Mike Tyson In His Prime

[wouter]

3) The Ali who fought Frazier in 1971 was not the same Muhammad Ali who knocked out Zora Folley in 1967 before his three and one half year banishment from boxing...Most analysts have said he didn't have the same legs anymore...He could "dance" but not as long...It was only when Ali stopped "dancing" that Joe was able to score...

I'd pick the 71 model over that of 67 and Joe Frazier over both of them.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

3) The Ali who fought Frazier in 1971 was not the same Muhammad Ali who knocked out Zora Folley in 1967 before his three and one half year banishment from boxing...Most analysts have said he didn't have the same legs anymore...He could "dance" but not as long...It was only when Ali stopped "dancing" that Joe was able to score...

I'd pick the 71 model over that of 67 and Joe Frazier over both of them.

I'll take the 74 model that beat George Foreman...One thing I noticed about that fight is that Ali showed no fear in the first round...He was the bully...He was the man that wrestled George Foreman and put him in a headlock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyR7n3A5 ... re=related

[funso banjo baby]

yeah that first round with foreman was amazing...toe to toe Ali throwing big bombs

[TheOneIsHere2008]

yeah that first round with foreman was amazing...toe to toe Ali throwing big bombs

In Foreman's first fight with Frazier, instead of keeping Frazier at bay with jabs, Big George literally pushed Frazier...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpEuGaRp9l8

[Ezzard]

I think the title should have stated, "Prime Tyson vs the following fighters in THEIR primes"...would have saved a lot of the pointless arguments above.

Tyson (88) Vs Ali (67) has long fascinated me, but I resolved it on the back of Frazier and Foreman's respective performances. Common "wisdom" has it that the fight will either go the distance with Ali by points, or end within 4 with a Tyson nuke landing. I have determined that the latter is the likeliest outcome.

Ali was close to prime speed in '71 against the similarly built Foreman, and for all his dancing, shuffling and general lateral movement, still couldn't avoid being walked down by him. He would have nothing in his arsenal to get through Tyson's guard with nearly sufficient force, even his jabs would be slipped.

I MUST conclude that the much faster Tyson would land on him at will and with deadly frequency, to both face and body. Ali WILL be able to land some shots while Tyson is close quarters, but given Mike's chin, nothing that will faze him before he lands the coup de grace in the 4th.

Some points

1) Ali had sixty one fights ...He was stopped once as a burned out thirty eight year old man on thyroid medicine, and with nascent Parkinson's Syndrome...Prior to that he took punches from George Foreman and Earnie Shavers who both hit harder than Foreman without going down...I don't see Tyson KOing him in four rounds or any amount of rounds...

2) It's interesting you pick 1988...In 87 such boxing luminaries as Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker took Tyson the distance and in 1990 Buster Douglas knocked him out...

3) The Ali who fought Frazier in 1971 was not the same Muhammad Ali who knocked out Zora Folley in 1967 before his three and one half year banishment from boxing...Most analysts have said he didn't have the same legs anymore...He could "dance" but not as long...It was only when Ali stopped "dancing" that Joe was able to score...

4) Joe showed tremendous heart and paid the price for that win ...He was never the same fighter...He spent a month in the hospital! I doubt Tyson has the heart to pay that price...

5) Ali has three styles to choose from to beat Tyson...Tyson has one...I'll go with the army or boxer that has more and sophisticated weapons in its arsenal...Ali can dance, Ali can go to the ropes, Ali can use movement...

When peopel talk about Tyson's prime in their hushed deferential tones what they mean is the guy before anyone actually tested his resolve. The man who still had all the question marks next to his psychology. Once this was tested, and found to be lacking, he was no longer considered to be 'prime'.

At Xmas, before you open your present, you can tell everyone you've been given an Aston Martin. once you actually unwrap the box and see what's in it though... You have to accept that it was always the same thing in the box...you just thought it was different.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

delete

[Jaybee From The Castle]

I think the title should have stated, "Prime Tyson vs the following fighters in THEIR primes"...would have saved a lot of the pointless arguments above.

Tyson (88) Vs Ali (67) has long fascinated me, but I resolved it on the back of Frazier and Foreman's respective performances. Common "wisdom" has it that the fight will either go the distance with Ali by points, or end within 4 with a Tyson nuke landing. I have determined that the latter is the likeliest outcome.

Ali was close to prime speed in '71 against the similarly built Foreman, and for all his dancing, shuffling and general lateral movement, still couldn't avoid being walked down by him. He would have nothing in his arsenal to get through Tyson's guard with nearly sufficient force, even his jabs would be slipped.

I MUST conclude that the much faster Tyson would land on him at will and with deadly frequency, to both face and body. Ali WILL be able to land some shots while Tyson is close quarters, but given Mike's chin, nothing that will faze him before he lands the coup de grace in the 4th.

Some points

1) Ali had sixty one fights ...He was stopped once as a burned out thirty eight year old man on thyroid medicine, and with nascent Parkinson's Syndrome...Prior to that he took punches from George Foreman and Earnie Shavers who both hit harder than Foreman without going down...I don't see Tyson KOing him in four rounds or any amount of rounds...

Ahhh, don't forget that none of Ali's opponents had anything like Tyson's handspeed, and the only two who hit as hard - Foreman and Shavers, as you mentioned, were notorious plodders.

2) It's interesting you pick 1988...In 87 such boxing luminaries as Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker took Tyson the distance and in 1990 Buster Douglas knocked him out...

'88, before that gold-digging pudendum whore Givens got her claws so deeply into him. That, plus the hard partying, wild 7-in-a-bed orgies the nights before his later fights. Ali had jail, Tyson had a wife. Actually, now you mention it, there IS a way for Ali to avoid the KO - to rope-a-dope as he did successfully against Foreman, and as Smith and Tucker above did unsuccessfully. Trouble is, he'll be so winded from the dozens of body shots that were Tyson's trademark, he won't be able to land much, if anything on him. And given peak Tyson's conditioning, he could maintain the assault for not just 12, but 15 rounds.

3) The Ali who fought Frazier in 1971 was not the same Muhammad Ali who knocked out Zora Folley in 1967 before his three and one half year banishment from boxing...Most analysts have said he didn't have the same legs anymore...He could "dance" but not as long...It was only when Ali stopped "dancing" that Joe was able to score...

Heh-heh, I watch and rewatch the fights myself to arrive at my own analyses, the only time I read journalists writing columns trying to sell tabloids to the Great Unwashed is when I've had a losing day on the markets, and need to reassure myself that someone, somewhere out there, in the great blue yonder, actually IS dumber than I am. I agree that post-prison Ali was a tad less athletic, but the '67 version would have only delayed the inevitable KO. Tyson had no problem with fellow speedsters, as he showed against Spinks, with Buster for the first 8 rounds, and indeed otherwise for a few years in front and behind his peak.

4) Joe showed tremendous heart and paid the price for that win ...He was never the same fighter...He spent a month in the hospital! I doubt Tyson has the heart to pay that price...

Completely agree with the part about Joe never being the same fighter again - Ali traumatised him in '71, hence the shelling he suffered at the hands - or rather the gloves - of Foreman. Hmmmm, Peak Foreman vs Peak Frazier, worthy of it's own thread, methinks....But as above, Tyson will simply not have to pay so high a price, not even a quarter of it. See, he didn't just have fast hands, his headspeed was unparalleled, the bob 'n' weave almost inhumanly agile; it was what allowed him to get past ANY fighters jab, however fast or long, and into firing range. I was going to say his "defence was impregnable", but I care a teeeeny bit about what my readers think...

:)

5) Ali has three styles to choose from to beat Tyson...Tyson has one...I'll go with the army or boxer that has more and sophisticated weapons in its arsenal...Ali can dance, Ali can go to the ropes, Ali can use movement...

Pretty much addressed above.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I think the title should have stated, "Prime Tyson vs the following fighters in THEIR primes"...would have saved a lot of the pointless arguments above.

Tyson (88) Vs Ali (67) has long fascinated me, but I resolved it on the back of Frazier and Foreman's respective performances. Common "wisdom" has it that the fight will either go the distance with Ali by points, or end within 4 with a Tyson nuke landing. I have determined that the latter is the likeliest outcome.

Ali was close to prime speed in '71 against the similarly built Foreman, and for all his dancing, shuffling and general lateral movement, still couldn't avoid being walked down by him. He would have nothing in his arsenal to get through Tyson's guard with nearly sufficient force, even his jabs would be slipped.

I MUST conclude that the much faster Tyson would land on him at will and with deadly frequency, to both face and body. Ali WILL be able to land some shots while Tyson is close quarters, but given Mike's chin, nothing that will faze him before he lands the coup de grace in the 4th.

Some points

1) Ali had sixty one fights ...He was stopped once as a burned out thirty eight year old man on thyroid medicine, and with nascent Parkinson's Syndrome...Prior to that he took punches from George Foreman and Earnie Shavers who both hit harder than Foreman without going down...I don't see Tyson KOing him in four rounds or any amount of rounds...

Ahhh, don't forget that none of Ali's opponents had anything like Tyson's handspeed, and the only two who hit as hard - Foreman and Shavers, as you mentioned, were notorious plodders.

2) It's interesting you pick 1988...In 87 such boxing luminaries as Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker took Tyson the distance and in 1990 Buster Douglas knocked him out...

'88, before that gold-digging pudendum whore Givens got her claws so deeply into him. That, plus the hard partying, wild 7-in-a-bed orgies the nights before his later fights. Ali had jail, Tyson had a wife. Actually, now you mention it, there IS a way for Ali to avoid the KO - to rope-a-dope as he did successfully against Foreman, and as Smith and Tucker above did unsuccessfully. Trouble is, he'll be so winded from the dozens of body shots that were Tyson's trademark, he won't be able to land much, if anything on him. And given peak Tyson's conditioning, he could maintain the assault for not just 12, but 15 rounds.

3) The Ali who fought Frazier in 1971 was not the same Muhammad Ali who knocked out Zora Folley in 1967 before his three and one half year banishment from boxing...Most analysts have said he didn't have the same legs anymore...He could "dance" but not as long...It was only when Ali stopped "dancing" that Joe was able to score...

Heh-heh, I watch and rewatch the fights myself to arrive at my own analyses, the only time I read journalists writing columns trying to sell tabloids to the Great Unwashed is when I've had a losing day on the markets, and need to reassure myself that someone, somewhere out there, in the great blue yonder, actually IS dumber than I am. I agree that post-prison Ali was a tad less athletic, but the '67 version would have only delayed the inevitable KO. Tyson had no problem with fellow speedsters, as he showed against Spinks, with Buster for the first 8 rounds, and indeed otherwise for a few years in front and behind his peak.

4) Joe showed tremendous heart and paid the price for that win ...He was never the same fighter...He spent a month in the hospital! I doubt Tyson has the heart to pay that price...

Completely agree with the part about Joe never being the same fighter again - Ali traumatised him in '71, hence the shelling he suffered at the hands - or rather the gloves - of Foreman. Hmmmm, Peak Foreman vs Peak Frazier, worthy of it's own thread, methinks....But as above, Tyson will simply not have to pay so high a price, not even a quarter of it. See, he didn't just have fast hands, his headspeed was unparalleled, the bob 'n' weave almost inhumanly agile; it was what allowed him to get past ANY fighters jab, however fast or long, and into firing range. I was going to say his "defence was impregnable", but I care a teeeeny bit about what my readers think...

:)

5) Ali has three styles to choose from to beat Tyson...Tyson has one...I'll go with the army or boxer that has more and sophisticated weapons in its arsenal...Ali can dance, Ali can go to the ropes, Ali can use movement...

Pretty much addressed above.

I hope you are not comparing Michael Spinks and Buster Douglas with Ali...I'd bet my home a prime Ali could beat Buster Douglas and Michael Spinks on successive days...

The problem with your analysis that Ezzard so pithily pointed out is that the first time Mike Tyson was seriously challenged he folded...It's like saying Napolean was a great general if you ignore Waterloo or the Germans owned the Russians in World War ll if you ignore The Battle Of Stalingrad...Every time Mike Tyson was seriously challenged he folded ... He had million dollar skills and a ten cent heart...

You can't explain away his losses to Douglas, Holy, and Lenox with a rhetorical sleight of hand...They beat him because they did not fear him... I can remember Holyfield's serene confidence going into that fight against Mike Tyson's faux or feigned bravado...Ditto for Lenox...

[TheOneIsHere2008]

A thirty eight year old Larry Holmes coming off a two year lay off on four weeks or was it four months notice...That's who...And even at 38 Holmes could have beat everybody that Tyson beat with the exception of Michael Spinks...

He was 24, 30, and 31 when he lost to Douglas and Holy...Even if you make the case that a fighter is past his peak at 30, Holyfield was older and coming off dispiriting losses against Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe...Holyfield was the underdog and was supposed to be the shot fighter...
And let's throw in Lenox...Tyson was younger than Lenox...

I remember listening to Joe Frazier on the Howard Stern Show...This was before Douglas knocked him out and Howard asked Frazier how he would beat Tyson...Smokin Joe said by "hitting him back"...Joe was prescient...

[Ezzard]

Pinklon Thomas

But Thomas had gone through a divorce and had problems outside the ring so he wasn't 'prime'.

Trveor Berbick

Only Berbick was poisoned with gas in his hotel room.

Tony Tucker

Except that Tucker had loads of out of the ring problems with his management...

when you look at it 'prime' Tyson never met a 'prime' fighter... In fact it's amazing that any 2 fighters ever meet in their 'primes'... I beginning to wonder if any 2 ever have,

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Pinklon Thomas

But Thomas had gone through a divorce and had problems outside the ring so he wasn't 'prime'.

Trveor Berbick

Only Berbick was poisoned with gas in his hotel room.

Tony Tucker

Except that Tucker had loads of out of the ring problems with his management...

when you look at it 'prime' Tyson never met a 'prime' fighter... In fact it's amazing that any 2 fighters ever meet in their 'primes'... I beginning to wonder if any 2 ever have,

Tyson took apart Berbick...Berbick's best fight was the fight he had against Larry Holmes in the parking lot of what I believe was the Diplomat Hotel in Hollywood Beach, Florida...

[Grimm]

A thirty eight year old Larry Holmes coming off a two year lay off on four weeks or was it four months notice...That's who...And even at 38 Holmes could have beat everybody that Tyson beat with the exception of Michael Spinks...

He was 24, 30, and 31 when he lost to Douglas and Holy...Even if you make the case that a fighter is past his peak at 30, Holyfield was older and coming off dispiriting losses against Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe...Holyfield was the underdog and was supposed to be the shot fighter...
And let's throw in Lenox...Tyson was younger than Lenox...

I remember listening to Joe Frazier on the Howard Stern Show...This was before Douglas knocked him out and Howard asked Frazier how he would beat Tyson...Smokin Joe said by "hitting him back"...Joe was prescient...

Well there is not always a direct correlation between age and "prime" . Tyson was very well out of his prime when he fought Holyfield as well as when he fought Lewis even though they were the older fighters. An Example of this could be Roy Jones Jr. vs. Glen Johnson when they were the same age but it was clear that Jones was past it yet Johnson was just hitting his stride.

[HomicideHenry]

I always personally believed the best Tyson was the one who took apart Berbick inside of three rounds, when he became the youngest heavyweight champion in history...

The biggest knock against Tyson, or Marciano or even Joe Louis in some respects, is that had it been anyone else, nobody would have cared that they beat the same level of opposition/same fighters...Marciano, Tyson, Louis all were exciting finishers, every punch was the knockout, it was the way they defeated their opponent, not because the men they beat were so great...

If it had been someone else who defeated Tubbs, Bruno, Berbick, Williams, Thomas, Biggs, Smith, I dont think nobody would have cared, unless they did it as exciting as Tyson did.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

A thirty eight year old Larry Holmes coming off a two year lay off on four weeks or was it four months notice...That's who...And even at 38 Holmes could have beat everybody that Tyson beat with the exception of Michael Spinks...

He was 24, 30, and 31 when he lost to Douglas and Holy...Even if you make the case that a fighter is past his peak at 30, Holyfield was older and coming off dispiriting losses against Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe...Holyfield was the underdog and was supposed to be the shot fighter...
And let's throw in Lenox...Tyson was younger than Lenox...

I remember listening to Joe Frazier on the Howard Stern Show...This was before Douglas knocked him out and Howard asked Frazier how he would beat Tyson...Smokin Joe said by "hitting him back"...Joe was prescient...

Well there is not always a direct correlation between age and "prime" . Tyson was very well out of his prime when he fought Holyfield as well as when he fought Lewis even though they were the older fighters. An Example of this could be Roy Jones Jr. vs. Glen Johnson when they were the same age but it was clear that Jones was past it yet Johnson was just hitting his stride.

I agree...I'm trying to get Tyson's fans to admit when his prime was...He was 24 when Buster Douglas dropped him...In order to justify that loss they have to say Tyson was past his prime at 24...That's absurd...Instead they say Tyson lost to Buster Douglas because he had "issues"...No, he lost to a fighter who didn't fold...Ironically these same "issues" come back when he lost to Evander Holyfield...

Your point about age and prime not always being related is well taken but the Holyfield who whupped Mike Tyson was supposed to be the shot fighter not vice versa...

I can't be alone in thinking that every time Mike Tyson faced a skilled and brave opponent he didn't fare very well...

[Grimm]

Out of all of these fighters I believe Tyson had a chance to knock any of them out except for Holmes and Ali.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I always personally believed the best Tyson was the one who took apart Berbick inside of three rounds, when he became the youngest heavyweight champion in history...

The biggest knock against Tyson, or Marciano or even Joe Louis in some respects, is that had it been anyone else, nobody would have cared that they beat the same level of opposition/same fighters...Marciano, Tyson, Louis all were exciting finishers, every punch was the knockout, it was the way they defeated their opponent, not because the men they beat were so great...

If it had been someone else who defeated Tubbs, Bruno, Berbick, Williams, Thomas, Biggs, Smith, I dont think nobody would have cared, unless they did it as exciting as Tyson did.

Respectfully, the knock against Tyson is he lacked courage and resilience...He lost every big fight he had with the exception of his dismantling of Trevor Berbick... Rocky Marciano was courage personified...

[HomicideHenry]

courage and resilience

It can be argued that this is the case, as Tyson always needed to be reassured and babied if you will to keep him focused and on track, but if you watch his matches with Douglas and Lewis, you can't deny that Tyson is a tough SOB. His mind/heart may not have been into it, but there is very few men, ATG's or not, that I can name who could have took the beating he did against Lennox Lewis.

But on the flipside of the coin, whose to say Marciano was courage personified? He never quite fought a man all in his prime, or fought a man anywhere near his own power and toughness, etc.

See? These things can be debated upon. It's like arguments I have with my father, who believes the greatest heavyweight champion of all time is Jack Dempsey. I argue that while Dempsey may have had the tools to have been, he most certainly didn't defeat alot of great fighters in comparison to others; if limited Luis Firpo could have given him trouble, if Tunney did, whose to say a faster man like Ali or a better boxer like Holmes wouldnt have beaten him even worse?

[HomicideHenry]

Why Holmes?

Way I see it, whether we like Tyson or not, he is an ATG puncher; and if Shavers could have floored Holmes, then why couldn't Tyson who (though nowhere near as strong as Earnie) was much faster, more skilled and more ferocious?

[TheOneIsHere2008]

courage and resilience

It can be argued that this is the case, as Tyson always needed to be reassured and babied if you will to keep him focused and on track, but if you watch his matches with Douglas and Lewis, you can't deny that Tyson is a tough SOB. His mind/heart may not have been into it, but there is very few men, ATG's or not, that I can name who could have took the beating he did against Lennox Lewis.

But on the flipside of the coin, whose to say Marciano was courage personified? He never quite fought a man all in his prime, or fought a man anywhere near his own power and toughness, etc.

See? These things can be debated upon. It's like arguments I have with my father, who believes the greatest heavyweight champion of all time is Jack Dempsey. I argue that while Dempsey may have had the tools to have been, he most certainly didn't defeat alot of great fighters in comparison to others; if limited Luis Firpo could have given him trouble, if Tunney did, whose to say a faster man like Ali or a better boxer like Holmes wouldnt have beaten him even worse?

If not a lack of courage can it be said Holy, Douglas, and Lewis were just the better fighters?

But the argument becomes circular then...Tyson's fans will say he lost those fights because he was past his prime or had "issues"...Maybe Tyson was good but not great and had vulnerabilities those fighters exploited...

I was watching his fights , again, on ESPN...He killed Berbick becase Berbick was stationary...Fighters that used movement against him seemed to frustrate him...

[zslayton]

I think it is tough to say when his 'prime' was. I prefer to think that Tyson was out of his prime after the first Holyfield fight, perhaps a little before it. So I'm going to go from that point back. He most certainly was past it when he fought Lennox Lewis, Danny Williams, and Kevin McBride. However, I think Lennox would have beaten him if they both met in their primes, as long as Mike didn't land one of his bombs (like Rahman and McCall did). As far as the Buster Douglas fight goes, I take nothing away from Buster. I had him ahead when he KO'ed Mike, however, there is the issue of a long count when Tyson dropped Douglas. There is also the issue that Tyson did not prepare for that fight like he had in previous fights, which is his fault. He didn't have good people around him and was having a lot of outside the ring issues to destract him. If Rooney was still in that corner Mike might not have declined at that point and possibly could have maintained an iron grip on the division for a few more years. However, that is just speculation.

With that said, I think Michael Spinks, and old Larry Holmes, Frank Bruno, or Razor Ruddock would fit in this category. Ruddock was one of the top heavyweights in the world when Tyson beat him. Holmes was not, but was still good enough to beat nearly every heavyweight not named Tyson or Spinks. Spinks was the man that beat the man and was unbeaten even if he had been somewhat inactive. Frank Bruno..............well that cat hits like a truck and was a brave fighter even if he was slow and had a problem taking Tyson's and Lewis's punches. Berbick, Thomas, and Smith were all, IMO, not as good as the other fighters I listed when each of them met Tyson.

I still rate Tyson as a top 10 all time heavyweight. Not exactly sure where I put him unless I make a list, but he'd be somewhere from 7-10.

[Big Bad John]

Ahhh, don't forget that none of Ali's opponents had anything like Tyson's handspeed, and the only two who hit as hard - Foreman and Shavers, as you mentioned, were notorious plodders.

That is just stupid and wrong. Patterson was faster than Tyson, both of hand and foot. Oh, and you're a fornicating retard for suggesting that SONNY LISTON didn't hit hard. Go back to the "Current Scene" section, where one or two people aren't convinced that you're a complete and utter moron when it comes to boxing.

[zslayton]

Why Holmes?

Way I see it, whether we like Tyson or not, he is an ATG puncher; and if Shavers could have floored Holmes, then why couldn't Tyson who (though nowhere near as strong as Earnie) was much faster, more skilled and more ferocious?

I agree with you. What allowed Larry to escape Shavers was his mobility and Shavers lack of mobility. The version of Larry that Mike KO'ed didn't have that anymore, but Mike was so fast, even if it were the 1978-82 model, that as soon as Larry got up and started trying to run and pump that jab, Mike would have slipped past it and finished him off with a big bomb just like he did the oldman version of Larry. I don't think Larry's chin had changed much from the 70's until he met Tyson.

With that said, I still rate Holmes ahead of him on the all time heavyweight list. In fact, there are a few guys on the that list that I rate higher than Tyson, but I still think Mike would beat them.

[Big Bad John]

How high do you rank Buster Douglas?

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Ahhh, don't forget that none of Ali's opponents had anything like Tyson's handspeed, and the only two who hit as hard - Foreman and Shavers, as you mentioned, were notorious plodders.

That is just stupid and wrong. Patterson was faster than Tyson, both of hand and foot. Oh, and you're a effing retard for suggesting that SONNY LISTON didn't hit hard. Go back to the "Current Scene" section, where one or two people aren't convinced that you're a complete and utter moron when it comes to boxing.

I want to know how the man who couldn't knock out Mitch Green is going to drop Muhammad Ali in four rounds...

[Jaybee From The Castle]

Hmmmm...would you dare cast doubt on that Spinks 31-0 professional record was serious? If beating Spinks wasn't impressive enough, I would ask this; just how often in history has a man broken another's 30+ professional winning streak with a KO1 ??

THAT is an impressive answer to a serious challenge, cut it any way you like.

Second, if you're trying to tell me Buster and LL's victories were due ONLY to a lack of fear...Okayyyy. All fighters are prone to pre-fight nerves, that's obvious. But...actual FEAR?? I am tempted to ask, in return, just what you believe his other opponents WERE afraid of - severe brain damage, perhaps? Isn't it a given that when you step into the ring, you run the risk of taking blows to the head? And if you ARE scared of being KO'ed or worse - well....just what business do you have in the ring anyway? Sounds like a change of occupation is on hand.

Using your own military analogies, that TOO like saying that, the only reason Nazi Germany couldn't conquer Britain, was because they feared the Kriegsmarine couldn't transport their armies across a hostile English Channel.

LL - age, as you ought to know, disfavours the shorter, smaller man in any HW match. It's why Georgey-boy could still bang them away at 45.

Buster - sheer, pure fluke. Had I been Tyson in early 1990, I'd have activated my rematch clause for a good, July 4th bout in Vegas, if ONLY to prove a point. There was a REASON Dougie was 42-1, ya know. Speculation is rampant - I'm not going to indulge in it now, though - as to why he lost that night, and why he never rematched. I WILL say I believe both were for the same reason. Was he scared he'd lose twice? Only Tyson knows, he'll tell you he was afraid of nobody and nothing. Do I believe that? If his subsequent behaviour in and out of the ring is any indication, I'd say yes.

Holyfield - he just outboxed Tyson. Stuck to the good, bread 'n' butter basics of pugilism, jab and counter, good tight guard, elbows sewn into the sides, eyes on the gloves, head down (and yes, I realise the irony of that very last element!!). I'll say one thing; Tyson seemed a hell of a lot faster against Bruno in February of that year than against Holyfield. Sure, Bruno was enough to make ANY fighter seem like Speedy Gonzales, but Mike showed a lot of his 80's head and handspeed. He hadn't been long out of prison, in which he'd just spent 3 years, with the only booze being a glass of Sherry on Christmas day. The guy's insides were probably cleaner than yours or mine. Hadn't had a chance to do a great deal of coke/weed/etc. Of course, 9 months is a long time in life, heck that's how long it takes to create one. The 80's speed was gone. But not so with Commander Evander. D'you think Holy - who like his name implies, is a Churchgoer, thus his serene confidence as he quietly sang, "My God is real" during his entrance - spent every weekend that summer getting high? And by the way - few people cheered as loud as I did as he smashed Tyson around the head in the 11th.

Anyway, all this is moot, albeit fun. The topic is Tyson '88 Vs Ali '67. Tyson in '88 did not fight Douglas, LL or Holy. Gotta dash, can pick this up later.

"Big Bad" Joanne - keep it civil. You're not likely to get MORE out of me by insults than less.