tyson without the intimidation factor

man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

i believe that mike tyson was strong and great. he was one
of the fastest moving heavies of all time. he had courage
and rather went out on his shield than give in.

but it seems to me that once an opponent was not intimated
mike shrank to human size.

here is my question. mike tyson is no 21 here on boxrec's all
time heavy rankings. i do not want to discuss whether this is
a fair ranking, but rather how far he would drop without him
being able to get so deep under the skin of so many opponents.

i know this is pretty hypothetical. to me at least three of his
wins, (spinks, saverese and golota) seemed literally psyched
out rather than defeated by punches. i am not a boxer but i
could imagine that if your hyped and aggressive you can take
shots way better than when you are mentally on your knees
already.

thnx for your contribution.
ThatOne
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2530
Joined: 14 Oct 2009, 17:15

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by ThatOne »

man wrote:i believe that mike tyson was strong and great. he was one
of the fastest moving heavies of all time. he had courage
and rather went out on his shield than give in.

but it seems to me that once an opponent was not intimated
mike shrank to human size.

here is my question. mike tyson is no 21 here on boxrec's all
time heavy rankings. i do not want to discuss whether this is
a fair ranking, but rather how far he would drop without him
being able to get so deep under the skin of so many opponents.

i know this is pretty hypothetical. to me at least three of his
wins, (spinks, saverese and golota) seemed literally psyched
out rather than defeated by punches. i am not a boxer but i
could imagine that if your hyped and aggressive you can take
shots way better than when you are mentally on your knees
already.

thnx for your contribution.

Tyson was just a better fighter than those guys; with or without the intimidation factor.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46521
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by gilgamesh »

ThatOne wrote:
man wrote:i believe that mike tyson was strong and great. he was one
of the fastest moving heavies of all time. he had courage
and rather went out on his shield than give in.

but it seems to me that once an opponent was not intimated
mike shrank to human size.

here is my question. mike tyson is no 21 here on boxrec's all
time heavy rankings. i do not want to discuss whether this is
a fair ranking, but rather how far he would drop without him
being able to get so deep under the skin of so many opponents.

i know this is pretty hypothetical. to me at least three of his
wins, (spinks, saverese and golota) seemed literally psyched
out rather than defeated by punches. i am not a boxer but i
could imagine that if your hyped and aggressive you can take
shots way better than when you are mentally on your knees
already.

thnx for your contribution.

Tyson was just a better fighter than those guys; with or without the intimidation factor.
I agree he would've beaten those fighters anyhow whether they were scared or not, but intimidation was definitely one of his best weapons. Not just those 3 fighters, but several men that he fought were absolutely terrified from the moment they got in the ring.

Mike was a classic bully too who would begin to doubt himself if you stood up and hit him with somebody that rattled his jaw. You can even see in earlier fights, even in some of his wins. If he comes out like a bull in a china closet once he realizes the guy ain't going anywhere and he ain't scared and he fires something back at Mike. Mike definitely cools his jets a minutes and fights differently from there on out.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

I'm not his biggest fan, but you had to do more than just stand up to him. Thomas, Ruddock and Botha will tell you that.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46521
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by gilgamesh »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not his biggest fan, but you had to do more than just stand up to him. Thomas, Ruddock and Botha will tell you that.
No doubt, but not being scared of him was definitely crucial to beating him. There are quite a few guys he beat that showed they weren't scared of him. You pointed out 3 of them. "Quick" Tillis also fought him gamely and survived the distance.

I'm not saying he just automatically shut off and didn't fight anymore whenever you could take it and hit him back, but it was definitely Step 1 in beating him.
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

gilgamesh wrote:I agree he would've beaten those fighters anyhow whether they were scared or not, but intimidation was definitely one of his best weapons. Not just those 3 fighters, but several men that he fought were absolutely terrified from the moment they got in the ring.

Mike was a classic bully too who would begin to doubt himself if you stood up and hit him with somebody that rattled his jaw. You can even see in earlier fights, even in some of his wins. If he comes out like a bull in a china closet once he realizes the guy ain't going anywhere and he ain't scared and he fires something back at Mike. Mike definitely cools his jets a minutes and fights differently from there on out.
this is exactly what i mean. if you look at him against
holyfield in their first one, you kind of feel mike's frustration,
when holy didn't move when he got hit. of course holy's chin
was quite something, but nevertheless, hardly anyone would
have thought before the fight, that he could totally walk through
mike's shots. which makes me think that maybe 10 or 15% of
tyson's supposed power was actually due to opponents being
terrified rather than true punching power.

the one person he did knock out who was definitely not afraid
of him was larry holmes. but i guess age was quite a factor in
that bout.

don't get me wrong. i don't want to overshoot and deny mike
anything. he was not only a bully, he was skilled, fast and
powerful. there is no denying that.
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not his biggest fan, but you had to do more than just stand up to him. Thomas, Ruddock and Botha will tell you that.
of course, but i remember that at his peak he was
not only seen as invincible, but quite literally feared
by his opponents. in fact i cannot remember a single
title bout other than tyson's where you could almost
smell the fear through the tv screen. remember
mckneely overcoming his angst by going forward like
crazy, or saverese going down almost because he
believed he was hit, or golota having shaky knees
from the getgo or michael spinks being unable to
take a single shot, after having eaten so many hands
from the great larry holmes?

i never saw or even heard of a fighter being that feared
neither at heavies nor at any other weight class. finally
this is world class combat sport. these guys are all by
definition not easily intimidated ...
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46521
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by gilgamesh »

man wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not his biggest fan, but you had to do more than just stand up to him. Thomas, Ruddock and Botha will tell you that.
of course, but i remember that at his peak he was
not only seen as invincible, but quite literally feared
by his opponents. in fact i cannot remember a single
title bout other than tyson's where you could almost
smell the fear through the tv screen. remember
mckneely overcoming his angst by going forward like
crazy, or saverese going down almost because he
believed he was hit, or golota having shaky knees
from the getgo or michael spinks being unable to
take a single shot, after having eaten so many hands
from the great larry holmes?

i never saw or even heard of a fighter being that feared
neither at heavies nor at any other weight class. finally
this is world class combat sport. these guys are all by
definition not easily intimidated ...
As far as being terrified of Mike I'd say Bruce Seldon takes the cake. He went down from a right hand that barely grazed him, and got up wobbly :lol:
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

gilgamesh wrote:
man wrote:
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'm not his biggest fan, but you had to do more than just stand up to him. Thomas, Ruddock and Botha will tell you that.
of course, but i remember that at his peak he was
not only seen as invincible, but quite literally feared
by his opponents. in fact i cannot remember a single
title bout other than tyson's where you could almost
smell the fear through the tv screen. remember
mckneely overcoming his angst by going forward like
crazy, or saverese going down almost because he
believed he was hit, or golota having shaky knees
from the getgo or michael spinks being unable to
take a single shot, after having eaten so many hands
from the great larry holmes?

i never saw or even heard of a fighter being that feared
neither at heavies nor at any other weight class. finally
this is world class combat sport. these guys are all by
definition not easily intimidated ...
As far as being terrified of Mike I'd say Bruce Seldon takes the cake. He went down from a right hand that barely grazed him, and got up wobbly :lol:
Stewart went down from nothing too.
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

gilgamesh wrote:As far as being terrified of Mike I'd say Bruce Seldon takes the cake. He went down from a right hand that barely grazed him, and got up wobbly :lol:
funny thing to me is that opponents didn't take
dives with mike, they would really get knocked
out by shots that hardly landed.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Seldon, Stewart and Spinks went down out of horror.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46521
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by gilgamesh »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Seldon, Stewart and Spinks went down out of horror.
Seldon even wobbled upon getting up from a nothing punch though, so that makes it even more ridiculous.

Spinks just stayed down.

I never saw the Stewart fight so I'm not sure about that one.

It's like man says, these guys were so scared it's like they would legitimately CONVINCE themselves they were hurt even if there was no physical evidence to suggest they could've been.
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

gilgamesh wrote:... these guys were so scared it's like they would legitimately CONVINCE themselves they were hurt even if there was no physical evidence to suggest they could've been.
and i still fail to recall a single other fighter who
evoked that in an opponent. not even foreman in
his famous run up to the ali-bout.

mike tyson could well be the derren brown of boxing.
Nile4000
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7182
Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 15:21

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by Nile4000 »

man wrote:i believe that mike tyson was strong and great. he was one
of the fastest moving heavies of all time. he had courage
and rather went out on his shield than give in.

but it seems to me that once an opponent was not intimated
mike shrank to human size.

here is my question. mike tyson is no 21 here on boxrec's all
time heavy rankings. i do not want to discuss whether this is
a fair ranking, but rather how far he would drop without him
being able to get so deep under the skin of so many opponents.

i know this is pretty hypothetical. to me at least three of his
wins, (spinks, saverese and golota) seemed literally psyched
out rather than defeated by punches. i am not a boxer but i
could imagine that if your hyped and aggressive you can take
shots way better than when you are mentally on your knees
already.

thnx for your contribution.


He would definitely drop 3 or 4 notches easily, that's for sure.
dempseyfire
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5534
Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by dempseyfire »

man wrote:
but it seems to me that once an opponent was not intimated
mike shrank to human size.



thnx for your contribution.
This is a Teddy Atlas inspired myth. Tyson fought lots of guys who stood up to him . . Ribalta, Berbick, Tubbs, Tucker, Thomas etc. He beat those guys anyway because he was simply better than them.
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

dempseyfire wrote:This is a Teddy Atlas inspired myth. Tyson fought lots of guys who stood up to him . . Ribalta, Berbick, Tubbs, Tucker, Thomas etc. He beat those guys anyway because he was simply better than them.
one doesn't exclude the other. i think psychology
does play an intense role in boxing. i believe you
can be hurt by the same punch in very different
ways, if you're mood is different. which means
that some of the guys - certainly not all - that
tyson fought could have been totally psyched out
before the first bell.

i for one believe michael spinks was taken out
as much by his nerves as by mike tyson's fists.
would he have won the fight? i doubt it, but with
tyson you never knew. if a bully doesn't get things
his way the whole setup can change.

my point is that mike tyson was one truly great
boxer, but an underrated weapon in his arsenal
was - psychology. just think for a second if you
remember any other boxer ever feared like that?
only one that came to my mind was foreman
pre-Ali.
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

Nile4000 wrote:He would definitely drop 3 or 4 notches easily, that's for sure.
that's exactly what i think. not by terribly much,
but dropped nevertheless.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46521
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by gilgamesh »

man wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:This is a Teddy Atlas inspired myth. Tyson fought lots of guys who stood up to him . . Ribalta, Berbick, Tubbs, Tucker, Thomas etc. He beat those guys anyway because he was simply better than them.
one doesn't exclude the other. i think psychology
does play an intense role in boxing. i believe you
can be hurt by the same punch in very different
ways, if you're mood is different. which means
that some of the guys - certainly not all - that
tyson fought could have been totally psyched out
before the first bell.

i for one believe michael spinks was taken out
as much by his nerves as by mike tyson's fists.
would he have won the fight? i doubt it, but with
tyson you never knew. if a bully doesn't get things
his way the whole setup can change.

my point is that mike tyson was one truly great
boxer, but an underrated weapon in his arsenal
was - psychology. just think for a second if you
remember any other boxer ever feared like that?
only one that came to my mind was foreman
pre-Ali
.
Supposedly Sonny Liston had a similarly fearsome persona prior to his loss to Clay/Ali
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

dempseyfire wrote:This is a Teddy Atlas inspired myth.
didn't know that. links, interviews ... do you have something?
thnx
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Nile4000 wrote:
man wrote:i believe that mike tyson was strong and great. he was one
of the fastest moving heavies of all time. he had courage
and rather went out on his shield than give in.

but it seems to me that once an opponent was not intimated
mike shrank to human size.

here is my question. mike tyson is no 21 here on boxrec's all
time heavy rankings. i do not want to discuss whether this is
a fair ranking, but rather how far he would drop without him
being able to get so deep under the skin of so many opponents.

i know this is pretty hypothetical. to me at least three of his
wins, (spinks, saverese and golota) seemed literally psyched
out rather than defeated by punches. i am not a boxer but i
could imagine that if your hyped and aggressive you can take
shots way better than when you are mentally on your knees
already.

thnx for your contribution.


He would definitely drop 3 or 4 notches easily, that's for sure.
So who would have beaten him, that didn't, if they weren't intimidated?
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

gilgamesh wrote:Supposedly Sonny Liston had a similarly fearsome persona prior to his loss to Clay/Ali
for me - just from a pyschological point of view -
mike was a level or two above foreman or liston.
he, and his handlers made it seem like he wanted
to destroy opponents rather than taking them out.
there was something profoundly mean about him.

look at the executioner theme of bernard hopkins.
that was alway more like an obvious act. but mike
entering to this weird sound with spinks, having
this aura of "i'm an angry monster, feed me flesh"
... that was on a different level. btw i think this was
no act at all, mike felt that way. that's one of the
reasons why it worked so well.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46521
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by gilgamesh »

man wrote:
gilgamesh wrote:Supposedly Sonny Liston had a similarly fearsome persona prior to his loss to Clay/Ali
for me - just from a pyschological point of view -
mike was a level or two above foreman or liston.
he, and his handlers made it seem like he wanted
to destroy opponents rather than taking them out.
there was something profoundly mean about him.

look at the executioner theme of bernard hopkins.
that was alway more like an obvious act. but mike
entering to this weird sound with spinks, having
this aura of "i'm an angry monster, feed me flesh"

... that was on a different level. btw i think this was
no act at all, mike felt that way. that's one of the
reasons why it worked so well.
What sound? I thought he always entered without any music in his heyday.
gilgamesh
Cruiserweight
Posts: 46521
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 16:21

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by gilgamesh »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Nile4000 wrote:
man wrote:i believe that mike tyson was strong and great. he was one
of the fastest moving heavies of all time. he had courage
and rather went out on his shield than give in.

but it seems to me that once an opponent was not intimated
mike shrank to human size.

here is my question. mike tyson is no 21 here on boxrec's all
time heavy rankings. i do not want to discuss whether this is
a fair ranking, but rather how far he would drop without him
being able to get so deep under the skin of so many opponents.

i know this is pretty hypothetical. to me at least three of his
wins, (spinks, saverese and golota) seemed literally psyched
out rather than defeated by punches. i am not a boxer but i
could imagine that if your hyped and aggressive you can take
shots way better than when you are mentally on your knees
already.

thnx for your contribution.


He would definitely drop 3 or 4 notches easily, that's for sure.
So who would have beaten him, that didn't, if they weren't intimidated?
Good question...I racked my brain looking for an answer and I couldn't find one.
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

gilgamesh wrote:What sound? I thought he always entered without any music in his heyday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmvfb8al0QE
man
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3197
Joined: 09 Jul 2007, 10:38

Re: tyson without the intimidation factor

Post by man »

gilgamesh wrote:Good question...I racked my brain looking for an answer and I couldn't find one.
on the other hand. after three seconds when evander
hit the ropes it could have easily ended right there, if
he had buckled down instead of deciding he won't get
bullied.
Post Reply