'prime mike tyson'

First topic message reminder :

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?

The myth that he was a4 round fighter needs looking into also. Thomas was in 7. Tyrell was in 8. He was a superb boxer and would have given any hw in history much to think of.

Can we stick to the op as opposed to point scoring over minor issues?

azania wrote:The myth that he was a4 round fighter needs looking into also.  Thomas was in 7. Tyrell was in 8. He was a superb boxer and would have given any hw in history much to think of.

Absolutely AZ..........Seems it's only moderators that wum on here these days..........Not given enough credit for Biggs, Tucker and Holmes.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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.............. ......

Yeah but he can read about it. Like you did with Dempsey.

well Truss i'm glad you think my view is valid at the end of the day its a good debate which is always positive

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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

careful he is a mod.

azania wrote:The myth that he was a4 round fighter needs looking into also.  Thomas was in 7. Tyrell was in 8. He was a superb boxer and would have given any hw in history much to think of.

Agree entirely.

I don't think any of the arguments used to claim Tyson's 4 year, 9 defence prime were a 'myth' actually stand up to even the lightest of scrutiny.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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.............. ......

Yeah but he can read about it. Like you did with Dempsey.

Watch youtube and Lewis beating Tyson.............that's where they get there info from...........

Champagne Mate..........He is a mod but he never chucks anything but one line witticisms in...He is completely pointless and irrelevant.

Gentleman01 wrote:

azania wrote:The myth that he was a4 round fighter needs looking into also.  Thomas was in 7. Tyrell was in 8. He was a superb boxer and would have given any hw in history much to think of.

Agree entirely.

I don't think any of the arguments used to claim Tyson's 4 year, 9 defence prime were a 'myth' actually stand up to even the lightest of scrutiny.

Agreed also..

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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

careful he is a mod.

I won't abuse my powers, not my style.

All I'm doing is pointing out the very obvious flaws in Trussman's conflicting arguments, and he is responding by calling me names.

Union Cane wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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

careful he is a mod.

I won't abuse my powers, not my style.

All I'm doing is pointing out the very obvious flaws in Trussman's conflicting arguments, and he is responding by calling me names.

and again...nothing of substance......Called you a wum........and I don't take it back........

Add to a debate....

Tyrell had a lance of a jad, very good footwork and goid speed. Tyson brutalisedhim. Pinklon was a tough nut with ppower and greak skills. Tyson ran through him. The combination that finished Thomas was frightening in its intensity and absolute viciousness.

wheelchair1991 wrote:well Truss i'm glad you think my view is valid at the end of the day its a good debate which is always positive

I like debating Mate...no time for pointless types who make cheap remarks and start crying when they get some back..

You make points I'm counter-ing them

And again!

Question him, you won't get an answer or a retraction or an explanation, you are a wum...

Deary deary me....

Union Cane wrote:And again!

Question him, you won't get an answer or a retraction or an explanation, you are a wum...

Deary deary me....

I'm trying to debate Tyson..............Add to the debate..

Stick to the op ffs.

azania wrote:Tyrell had a lance of a jad, very good footwork and goid speed.  Tyson brutalisedhim. Pinklon was a tough nut with ppower and greak skills. Tyson ran through him. The combination that finished Thomas was frightening in its intensity and absolute viciousness.

Biggs had one of the greatest jabs in heavy history Az......Just didn't have a right to back it up..........Thomas had a great jab also....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

Oh I should elaborate shouldn't I? Here we go then, in no particular order:

1) Never beat a great fighter in their prime.
2) Couldn't beat Holyfield or Lewis.
3) Was Champion in a very weak era.
4) Was only a Champion for a combined 5 years.
5) Lost to Buster Douglas.
6) Poor stamina.

About 10-15 ATG for me.

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..

I agree Truss. Like you I was a dedicated student of boxing in the 80's and was really impressed the way Tyson took apart solid world class fighters.

See: Tubbs Bowe, Witherspoon Holmes, and Thomas Withespoon for an idea of their quality.

Lewis beat a great in his prime???????? Did Louis ??????

Past it when he fought Lewis and Holy.........

Made 9 defences in four years and unified..........and then came back and did it again..

Douglas was a very good fighter and Lewis lost to Rahman

Great stamina........in his prime..

Well that's that rebutted..

fearlessBamber wrote:

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..

I agree Truss. Like you I was a dedicated student of boxing in the 80's and was really impressed the way Tyson took apart solid world class fighters.

See: Tubbs Bowe, Witherspoon Holmes, and Thomas Withespoon for an idea of their quality.

on the money Mate !! 

Duty281 wrote:

Oh I should elaborate shouldn't I? Here we go then, in no particular order:

1) Never beat a great fighter in their prime.
2) Couldn't beat Holyfield or Lewis.
3) Was Champion in a very weak era.
4) Was only a Champion for a combined 5 years.
5) Lost to Buster Douglas.
6) Poor stamina.

About 10-15 ATG for me.

You forgot

7) Only had one leg
8) Was only 3 feet tall

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lewis beat a prime great in his prime????????/ Did Louis ??????

Past it when he fought Lewis and Holy.........

Made 9 defences in four years and unified..........

Douglas was a very good fighter and Lewis lost to Rahman

Great stamina........in his prime..

Well that's that rebutted..

Very short prime wasn't it? Holyfield still battered him twice, leading to Tyson throwing a hissy fit in the second fight. Lewis still absolutely caned Tyson, people forget Lewis was older and closer to retirement than Tyson was in that fight. Douglas was a 42/1 (something like that outsider) and absolutely dominated Tyson. Lewis lost by one-punch KOs to Rahman and McCall, both of whom he rematched, before winning.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

Oh I should elaborate shouldn't I? Here we go then, in no particular order:

1) Never beat a great fighter in their prime.
2) Couldn't beat Holyfield or Lewis.
3) Was Champion in a very weak era.
4) Was only a Champion for a combined 5 years.
5) Lost to Buster Douglas.
6) Poor stamina.

About 10-15 ATG for me.

The era he was champ was second only to the 70s. The fights with holy and Lewis was at the end of his career. Would you holdspinks and berbick aagainst Ali? Poor stamina? Such an ignorant comment.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lewis beat a prime great in his prime????????/ Did Louis ??????

Past it when he fought Lewis and Holy.........

Made 9 defences in four years and unified..........

Douglas was a very good fighter and Lewis lost to Rahman

Great stamina........in his prime..

Well that's that rebutted..

Very short prime wasn't it? Holyfield still battered him twice, leading to Tyson throwing a hissy fit in the second fight. Lewis still absolutely caned Tyson, people forget Lewis was older and closer to retirement than Tyson was in that fight. Douglas was a 42/1 (something like that outsider) and absolutely dominated Tyson. Lewis lost by one-punch KOs to Rahman and McCall, both of whom he rematched, before winning.

86-90........93-94........Just as long as Dempsey's who is top 6.......and with better opponents and more defences on his record.

azania wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

Oh I should elaborate shouldn't I? Here we go then, in no particular order:

1) Never beat a great fighter in their prime.
2) Couldn't beat Holyfield or Lewis.
3) Was Champion in a very weak era.
4) Was only a Champion for a combined 5 years.
5) Lost to Buster Douglas.
6) Poor stamina.

About 10-15 ATG for me.

The era he was champ was second only to the 70s. The fights with holy and Lewis was at the end of his career.  Would you holdspinks and berbick aagainst Ali?  Poor stamina?  Such an ignorant comment.

You mean the absolutely weak late 80s era?  
The fights with Holyfield were 8 years before he retired.
The fight with Lewis was closer to Lewis' retirement than Tyson's.
Poor stamina? How many times did he manage to go 12 rounds?

Whch opponents were weak Duty..........You are making statements and not backing them up Mate...

As for the eight years...........Lots of fighters get bashed up for money when past their best..

Went 12 rounds and won against Smith, Tucker.......went the distance plenty..

Are you sure you're aren't wumming Mate??

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

Oh I should elaborate shouldn't I? Here we go then, in no particular order:

1) Never beat a great fighter in their prime.
2) Couldn't beat Holyfield or Lewis.
3) Was Champion in a very weak era.
4) Was only a Champion for a combined 5 years.
5) Lost to Buster Douglas.
6) Poor stamina.

About 10-15 ATG for me.

1) Could use this argument for Dempsey, Lewis, Marciano, K2, Holmes, etc.
2) We're talking about Tyson's pre-prison 'prime' here. The debate is, is Tyson's prime a myth? His losses to Holyfield mark him down in the larger scheme, for sure. His loss to Lewis, not so much. No one holds Spinks, Holmes, and Berbick against Ali, for example.
3) Again, argument could be made for Holmes, K2, Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, etc. etc. I don't think Tyson's opponents between 85 - 90 were discernibly weaker than Marciano's, for example.
4) Years are misleading, Dempsey ruled for 7 years but made far fewer defences. what is worth more?
5) Dempsey lost to Flynn. Lewis lost to McCall. Holmes lost to a LHW in Spinks twice, who Tyson demolished in 90 seconds. I agree his loss to Douglas counts against him, however it doesn't equate to Tyson's best years being somehow mythical. Many ATG boxers lost to lesser opposition.
6) Based on what? He boxed Tucker to a shutout over twelve. Happy to concede stamina was not his strongest suit, but 'poor' stamina is overstating the case, it certainly didn't stop him cleaning out his division. Clutching at straws a little, IMO

10 -15 ATG is a pretty fair placement, it's where most people have him - who, exactly, is overrating him?

He was too busy knocking guys out to go the distance. You hold his brilliance against him.

Vit is 42. What does age have to do with it. Ali was finished at 34

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Whch opponents were weak Duty..........You are making statements and not backing them up Mate...

As for the eight years...........Lots of fighters get bashed up for money when past their best..

Went 12 rounds and won against Smith, Tucker.......went the distance plenty..

Are you sure you're aren't wumming Mate??

Only notable wins are against a over the hill Holmes, and Michael Spinks = 'nuff said.

Gentleman01 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

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..

Oh I should elaborate shouldn't I? Here we go then, in no particular order:

1) Never beat a great fighter in their prime.
2) Couldn't beat Holyfield or Lewis.
3) Was Champion in a very weak era.
4) Was only a Champion for a combined 5 years.
5) Lost to Buster Douglas.
6) Poor stamina.

About 10-15 ATG for me.

1) Could use this argument for Dempsey, Lewis, Marciano, K2, Holmes, etc.
2) We're talking about Tyson's pre-prison 'prime' here. The debate is, is Tyson's prime a myth? His losses to Holyfield mark him down in the larger scheme, for sure. His loss to Lewis, not so much. No one holds Spinks, Holmes, and Berbick against Ali, for example.
3) Again, argument could be made for Holmes, K2, Dempsey, Marciano, Liston, etc. etc. I don't think Tyson's opponents between 85 - 90 were discernibly weaker than Marciano's, for example.
4) Years are misleading, Dempsey ruled for 7 years but made far fewer defences. what is worth more?
5) Dempsey lost to Flynn. Lewis lost to McCall. Holmes lost to a LHW in Spinks twice, who Tyson demolished in 90 seconds. I agree his loss to Douglas counts against him, however it doesn't equate to Tyson's best years being somehow mythical. Many ATG boxers lost to lesser opposition.
6) Based on what? He boxed Tucker to a shutout over twelve. Happy to concede stamina was not his strongest suit, but 'poor' stamina is overstating the case, it certainly didn't stop him cleaning out his division. Clutching at straws a little, IMO

10 -15 ATG is a pretty fair placement, it's where most people have him - who, exactly, is overrating him?

People who mark him down as one of the greatest heavyweights ever. He's probably 10 for me, but certainly behind Holyfield and Lewis.

tyson for me is a top 10. There was a period of about 5 years where he was devastating. knocking out everyone including some good names.

The fact he was HW champ at just 20 years old has to be recognised as a great achievement.

Don't debate an idiot. You get beaten by their experience and ignorance.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Whch opponents were weak Duty..........You are making statements and not backing them up Mate...

As for the eight years...........Lots of fighters get bashed up for money when past their best..

Went 12 rounds and won against Smith, Tucker.......went the distance plenty..

Are you sure you're aren't wumming Mate??

Only notable wins are against a over the hill Holmes, and Michael Spinks = 'nuff said.

Frank Bruno, Birkbeck, tubbs, tucker, jesse ferguson, botha and golota.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Whch opponents were weak Duty..........You are making statements and not backing them up Mate...

As for the eight years...........Lots of fighters get bashed up for money when past their best..

Went 12 rounds and won against Smith, Tucker.......went the distance plenty..

Are you sure you're aren't wumming Mate??

Only notable wins are against a over the hill Holmes, and Michael Spinks = 'nuff said.

If you knew about Biggs, Tucker, Thomas, Tubbs you wouldn't say that..........Ignorance is a problem in your opinion........but hey you know fairplay and all that..

Biggs and Tucker were unbeaten with great amateur careers.......They were stopped from succeeding.

Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Seldon, Bruno and Spinks (ring)..........were all current world champs when he beat them.........

Ruddock and Williams were highly regarded...........and Thomas, Tubbs and Holmes former world champs......

Let's get real shall we!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

My view is & always has been that Holyfield 1 was the end of Tyson.

Don't buy any of it that prison changed him, for me the trouble with him started around Bruno 1, watch that fight & you see the neglect of head movement & jab, in fact the first punch he threw in Bruno 1 was a massive overhand right, even Bruno saw it coming, he was surviving purely on KO power from then until Douglas beat him.

Fast forward 3 years & the newly released Tyson was bobbing, weaving & jabbing like in 88, yeah competition was low but compare Bruno 1 & 2, Tyson looked much much better in 2, for me, &  in the next few fights until Holy.

All his problems were mental & brought on him by others around him, too many back slappers, money grabbers & hangers on, I'd have him all time wise just outside the top 10

Big question I've always thought is how far could he have lasted had Cus not died?

Significantly longer I think

More like how far would he have gone with Kevin Rooney.

azania wrote:More like how far would he have gone with Kevin Rooney.

And then what would happen if he made his invisibility cloak work. He'd be the bestest everrrrrrrrr.

He would have been the greatest human being that ever walked the planet if only Cus D'Amato hadn't died.

Just outside the Top 10 in my view. There were better opponents in the 80's than now but let's not get carried away by their quality. I remember the 80's heavyweight scene and watched Tyson's fights which received a lot of coverage on the BBC. My memory is of the 80's HW's being considered a weak era at the time. Obviously it's better than now, today HW boxing is a farce.

Tyson did burn brightly though and caught the imagination like no other fighter since Ali.

Truss, whilst I agree that Tubbs, Thomas,etc were good fighters, it is easy to argue that that they were on the down slope of their careers when Tyson beat them. He cleared out the dead wood of the division, but then missed out on fighting the emerging new talent like Bowe, Lewis etc cause he was in the nick, and possibly on the slide himself he was not a his best, as evidence in his figths with Douglas, Ruddock, and even Bruno , I agree he was a phenomenal figther, but his misfortune was that he was never really able to prove it against opposition that would have done so. And when he did get to fight that quality of opponent , he lost, badly.

I think the problem with Tyson was simply distraction. He wasn't really being tested towards the end of his first reign as champ and was into money & girls. If he had kept his focus and hadn't got into all the issues with Ms Washington, who knows what he could have achieved.

Hangers on, Don King and women throwing themselves at him did for Tyson unfortunately. I would say the "prime" part of Prime Tyson was actually just 2 years - mid '86 to mid '88.

Strongback wrote:He would have been the greatest human being that ever walked the planet if only Cus D'Amato hadn't died.

Just outside the Top 10 in my view. There were better opponents in the 80's than now but let's not get carried away by their quality.  I remember the 80's heavyweight scene and watched Tyson's fights which received a lot of coverage on the BBC.  My memory is of the 80's HW's being considered a weak era at the time.  Obviously it's better than now, today HW boxing is a farce.

Tyson did burn brightly though and caught the imagination like no other fighter since Ali.

If he was mike O'Tyson he would have been #1

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:He would have been the greatest human being that ever walked the planet if only Cus D'Amato hadn't died.

Just outside the Top 10 in my view. There were better opponents in the 80's than now but let's not get carried away by their quality.  I remember the 80's heavyweight scene and watched Tyson's fights which received a lot of coverage on the BBC.  My memory is of the 80's HW's being considered a weak era at the time.  Obviously it's better than now, today HW boxing is a farce.

Tyson did burn brightly though and caught the imagination like no other fighter since Ali.

If he was mike O'Tyson he would have been #1

 

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:More like how far would he have gone with Kevin Rooney.

And then what would happen if he made his invisibility cloak work. He'd be the bestest everrrrrrrrr.

Ho ho and ho again.

Father Christmas or Green Giant?

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:He would have been the greatest human being that ever walked the planet if only Cus D'Amato hadn't died.

Just outside the Top 10 in my view. There were better opponents in the 80's than now but let's not get carried away by their quality.  I remember the 80's heavyweight scene and watched Tyson's fights which received a lot of coverage on the BBC.  My memory is of the 80's HW's being considered a weak era at the time.  Obviously it's better than now, today HW boxing is a farce.

Tyson did burn brightly though and caught the imagination like no other fighter since Ali.

If he was mike O'Tyson he would have been #1

You could probably buy a nice caravan with all the money he earned.

Re: Prime Mike Tyson. Lewis got caught napping TWICE against less explosive hitters, so I dont buy the assertion that '88 Mike still stands no chance against Lennox.

Dont know if I quite buy the "if X was still alive" theory, but we are talking about a guy who once went to to Drug dealer to purchase enough coke to keep a party buzzed, just for himself... The drug dealer would then beg him to change his life... The man was insane!

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:He would have been the greatest human being that ever walked the planet if only Cus D'Amato hadn't died.

Just outside the Top 10 in my view. There were better opponents in the 80's than now but let's not get carried away by their quality.  I remember the 80's heavyweight scene and watched Tyson's fights which received a lot of coverage on the BBC.  My memory is of the 80's HW's being considered a weak era at the time.  Obviously it's better than now, today HW boxing is a farce.

Tyson did burn brightly though and caught the imagination like no other fighter since Ali.

If he was mike O'Tyson he would have been #1

Pretty sad when Az is reduced to regurgitating Truss' lines.

Az is a strange chap. Some sort of self searching would probably help him develop his own personality and stop him repeating everything Truss says.

How is it that Prison was the end of Tyson yet Hopkins didn't start boxing until he came out of prison and is still a contender? Tyson has never been in my top 10 but I am only an old fart.