Mike Tyson Oh yes Mike Tyson.

[jmanginell]

Thank you Dan. Look how emotional the Tyson fans get about this . . you people have some real issues about Mike Tyson.

Some brought up the fact that the Douglas fight was in Tokyo . . .so was the Tubbs fight, and that was his best performance!

And Tyson won an ALPHABELT title at 20 years old. Patterson won the true undisputed title at 21 . . so Tyson really wasn´t the youngest HW champion. If some 19 year old kid went and beat Brewster or Ruiz, would he surpass Tyson then?

I think a lot of the emotion you see coming from us "Tyson fans" is based upon the fact that, for many of us, Tyson WAS the HW division. Personally, I grew up in the "Tyson era," and credit Tyson for keeping me interested in boxing. I loved guys like Leonard, Duran and the like, but Tyson was the guy that made "youngsters" like myself watch.

I also hate that he's not given credit for his accomplishments because his failures have been allowed to overshadow those things. Tyson was an ATG. Was he Ali, hell no, but he was one of the best HW's to ever step in a ring. We can what if all day. The facts are, he was the youngest HW champ, first to unify, had great agility for a HW, good head and side to side movement, was lightening fast, could hit like a cannon, and was built for the sport. During his reign he beat the best that was available and did so in dramatic fashion usually. I mentioned the Douglas fight specifically, because IMO that was the end of Tyson's reign, though it shouldn't have been. Tyson was robbed by a bad count (watch it as many times as you like, Buster got a 15 count without question) and lost because of poor decision making going into the fight. Its sad, but its fitting for Mike.

[dan1030]

He didn´t become the undisputed champ until he beat linear champ Spinks, and I believe he was past 21 years 10 months in that fight . . .

Well, ok, if we're going linear that's another story.
He still deserves credit for picking up all the belts though. And as much as I liked Spinks, let's face it--he dumped a belt to take a big-money fight against Cooney who, in my opinion, hadn't really earned another title shot.

[zurdo]

He didn´t become the undisputed champ until he beat linear champ Spinks, and I believe he was past 21 years 10 months in that fight . . .

Well, ok, if we're going linear that's another story.
He still deserves credit for picking up all the belts though. And as much as I liked Spinks, let's face it--he dumped a belt to take a big-money fight against Cooney who, in my opinion, hadn't really earned another title shot.

This is professional boxing it's all about the Benjamins baby. The guy who was champ Spinks made a smart business decision having a big $$$ fight with Cooney and then having another big money fight with Tyson

[Tantum]

He didn´t become the undisputed champ until he beat linear champ Spinks, and I believe he was past 21 years 10 months in that fight . . .

3 days from his 22nd birthday.

Guess that means Patterson should be ranked higher than Tyson just because he was the youngest real hw champ ever.

If you think about it... their careers are somehwat similar...

Patterson lost to underdog Johansson

Tyson lost to underdog Douglas...

Only Patterson had the balls to fight Ingemar again and knocked him out in devastating fashion... Twice.

The Sonny Liston fights are like what would have been(a term that Tyson fans love to use so much) if Tyson fought Riddick Bowe...

The Ali fights are like the Holyfield fights, except it was Patterson who was the one with health problems... And even still, did Patterson quit in a disgraceful manner? No... Because Patterson was a decent guy, not a douche bag.

Why exactly would anyone rate Tyson above the many great champs of the past? Someone's ability to sell tickets really does not prove they are a great fighter...

[zurdo]

He didn´t become the undisputed champ until he beat linear champ Spinks, and I believe he was past 21 years 10 months in that fight . . .

3 days from his 22nd birthday.

Guess that means Patterson should be ranked higher than Tyson just because he was the youngest real hw champ ever.

If you think about it... their careers are somehwat similar...

Patterson lost to underdog Johansson

Tyson lost to underdog Douglas...

Only Patterson had the balls to fight Ingemar again and knocked him out in devastating fashion... Twice.

The Sonny Liston fights are like what would have been(a term that Tyson fans love to use so much) if Tyson fought Riddick Bowe...

The Ali fights are like the Holyfield fights, except it was Patterson who was the one with health problems... And even still, did Patterson quit in a disgraceful manner? No... Because Patterson was a decent guy, not a douche bag.

Why exactly would anyone rate Tyson above the many great champs of the past? Someone's ability to sell tickets really does not prove they are a great fighter...

Not to mention that they were both D'Amato protoges and stylistically similar...
Employing bob and weave ,peeka boo defense and a big left hook Tyson ,at his best, remided me of a more powerful more buffed-out version of Floyd Patterson

[Tantum]

Tyson's overall strength and physical toughness made up for Pattersons overwhelming speed, and mental toughness (well, almost anyone is mentally tougher than Tyson)

I would probably rate Tyson 1-2 spots higher than Patterson.(who is my 2nd/3rd favorite heavy)

[dan1030]

I've alway had a real soft spot for Patterson myself--just something about the guys that was a lot of fun to watch...obviously, some of the same things that made early Tyson compelling viewing.

Plus, with Floyd being smaller than Tyson but so agressive and quick, it made him seem even gutsier and tough. Coming back against Ingo the way he did, getting up repeatedly from some of the most brutal smack-downs ever at the hands of Liston, and sorta sad but game and tough performance against Ali: There was no quitting in that guy, that's for sure.

[Tantum]

Yes, even though he was very timid at times, he wasn't a quitter.

[pringle]

roger sanders ko's tyson in his prime 10 times out of 10.

[HeavyHitters]

He plodded . . was not consistant (didn´t move his head enough) . . always open to counter punches after he loaded up . . .easily discouraged . . . not a great inside fighter . . .very easily tied up . . . relied too much on his power even in the late 80s

I'd add: mediocre stamina, even in his prime. Tyson was a sprinter who was very dangerous for roughly a third of the fight, moderatley dangerous for the next third, then lethargic with lots of holding and throwing occassional arm punches without much on them down the stretch.

Yes, I'd agree with that, his fight with Bonecrusher smith was the perfect example, and also showed how ineffective Mike was in clinches.

You guys type like your drooling out one side of your mouth, and your eyes cross-eyed. Of course there was holding late in Tyson fights, but he wasn't holding, his opponent was holding onto him for dear life! Ribalta didn't hold, and look what happened. He got KO'ed in BIG FASHION in the 10th round.... So both of you are full of dung!

[HeavyHitters]

zurdo

Your post was WAY TOO LONG, therefore I sure as heck didn't waste my time reading it. Nobody wants to read on and on, for 2 days straight on one post.... So, in most cases your long posts go unread...

Sorry Pal!

You mean you couldn't read it because it had long words in it..

Did "I say" your words were too long? Or can you not read?! Oh...? You can't read that well? That's what I thought.....

[cultus]

Mike Tyson is an all time great because he was the yougest heavyweight champion in boxing history and the first undisputed champion with the then only 3 sanctioning bodies(WBA,WBC, and IBF). Give the guy some credit, he outboxed Toney Tucker, embarrased Larry Holmes, and crushed Michael Spinks who was undefeated previous to that fight. Though it was brief, Mike Tyson was GREAT. All Time Great? I say yes, but just my opinion.

Now, I don't want to be accused of being a hater here, I'm just a realist--but by your line of reasoning the second youngest undisputed heavyweight champ should be the second best as well....Floyd Patterson?!

As to Mike's accomplishments vs. particular fighters you mention:

1. He outboxed a one-handed Tony Tucker who'd nearly dropped him in the first, then showed no interest in a rematch despite Tucker winning fight after fight during the rest of Tyson's reign.

2. He KOed an out of shape Larry Holmes who took the fight on super-short notice, hadn't fought for a couple of years, and hadn't won in about 4 years. Oh, and Holmes made Tyson look foolish in the 3rd--guy guess is a vintage Holmes would have looked that way for the duration.

3. He intimidated and KOed Spinks: one hell of a good Lt Heavy, who'd been pretty lucky to get the decisions vs. Holmes (especially the second one) then had been stripped for not facing mandatories. Just one man's opinion here, but I've always thought Spinks was fighting for the "Michael Spinks Retirement Fund" after the big wins over Holmes, rather than for the title...could be wrong though, and I do hate disrespecting Spinks that way.

Tyson was damn good, but let's face it; his best win over a good, healthy fighter around their peak was Ruddock. And that aint the stuff of all-time greats, IMO.

Bruno was a healthy opponent at his prime. It took Lewis 7 rounds to take him out when he was allready an old man, finishing him in that 7 by a lucky shot when Bruno got careless. And he was not afraid of Tyson.

[Robert Paulson]

I heard that in the Holmes vs Tyson fight, when Larry was Koed and stayed streched on the canvas and referee leaned over him to remove his mouthpiece and his cornermen came up to him Holmes was screaming something like "get me up! Let me fight on! Get me up from this fornicating canvas!"

[Marvellous]

tyson lost to douglas in a foreign country (japan) with a new corner and under extraordinary personal and professional stress.

Buster beat the fornicate out of Tyson in a foreign country, while under extraordinary personal stress (more than Tyson)... So exactly what's your point?

Stress affects different people differently. Douglas's mom died. Yeah, that's tough. But it galvanized Buster. He felt as though he had nothing to lose, and he wanted to honor his mother's memory in the ring. So he went balls out that night. He could have gone the other way, utterly crushed and defeated by her death, but he didn't. He was boosted by the tragedy. I would argue that if she hadn't died just before the fight, that Buster might very well have been the mere opponent he was expected to be.
As for the long count, I agree it was long, but in all fairness, there was some confusion and miscommunication between the ref, the timekeeper, and Douglas, IMO. Buster would have beaten the count even if the ref had counted correctly, which he didn't.
It seems to me though that Tyson walked over everybody on his way to the title, and then over everyone it took to unify the title. D'Amato died before Mike fought for a top ten spot, but the D'Amato camp and Jacob's management team were in his corner through the Spinks fight, or just prior to the unification bout. And then there was Robin Givens and Don King. Out with the old and in with the new. Am I the only one who noticed that Mike became a head-hunter who threw only one shot at a time right around then? Am I the only one who noticed that from about the Spinks fight on Mike stopped the quick head movement, working his way inside with the jab, and throwing combinations to the body and head? It was all gone. Poof! As if it never happened. And he's never returned to the strategy that made him great. And he was great. Or he could have been. I'm still not sure if greatness is determined by your level of skill or your level of opponent. I'm leaning towards level of skill, though. It's hardly the fighter's fault when the field is mediocre.

[zurdo]

Tyson was certainly impressive coming up through the first 37 fights.I was annoyed with people who called him "great" at the time I though it was way too soon
But even then I could see that there were flaws . He didn't react well when on the infrequent occasions that somebody pressed him.

I thought Evander Holyfield would have lit him up at the time

[HeavyHitters]

Tyson was certainly impressive coming up through the first 37 fights.I was annoyed with people who called him "great" at the time I though it was way too soon
But even then I could see that there were flaws . He didn't react well when on the infrequent occasions that somebody pressed him.

I thought Evander Holyfield would have lit him up at the time

"What ever!!!!"


It's easy to say that now, Bub..... One thing I can't stand is someone saying they knew something that nobody else did way back when.... Anyone can say that crap....



Hey, I knew Clay was gonna beat Liston! Ha Ha Ha Ha!!

[zurdo]

Tyson was certainly impressive coming up through the first 37 fights.I was annoyed with people who called him "great" at the time I though it was way too soon
But even then I could see that there were flaws . He didn't react well when on the infrequent occasions that somebody pressed him.

I thought Evander Holyfield would have lit him up at the time

"What ever!!!!"


It's easy to say that now, Bub..... One thing I can't stand is someone saying they knew something that nobody else did way back when.... Anyone can say that crap....



Hey, I knew Clay was gonna beat Liston! Ha Ha Ha Ha!!

not so far fetched ,look what happened in the ring when they did fight .

Just because a lot of people were overrating Tyson then then doesn't mean I did too

Styles make fights .and at the time I thought Evander Holyfield matched up very well with Tyson . Tyson was somewhat slower when he fought Holyfield in 96 ,but then again so Was Evander ..

and Tyson still took a hellacious beating

[cultus]

Tyson was certainly impressive coming up through the first 37 fights.I was annoyed with people who called him "great" at the time I though it was way too soon
But even then I could see that there were flaws . He didn't react well when on the infrequent occasions that somebody pressed him.

I thought Evander Holyfield would have lit him up at the time

"What ever!!!!"


It's easy to say that now, Bub..... One thing I can't stand is someone saying they knew something that nobody else did way back when.... Anyone can say that crap....



Hey, I knew Clay was gonna beat Liston! Ha Ha Ha Ha!!

not so far fetched ,look what happened in the ring when they did fight .

Styles make fights .and at tje time I thought Evander Holyfield matched up very well with Tyson at the time. Tyson was somewhat slower when he fought Holyfield in 96 ,but then again so Was Evander ..

and Tyson still took a hellacious beating

Tyson didnt lost that fight beacose of his speed.. but lack of sparring, fighting, ringrust, experience over 4 years of innactivity. Speed was there still but the skills where gone. Skills couldnät exploit the speed and power that where there. This fight sucked quite much....

[Tantum]

Motor skills are stored in the brain in a different way than normal memory.

Motor skills are something you never forget...

You never forget how to ride a bike, how to swim, how to walk, or run, you never forget how to throw a basketball, or swing a baseball bat... You might lose some speed and range, but your swing, and shot will still be there.

If you're inactive from such activities, once you start up again, it will only take a brief period to regain the level that you had before. (Unless you've experienced brain damage)


You don't lose boxing skills from being in jail, you lose boxing skills from taking beatings.

Holyfield was in alot of double sided beating fights, Tyson being in prison did nothing to his skills, he chose to fight the way he did... And it's his own fornicating fault for sucking, don't blame age or inactivity(Holyfield was older, and lost way more than Tyson lost), because it has nothing to do with it.

[zurdo]

"What ever!!!!"


It's easy to say that now, Bub..... One thing I can't stand is someone saying they knew something that nobody else did way back when.... Anyone can say that crap....



Hey, I knew Clay was gonna beat Liston! Ha Ha Ha Ha!!

not so far fetched ,look what happened in the ring when they did fight .

Styles make fights .and at tje time I thought Evander Holyfield matched up very well with Tyson at the time. Tyson was somewhat slower when he fought Holyfield in 96 ,but then again so Was Evander ..

and Tyson still took a hellacious beating

Tyson didnt lost that fight beacose of his speed.. but lack of sparring, fighting, ringrust, experience over 4 years of innactivity. Speed was there still but the skills where gone. Skills couldnät exploit the speed and power that where there. This fight sucked quite much....

Typical Mike Tyson honk..
always a lot of hypthetical shoulda,coulda, woulda.

when the reality of the Tyson situation was a lot of how he didn't, couldn't and wasn't..

[Zherdev]

The problem most of you haters seem have is that you don't admit to the two phases of Tyson's career.

The D'Amato era (extended on through Rooney after D'Amato's death)*
The Mike era (the time after Rooney was canned)

In the D'Amato era Tyson was clearly better prepared, more disciplined, and a sharper fighter.

You guys blend the eras together...the Tyson of the King era would have gotten destroyed by the Tyson of the D'Amato era.

To say "I knew Tyson was weak to Douglas style attack when he was coming up" is idiocy - the Tyson that Douglas was fought was quite different than the Tyson that won the Showtime Tourney.

The D'Amato era Tyson is an All Time Great, if not this discussion would not even be had. The King era Tyson was an undisciplined, under-prepared bull. Sure he could be dangerous but the Matador eventually wins.

* This era began unraveling with the screwyness after one of the partners died...Tyson began losing trust at that point.

[zurdo]

The problem most of you haters seem have is that you don't admit to the two phases of Tyson's career.

The D'Amato era (extended on through Rooney after D'Amato's death)*
The Mike era (the time after Rooney was canned)

In the D'Amato era Tyson was clearly better prepared, more disciplined, and a sharper fighter.

You guys blend the eras together...the Tyson of the King era would have gotten destroyed by the Tyson of the D'Amato era.

To say "I knew Tyson was weak to Douglas style attack when he was coming up" is idiocy - the Tyson that Douglas was fought was quite different than the Tyson that won the Showtime Tourney.

The D'Amato era Tyson is an All Time Great, if not this discussion would not even be had. The King era Tyson was an undisciplined, under-prepared bull. Sure he could be dangerous but the Matador eventually wins.

* This era began unraveling with the screwyness after one of the partners died...Tyson began losing trust at that point.

First of all, calling someone a "hater" just a weasely way of trying to squelch debate ..
Your basically saying that you shouldn't have to listen to someone or you can just dismiss everything they say because you slap an arbitary label on them..

D'amato died when Tyson had less than a dozen pro fights ...

I don't believe Rooney has ever developed a top notch fighter on his own..I cant recall any..

If Tyson is the most overrated boxer then Rooney is the most overrated trainer ever

It's just more shoulda, coulda ,woulda
If saintly old Cus had somehow managed to live forever ..Tyson would have been the best of all time.
Yeah Right

[cultus]

The problem most of you haters seem have is that you don't admit to the two phases of Tyson's career.

The D'Amato era (extended on through Rooney after D'Amato's death)*
The Mike era (the time after Rooney was canned)

In the D'Amato era Tyson was clearly better prepared, more disciplined, and a sharper fighter.

You guys blend the eras together...the Tyson of the King era would have gotten destroyed by the Tyson of the D'Amato era.

To say "I knew Tyson was weak to Douglas style attack when he was coming up" is idiocy - the Tyson that Douglas was fought was quite different than the Tyson that won the Showtime Tourney.

The D'Amato era Tyson is an All Time Great, if not this discussion would not even be had. The King era Tyson was an undisciplined, under-prepared bull. Sure he could be dangerous but the Matador eventually wins.

* This era began unraveling with the screwyness after one of the partners died...Tyson began losing trust at that point.

First of all, calling someone a "hater" just a weasely way of trying to squelch debate ..
Your basically saying that you shouldn't have to listen to someone or you can just dismiss everything they say because you slap an arbitary label on them..

D'amato died when Tyson had less than a dozen pro fights ...

It's just more shoulda, coulda ,woulda
If saintly old Cus had managed to live forever ..Tyson would have been the best of all time.
Yeah Right

yeah that's right in my post, there was nothin about shoulda, coulda ,woulda - its all you. we where talkin about times before you 10 year old but you simply dont get it.

[cultus]

Motor skills are stored in the brain in a different way than normal memory.

Motor skills are something you never forget...

You never forget how to ride a bike, how to swim, how to walk, or run, you never forget how to throw a basketball, or swing a baseball bat... You might lose some speed and range, but your swing, and shot will still be there.

If you're inactive from such activities, once you start up again, it will only take a brief period to regain the level that you had before. (Unless you've experienced brain damage)



You don't lose boxing skills from being in jail, you lose boxing skills from taking beatings.

Holyfield was in alot of double sided beating fights, Tyson being in prison did nothing to his skills, he chose to fight the way he did... And it's his own fornicating fault for sucking, don't blame age or inactivity(Holyfield was older, and lost way more than Tyson lost), because it has nothing to do with it.

jail doesn't affect boxing skills. you must be kiddin ... you must know that it is not that simple ... getting in shape and able to think like you should?

[HeavyHitters]

Well too bad "Tyson Haters", cause there is a few things you cannot take away from Tyson's Legacy. For one, he was an "Undisputed" Heavyweight Champion. There's no denying that. Most boxers never are able to achive that illustrious title. None of the champions of today can claim they are or ever were an undisputed champ.

Two, Tyson was and still is the "Youngest To Ever Win The Heavyweight Title". To only be 19 to 20 years old, and scaring the heck out of men 10 to 15 years older than you is quite amazing in itself. To actually become Heavyweight Champ at 20 is almost unbelievable!

So no matter what you all say to try and cut down an "inevitably aging" Tyson, he will always have those 2 tags to his name, as he fades into the history books.

Say La Vee!!