunded by becoming more of a stand up slugger which given his height and reach relative to most other HW's was always a dangerous and ill-advised tactic (if you can call it that) as it made him more of a static target which played into Holfyfield and especially Lewis' hands.

Evan fighters who "lived the life" such as Frazier and Patterson found it difficult to last beyond 30-35 at an elite level.

With Tyson I think it was mainly the jail time and his own mentality that caused the decline. He was a swarmer, but other than the Douglas fight, he never really shipped much punishment or had too many demanding fights pre prison. 4 years is a long break and I just think he lost alot of his sharpness and seemed to forget alot of the combinations and dynamism that had made him great.