'prime mike tyson'

I am a regular viewer of these boards and have been since it was the old 606 o the bbc website, one thing that perplexes me is the 'prime tyson' myth which has developed and is contiually talked about on these boards

tyson was no doubt great in the mid to late 80's but:
1 the division was poor in my view
2. his 'peak' was short and therefore does not deserve the credit it gets
3. when he should have been at his 'peak' he did not deliver

what are your guys views?

Many casual fans think of him as the greatest without question. I don't do rankings but if I did he'll be around 8-10.

The problem I have is the nuthuggers saying 'yeah but Cus kept him on track and he fell apart after' but Cus died about 10-12 fights before he even became champ and a few years before his 'prime' declined.

He was good, very good but not the all destroying monster some think IMO.

Valero's Conscience wrote:Many casual fans think of him as the greatest without question.  I don't do rankings but if I did he'll be around 8-10.

The problem I have is the nuthuggers saying 'yeah but Cus kept him on track and he fell apart after' but Cus died about 10-12 fights before he even became champ and a few years before his 'prime' declined.

He was good, very good but not the all destroying monster some think IMO.

completely agree i think most boxing fans would see that the hype that surrounded tyson was just that he was good yes very good at times i wouldnt have him in the top 10 atg list somewhere around 15/16 for me

Bert Sugar has him at 100 in "Boxing's Greatest Fighters", and I'm sure that was only so he could put a photo on the front cover and sell more books

the way he blasted his way through average fighters did a lot for his reputation.
it always frustrates me when supposed future stars struggle with average fighters.

that said, i think he found his level when up against the best and he couldn't get them out of there early and perhaps lost heart.

he's openly admitted he was petrified before every fight, he was an is a very emotional bloke.

there's no argument through he was bloody good.

Its difficult to quantify his ability, because on the one hand he made good boxers look absolutely terrible which adds weight to the poor era, yet pushed some very good boxers very hard and got good wins - look at Bruno, he was a very good boxer and he was petrified of Tyson. I would rate him between 15 - 20 if I was feeling harsh and at the bottom of the 10 - 15 if I were being generous. I think for his ability he was very good, and would have prospered in a harder division, but his "peak" came at a time when Holyfield and Lewis were still relative amateurs despite the ages being similar. I think his lifestyle and his mindset changed his ability to really mix it with them at the points he did, perhaps if he'd faced them in his mythical "PRIME TYSON EATS BULLDOZERS AND CRAPS BROKEN BOTTLES" phase he'd have fared much better.

Wasnt he in jail at his absolute peak years?

His absolute peak I'd say was 86 - 89

His prime was 4 years. 9 defences included. Nailed on top 10 ATG. Only 2 other hws were better than him as fighters and only with one would I have full confidence in him beating him and that was Ali. Holmes I'd back to beat him at their respective peaks.

I think reason "prime" is so often assiciated with tyson is because there is such an obvious deterioration post prison. Where he gets ranked depends on each persons criteria. There arent many of the greats i would make significant favourite over him though and the weak era argument can be levelled at almost any era outside of the 70s.

I think he was actually a boxer who relied on the fear factor once he came up against a guy who wasn't afraid Tyson struggled I also think this whole peak Tyson thing is exagerated

That's a nonsense argument wheelchair.

I don't think so azania the reason being Evander defiantly didn't fear Tyson and I think Tyson knew this and found it hard to deal with added to the fact that the real deal had a big heart made him a nightmare for Tyson who he couldn't beat hence why in the 2nd fight he decided to bite him I also think that after buster Douglas beat Tyson, he never really recovered and in fact said as much himself when he said his career was over in 1990

wheelchair1991 wrote:I think he was actually a boxer who relied on the fear factor once he came up against a guy who wasn't afraid Tyson struggled I also think this whole peak Tyson thing is exagerated

Think thats reaching a little - Tyson was a whirlwind of power and pressure who had a horrible little setup jab. Don't think her relied on the fear factor in his initial years, think he relied on the fact he was nothing like they'd faced before and went blustering through them like they weren't there. Tyson did have a peak - nobody could touch him between 86 - 89 until Douglas stood up and boxed one of the best fights he possibly could have. The issue is that people seem to assume that because he was that good against his opposition, that meant he could wreck most heavyweights in history which is complete conjecture with absolutely no evidence. To say that Tyson would beat this version of Wlad is completely flawed if you base this on who he beat in his peak as he never fought anyone that size. TO say he declined rapidly is a fair assessment, but to then rubbish his ability post-prison is again making out that he didn't have a great fight with Holyfield who countered the relentless aggression and power with rough housing tactics he'd used throughout his career, so why wouldn't that version of Holyfield beaten a "prime" version? Not much was different that I'd see.

Tends to be Tyson Fanboys who come up with that - they also claim the mid 80's Tyson would destroy a peak Lewis. They'd be wrong of course, but it doesn't stop them.

wheelchair1991 wrote:I don't think so azania the reason being Evander defiantly didn't fear Tyson and I think Tyson knew this and found it hard to deal with added to the fact that the real deal had a big heart made him a nightmare for Tyson who he couldn't beat hence why in the 2nd fight he decided to bite him I also think that after buster Douglas beat Tyson, he never really recovered and in fact said as much himself when he said his career was over in 1990    

The reason is at the times they met evander was the better guy. He had his number. I should add that tyson fought Mr Evan Field in all likelihood.

The Tyson that lost to Lewis, also lost to McBride... I dont think Tyson's Lewis fight is a good yard stick of where he would have measured up vs Lewis "Peak for peak"

The Tyson that lost to Lewis, also lost to McBride... I dont think Tyson's Lewis fight is a good yard stick of where he would have measured up vs Lewis "Peak for peak"

But would the "peak" Tyson that beat Frank Bruno have beaten Lewis? You have to look at Lewis at his peak, and you can be selective of any point in their career, I think the Lewis that Vitali faced would have been run over by that Tyson.


Its all relative.

Did you have to reiterate it?

Under rated in here for me.

8-10 in terms of legacy. Tucker, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks, Bruno, Tubbs, Williams, Biggs, Berbick and Smith were all totally dominated and knocked out with the exception of Tucker where Tyson showed his versatility.

Head to head: I can't think of 5 fighters in who would start favourite against him.

Tyson was a hgh energy swarmer, once he lost that edge post prison he was not the same fighter.

Yes Tyson's era wasn't the greatest.......unlike now where it is brimming with talent...........

I imagine without being patronising the problem Brits have when analysing Tyson's opposition is that you never saw a lot of them fight often........

When I moved here there was hardly any Boxing on TV and I imagine in the 80's it was much the same..

I grew up watching...Tubbs, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Spinks etc and they were all technically very good fighters.........

Tyson made them look average because he was so good............

I'd only pick in the whole of Boxing's history.....Ali to definitely beat him.......Sure others have a pretty good chance but a young Tyson has a pretty good chance of beating Foreman, Lewis, Louis. Johnson, Frazier, Liston etc.........

In conclusion you guys never really saw Tubbs, Thomas, Biggs fight so you only have the Tyson fight to judge as to their skill level...

Tyson's era was better than you give credit for..

I can think of 5.

1. Ali
2. Wlad
3. Holmes
4. Frazier
5. Lewis
6. Vitali
7. Marciano
8. Johnson
9. Holyfield
10. Foreman

Sorry, got carried away.

Leave it out...

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I can think of 5.

1. Ali
2. Wlad
3. Holmes
4. Frazier
5. Lewis
6. Vitali
7. Marciano
8. Johnson
9. Holyfield
10. Foreman

Sorry, got carried away.

He could have beaten Wlad, Marciano, Vitali, Johnson and Lewis on alternate sundays.

In fact he probably would have beaten Wlad and Marciano in the same round.

I guess that was a little obvious.

I'd still say that at least 3/4 of them start as favorites against Tyson at his "peak" though.

Fearless...Young posters on here fail to "GET" a few things about Tyson.........

1. He had great power in his prime...........
2. He had terrific handspeed...
3. He had terrific size and compactibility........hence guys like Frazier have to fight on the back foot and frazier couldn't.........Probably beat George to the punch although George had a punchers chance..BNut Tyson did move his head better..
4. Tyson intimidated fighters like Louis......Both Spinks and Holmes were intimidated in those fights....

5. People forget Lewis and Wlad went splat against Mccall, Rahman and Sanders and Brewster...

6. Holy and Lewis caught a poor version of him...

7. Tyson had a great chin

But hey don't let the truth get in the way of a Tyson knocking session.

Mate none of them apart from perhaps Foreman and Ali start as favorites against Tyson in 87.......You weren't around so just leave it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Fearless...Young posters on here fail to "GET" a few things about Tyson.........

1. He had great power in his prime...........
2. He had terrific handspeed...
3. He had terrific size and compactibility........hence guys like Frazier have to fight on the back foot and frazier couldn't.........Probably beat George to the punch although George had a punchers chance..BNut Tyson did move his head better..
4. Tyson intimidated fighters like Louis......Both Spinks and Holmes were intimidated in those fights....

5. People forget Lewis and Wlad went splat against Mccall, Rahman and Sanders and Brewster...

6. Holy and Lewis caught a poor version of him...

7. Tyson had a great chin

But hey don't let the truth get in the way of a Tyson knocking session.

Mate none of them apart from perhaps Foreman and Ali start as favorites against Tyson in 87.......You weren't around so just leave it..

tyson went splat to buster douglas as well.

Don't take this the wrong way but we are talking prime Tyson.....

You weren't around at the time so you don't understand what a monster Tyson was and the effect he had on opponents..........People in 87 were saying he was unbeatable and Holmes and Spinks were intimidated as was your frank and others.........

The Klits would have to overcome this fear and people aren't taking the mental aspect into consideration as well as the speed and head movement of kid dynamite..

I get tired of hearing what a poor era it was from squirts who never saw the likes of Tubbs, Witherspoon, Page, Biggs.......believe me they were highly skilled operators.....and they deserve more respect..

It is perceived weak because Tyson made it look easy...........

Now shove your stupid one line rebuttal up your backside......Tyson that lost to Buster wasn't the same animal........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Fearless...Young posters on here fail to "GET" a few things about Tyson.........

1. He had great power in his prime...........
2. He had terrific handspeed...
3. He had terrific size and compactibility........hence guys like Frazier have to fight on the back foot and frazier couldn't.........Probably beat George to the punch although George had a punchers chance..BNut Tyson did move his head better..
4. Tyson intimidated fighters like Louis......Both Spinks and Holmes were intimidated in those fights....

5. People forget Lewis and Wlad went splat against Mccall, Rahman and Sanders and Brewster...

6. Holy and Lewis caught a poor version of him...

7. Tyson had a great chin

But hey don't let the truth get in the way of a Tyson knocking session.

Mate none of them apart from perhaps Foreman and Ali start as favorites against Tyson in 87.......You weren't around so just leave it..

Spot on. I recall reading ko, boxing illustrated and ring. All those were regarded as great technicians. Page was compared to many greats. Thomas had a terrific jab. Tubbs had the fastest hands I had ever seen.

page was a huge underachiever Azania............Holmes avoided him by giving up the WBC strap........Excellent fighter who was better than Witherspoon and Tubbs but lacked the motivation.......

Tubbs was super quick..

80's rule!

Yay!

Talking about squirts..

You know it all already mate, no point trying to tell you anything.

Mike Tyson was massively overrated.

Union Cane wrote:You know it all already mate, no point trying to tell you anything.

took the words out of my mouth

Duty281 wrote:Mike Tyson was massively overrated.

I'll ignore the wum..........Duty I expect a bit more than that from you.....wheelchair  - 1991!! say's it all you weren't around Mate..

However at least you offer something to the board..

You weren't around in Demseys era so can't possibly know the aura surrounding him.

On that basis, the most knowledgeable boxing fan is also the oldest.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:You weren't around in Demseys era so can't possibly know the aura surrounding him.

On that basis, the most knowledgeable boxing fan is also the oldest.

Yes we can because scribes tell us of his aura.......That's how we learn from history.......

mike tyson fights were exciting.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yes we can because scribes tell us of his aura.......That's how we learn from history.......

You've just completely contradicted yourself there.

 

To me the most overrated HW boxer on this board is Lewis. Some have him top 5 which is beyond stupid. Had he remained Canadian he would have been top 15. Never let patriotism cloud your minds.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:mike tyson fights were exciting.

They certainly were occasions.............Sure guys like Rowley would be able to back me up on the "Aura" he had ..........and that the guys he beat were good as Azania has alluded to..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:You weren't around in Demseys era so can't possibly know the aura surrounding him.

On that basis, the most knowledgeable boxing fan is also the oldest.

Yes we can because scribes tell us of his aura.......That's how we learn from history.......

I agree. Glad you've seen the error of your ways.

Union Cane wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yes we can because scribes tell us of his aura.......That's how we learn from history.......

You've just completely contradicted yourself there.

 

Go away...You're pointless.................No contradiction..........I was around in Tyson's time and I'm scribing that he had an aura..

Like I said you're pointless..

azania wrote:To me the most overrated HW boxer on this board is Lewis.  Some have him top 5 which is beyond stupid.  Had he remained Canadian he would have been top 15. Never let patriotism cloud your minds.

I have top 10/15 Azania.............

The only 'myth' regarding Tyson's prime is the one continually spouted by people such as wheelchair, who claim, amongst other things, that; Tyson's prime was short, he won purely through intimidation smashing through men too scared to fight, he beat extremely poor opponents, any Heavy with a decent jab would beat him, he couldn't fight beyond 4 rounds, etc. etc.

As Azania has already pointed out, Tyson was champion between 1986 - 1990, racking up 9 consecutive defences and 10 consecutive world title fight wins. Included in the crop of fighters Tyson beat during this time were; 2 future HoFers, one Olympic Gold medalist, and numerous past or future world champions.

Tyrell Biggs was a gold medalist with a quality jab who fought very bravely against Tyson. It is doing him a huge disservice to say that anyone with a jab who was not scared could handle Tyson - the implication is clear, that Biggs was a coward.

Tyson also utterly cleaned out his division, unifying all major belts en route to becoming the most dominant heavyweight champion in boxing history (arguably).

I think there is a good debate to be had about Tyson's standing (we have had it numerous times!) - I have him top 10, but respect the opinion of those who rank him lower.

However, nonsense statements about longevity (9 defences is more than Dempsey managed in his whole career), and the alleged 'bravery', or lack thereof, of his opponents have no place in any sensible and/or objective debate on the topic.

just because I am 21 does not mean Truss I cannot have an opinion nor does it mean that my opinion is worth any less I think you are making way to much of this age thing if I am honest

wheelchair1991 wrote:just because I am 21 does not mean Truss I cannot have an opinion nor does it mean that my opinion is worth any less I think you are making way to much of this age thing if I am honest

I welcome your opinion Mate.........it's valid but I'm just pointing out.......You never saw the aura of invincibility.....and you never saw his opponents more than I did..So all this weak stuff doesn't wash.........Fighting Tyson was more mentally draining that you understand years later..Took a hugely confident man with nothing to lose to wreck him.......

You certainly underrate him.............. ......

Hang on a minute, you say that wheelchair can't know what he is talking about because he wasn't around, but you know all about Dempsey because you read something about him. How is that not contradictory? Actually don't answer that, because to be honest with you I'm not interested, I've got better things to do than try to get a straight answer out of a crashing bore. Enjoy your weekend.

Union Cane wrote:Hang on a minute, you say that wheelchair can't know what he is talking about because he wasn't around, but you know all about Dempsey because you read something about him. How is that not contradictory? Actually don't answer that, because to be honest with you I'm not interested, I've got better things to do than try to get a straight answer out of a crashing bore. Enjoy your weekend.

You're completely pointless..go away