Keyboard warriors/ WUMS vs Mike Tyson

First topic message reminder :

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.

This is true, manos, but even in the Ruddock fights that followed Douglas a year or so later and preceded Tyson's time in jail, it was clear that something fundamental had been lost. He shipped severe punishment then, of a type that would have been unthinkable just two years earlier, and was still two days short of his 25th birthday on the second occasion. It would be hard to tip that Tyson to beat the Holyfield, Bowe or Lewis of 91 with any great confidence.

Tyson's era as a truly elite fighter covers the years 86-early 90. Not long, although long enough to create an indelible impression of something bordering violent genius. However, when you look at how someone like Donald Curry is regarded, whose own considerable peak lasted about the same length of time, it is possible to suggest that we are not always consistent in our assessment of fighters. Curry's list of victims in his prime, and the style with which he dispatched many of them, loses nothing by comparison with Mike's, and yet he is now something of an afterthought (with certain distinguished exceptions) for many people.

I do still believe that a place at the very lower end of the top 10 is not an unfair judgement on Tyson, a man who, I suspect, will still divide opinion fifty years from now.

I suppose Tyson may not have been at his best for the Ruddock fights, but were the performances all that worse than what Holyfield was managing against pensioners Foreman and Holmes or Cooper? Lennox Lewis back then hadnt really got onto world level, and was still pretty vulnerable considering what would happen against Bruno, Mercer and McCall in his pre Manny Steward days.

A lot of it comes down to what significance one attaches to Tysons post prison career for me. Evaluating Tyson as a fighter at his best I think its pretty easy to ignore the post prison stint as he just wasnt at his best in any of those years. The 80s version of Tyson is really what you are dealing with.

But in evaluating his legacy or overall status then its difficult to know how much to emphasise his post prison career. He was certainly past his past his best, but does that entitle him to get a free pass for everything post prison? On the other hand is it right place too much importance on a period where a fighter has been out of the game for years and is coming back clearly past his best?

The tricky part for me is assessing Tysons career, as opposed to his ability. I think at his best he was great heavyweight, easily top ten worthy, maybe top 5. But the career he ended up with leaves so many if, buts and maybes. I dont think its right to just take Tysons stint in the 80s to evaluate his career and ignore everything after. But equally I struggle to know how much importance to attach to his career after prison when he just wasnt the same fighter.

Good post, Manos.

Even Tyson's biggest critics would have to concede that he was past his best by a considerable distance by the time Holyfield beat him. I think, however, that it's the manner of Tyson's defeats which leave such a sour taste, and being past his best doesn't really wash as an excuse.

All of Tyson's defeats came by stoppage (the 'bite fight' aside) and in most cases they were pretty comprehensive defeats. Great fighters, past their best and outgunned, can still lose with dignity, valour and emerge with credit; Duran against Hagler, Whitaker against De la Hoya / Trinidad, Chavez against Gonzalez etc.

There isn't even a hint of such a fine losing effort on Tyson's record, hence the whispering campaign that he was boxing's 'tin man', lacking heart, mental strength and, as ringside writer's used to call it in Marciano's day, "bottom." It adds huge fuel to the fire which suggests that Tyson could never have hoped to compete with any of the Heavyweight greats who went before him, as he was just a bully who couldn't dig deep, couldn't adapt, couldn't win unless he was on top from the start.

As I say, being past his best may account for the defeats, but not so much the actual manner of them.

In the Douglas and Lewis fights in particular in took a sustained beating and kept coming forward, and in Holy 1, didn't he get KD in the round before finally getting KO'd? So to say he had no heart is a bit OTT. He wasn't Frazier, Marciano or Patterson in the will the win stakes, but he did have more heart than some give him credit for.

I agree Nathan - I wasn't suggesting that Tyson having no heart was my own personal opinion, more so just the one of his biggest detractors.

I think there's a difference between heart and mental strength, though. Tyson certainly had the former; as you say, he remained upright for long periods despite taking a hammering from both Douglas and Lewis, and it's nigh-on miraculous that he was even able to rise in any way after that final combination that Buster put on him.

But in the fights with Holyfield, Lewis etc, there is enough to suggest that Tyson had mentally given up on believing he could win a long way before the fight ended. He never realy gave the impression that he could turn a situation like that on its head, never hinted that he could stage a come from behind victory.

His chin and his natural toughness always remained, but I do think that there is evidence suggesting that, now and then, his pool of mental strength and confidence evaporated relatively quickly.

I don't think he entered the Lewis fight believing he could win. He knew he was shot and fought primarily for the money.

His problem was one of style. His style was seek and destroy by coming forward. He didn't have a plan B in his arsenal. Similarly Joe Frazier didn't have a plan B as their style was usually good enough.

I actually think that does Tyson less than full justice, az. Against Tucker, for example, perhaps as a result of being caught by that terrific uppercut in the first round, Tyson showed an extraordinary maturity to box in a way that we hadn't really seen from him before. He didn't exactly box on the back foot, but he certainly outthought Tucker, using his (highly serviceable) jab and consistently beating the bigger man to the punch.

I honestly think that the confidence of having Rooney in his corner during the glory days can't be overstated. More than anything, I believe that the young Tyson craved security. When the moorings of his life were cut adrift, and charlatans like Snowell were allowed to infest his corner, Mike became about half the fighter. The warning signs were there a year before Douglas - after he beat Bruno, a fight in which Tyson's corner were utterly clueless, one of the trade papers proclaimed: "The Frank Bruno fight shows - Tyson can be beaten!"

12 months later, of course, that magazine looked rather prophetic.

Not trying to do him an injustice. What I mean is that is style was brutally effective, but couldn't adapt it to suit another tactic. Against most HWs in history he wouldn't need to. Also very few HW's could adapt. He wasn't tall enough to fight off the back foot. Not canny enough to try a rope a dope. What he did was brutal, violent, effective and thoroughly efficient. Yes he did have a tremendous jab which was quick and brutal. It became neglected when he tried to be a pure slugger.

88Chris05 wrote:Good post, Manos.

Even Tyson's biggest critics would have to concede that he was past his best by a considerable distance by the time Holyfield beat him. I think, however, that it's the manner of Tyson's defeats which leave such a sour taste, and being past his best doesn't really wash as an excuse.

All of Tyson's defeats came by stoppage (the 'bite fight' aside) and in most cases they were pretty comprehensive defeats. Great fighters, past their best and outgunned, can still lose with dignity, valour and emerge with credit; Duran against Hagler, Whitaker against De la Hoya / Trinidad, Chavez against Gonzalez etc.

There isn't even a hint of such a fine losing effort on Tyson's record, hence the whispering campaign that he was boxing's 'tin man', lacking heart, mental strength and, as ringside writer's used to call it in Marciano's day, "bottom." It adds huge fuel to the fire which suggests that Tyson could never have hoped to compete with any of the Heavyweight greats who went before him, as he was just a bully who couldn't dig deep, couldn't adapt, couldn't win unless he was on top from the start.

As I say, being past his best may account for the defeats, but not so much the actual manner of them.

I guess it depends on how past it one considers Tyson though. The Lewis, Williams and McBride defeats I think he was absolutely finished for. Barley worth counting them I think. And there have been fighters as good as or better than Tyson that have suffered similalrly inglorious kind of defeats of those nature when they have carried on well past their best days.If he hadnt been still relatively young, I think people would dismiss those losses far quicker.

Don't get me wrong, Manos - I'd never bump Tyson down on the basis of the Lewis, Williams and McBride farces. Was really only pointing them out as they constitute, I feel, a large proportion of the negative view which exists around Tyson in some quarters. I feel that the "all you needed to beat Tyson was to not be afraid" myth is largely attributable to such defeats, unfortunately.

I think the losses to Douglas and Holyfield (particularly his disgraceful showing in the rematch against the latter) can be read in to, however.

To be fair you mainly get boneheaded Tyson fans spamming every boxing video on how Tyson would KO anyone who ever walked the planet in the first round in his "prime".

Yeah I would pretty much agree with that. I find it difficult to rate him overall though on the basis of his two seperate stints. Ordinarily when I rank fighters I dont place to much emphasis on the periods before and after their title years and try to judge them mainly on their peak years. Doing this for Tyson means almost leaving out everything post 1991 though, and viewing him as a finished fighter by about the age of 25. The second stint, as you say, casts such a shadow over his first reign though thats its just difficut to ignore entirely. Theres no real excuse for it either, its all Tysons own doing and self destruction. So to ignore it altogether appears to be overly generous to a fighter that wasted alot of years.