Mike Tyson: Ten years either way

[Crease]

Well all know about Iron Mike's path of destruction through the '80s, but what if he had arrived exactly ten year before or even ten years later?
So, he had his first fight on March 06th 1985, so the question is how would his career have ran if it was 1975 and 1995?

[Crease]

I think it's an interesting question and the most important factor has to be the different cast of opponents he would be coming up against. In his '70s career, he would be in with a prime Larry Holmes... And toward the end of his hypothetical '93 career, he would surely be coming up against the Klitschskos.

[Caractacus]

That just reminded me of a great song from the year 1971.
TEN YEARS AFTER-I'd Love to Change the World.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKGYMA8Fnxs

[drunkenpiper36]

If he turns pro in 1975 rather than 1985, but emerges just as quickly then he probably runs into an aging Ali around 1977, and maybe meets a few guys like Shavers, Lyle and Norton along the way. I think he wins all those fights, especially given that most of them ( including Ali ) were past their primes. A young Larry Holmes circa 1978-79 would have been an interesting match and a toss up for me. If his career trajectory works out to where he loses focus early, then he probably diminishes around 1980-81. If for some reason he remains on track, then he'd be a force to be reconned with throughout the 1980's. Going the other way where he turns pro in the 90's, I think his career would be the shortest lived of all given scenarios. Lots of big men with talent in that era including Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, a comeback Foreman and the rising Klitschko's. He wins some and losses some, but doesn't establish dominance for very long if even at all.

[northern]

really good question
ten years earlier: I think he would have become one of the best of all time, fighting an aged Ali and a younger Holmes and winning both would have established him as one of the best of all time and I think when you add in he would have had his trainer Cus D'Amato longer so he would have been trained and controlled properly and with Don king promoting him as well but having less control with Cus around, yeah I believe he would have been one of the greats.

ten years later: this is the hard part, when you think of all the names who had started around this time and developed earlier without Tyson there, would they have reached the same level without that potential fight coming up to make them train harder ? then you look at the fact Cus wasn't around anymore so who would have trained him ? then Don king didn't have as much influence as he used to or who would Don have used to keep a hold of the heavyweight division ? and who would promote Tyson? all this considered I think he would have become a top heavyweight still, because his aggressive style isn't seen very often, I just don't think he would have been considered one of the best of all time.

[Broomhall]

You can do this with every heavyweight champ. It is just another version of who would beat who in which era. The 21 year old Tyson was the most fearsome and destructive fighting machine I have seen.

Many people underestimate Tysons ability to win fights psychologically. Even before the first bell he had won many fights and I dont see why this would be different in any era.

[Crease]

You can do this with every heavyweight champ. It is just another version of who would beat who in which era.

But the question becomes even more significant in Tyson's case due to the destructive way which he rampaged through the division. The ultimate purpose of the question is to uncover why this happened?
A. Was Mike really that good?
B. Or was his competition of a very low standard?

This is perhaps the only way to answer that.

[Crease]

Another interesting thing is that he eventually retired in 2005. So if we are to look at his career in 95, then he would still be fighting today and would be retiring June next year.

[Ambling Alp II]

You can do this with every heavyweight champ. It is just another version of who would beat who in which era.

But the question becomes even more significant in Tyson's case due to the destructive way which he rampaged through the division. The ultimate purpose of the question is to uncover why this happened?
A. Was Mike really that good?
B. Or was his competition of a very low standard?

This is perhaps the only way to answer that.

A. He was really good. Really that good? He wasn't the best ever, but at most there were only a dozen better heavyweights in the history of the sport.
B. His competition was probably below average, but certainly not very low. He beat a lot of very good fighters; never beat a great one.

He also didn't "rampage" the division as easily as many people remember. Yes he had some overwhelming performances. He also had some where he struggled.
In some weak eras he would have completely dominated. In other eras he wouldn't have been the best.

[HomicideHenry]

A. He was really good. Really that good? He wasn't the best ever, but at most there were only a dozen better heavyweights in the history of the sport.
B. His competition was probably below average, but certainly not very low. He beat a lot of very good fighters; never beat a great one.

He also didn't "rampage" the division as easily as many people remember. Yes he had some overwhelming performances. He also had some where he struggled.
In some weak eras he would have completely dominated. In other eras he wouldn't have been the best.

With Tyson I can say, what made him 'great' was the way in which he disposed of opponents. Had anyone else fought the same opposition as he did, and didn't dismantle them--- no one would of cared, and would of liberally criticized them for facing such weak characters, or not having the talent and ability to do better against them.

I once heard someone say of Tyson, "He was a mile wide, and an inch deep." Meaning that he had great talent, but as far as mental/emotional resolve, and having the discipline necessary to of been one of the all time greats, he didn't have it. So, therefore, one would have to assume that if he fought someone like Frazier, Foreman, Ali, etc. who were true warriors, Tyson would of either A) beaten them early, B) would of collapsed under the pressure.

In the 1990's I remember Foreman calling out Tyson on several occasions and he was asked how such a fight would turn out. Foreman, wisely, said "It will go three rounds. Either he's gonna take me out, or I'm taking him out." I think beneath the surface, it tells the tale of Tyson's overall ability. If someone was capable, talented, and tough enough to take Tyson down the stretch, he would mentally give up. That being said, though, you practically had to punch Tyson's head off his shoulders, in order to stop him. The kind of punishment he took against Lewis, was phenomenal. The same can be said of the Holyfield and Douglas fights. To beat Tyson, you had to stand up to him in every regard.

[cfang]

Good post Henry. I agree totally. Tyson was brutal in his youth and had incredibly fast hands. People wonder if he was amazing during his early period or his opponents were not that good. It's a bit of both really. One thing I do know is that Mike never won a fight he looked like he was going to lose.

I think that the true warriors of the sport who could hang with him for a few rounds would have beaten him as he was in effect a bully fighter who was incredible when on top but not so good when things went badly for him. When you compare his career to Ali's for example and the amount of times he was in trouble especially later on, you just can't see Mike having the mental strength to beat such a man.

Don't get me wrong Tyson is one of my favourite fighters and he'd have a chance against anyone in the first few rounds but given a life or death battle, I'm not going to put my money on him but would on quite a few others.

[HomicideHenry]

Good post Henry. I agree totally. Tyson was brutal in his youth and had incredibly fast hands. People wonder if he was amazing during his early period or his opponents were not that good. It's a bit of both really. One thing I do know is that Mike never won a fight he looked like he was going to lose.

I think that the true warriors of the sport who could hang with him for a few rounds would have beaten him as he was in effect a bully fighter who was incredible when on top but not so good when things went badly for him. When you compare his career to Ali's for example and the amount of times he was in trouble especially later on, you just can't see Mike having the mental strength to beat such a man.

Don't get me wrong Tyson is one of my favourite fighters and he'd have a chance against anyone in the first few rounds but given a life or death battle, I'm not going to put my money on him but would on quite a few others.

Tyson and Foreman, along with Duran, were the three fighters that made me a boxing fan and I had the privelage of watching them growing up--- however, concerning Tyson, he really was in the mold of Liston and the young Foreman. If he didn't get you early, he turned into a mauler and clincher. And if that didn't work, he resorted to foul tactics. And if that didn't work, he was done.

That's why I've always assumed, that the old George probably could of beaten Tyson--- because Foreman matured and knew what it was like. Tyson and Foreman were the same animal. The difference, though, is Tyson never did regain his composure--- never was the same man, and his abilities only deteriorated over the years. He became a fighter, only in name in the last remaining years. With George, he completely reinvented himself--- but what was most amazing wasn't just the technical skills he picked up, but his mentality and composure.

Yes, Tyson still had hand speed, yes he still had power, and yes he still was scary as all get out--- but the last 4-5 years, he was only good for 1-4 rounds. You have to figure, it took 7 rounds for him to stop Brian Nielsen, who was a man whose career was built on fixes. The Tyson of '85 until the unification of the title, was something to behold. After that, though, the head movement, the self discipline, etc. all started to fade away. Tyson said it best when he retired after McBride, "My career was over in 1990 when I lost against Buster Douglas."

In his prime, though, he was a near perfect fighter--- though one may argue or point out, he was a manufactured one. He operated more out of a system, rather than on instinct and self reliance. If Tyson wasn't reassured, told exactly what to do, etc. he was a loose cannon and liable to foul himself out or give up. He was instructed. He wasn't self reliant.

[Ambling Alp II]

It's interesting that some fighters are only known for their big kos. Tyson (and Liston for that matter) had many fights that went the distance or several rounds.
Tyson didn't destroy Tillis, Smith, Tucker, and Ruddock. In fact he struggled with them. He methodically beat down Thomas and Biggs. You hardly ever hear people talk about those fights.

Tyson was not a manufactured fighter at all; he was a fighter who fought with instinct. That is what made him so aggressive in the ring. You can't have a trainer teach that. You either have it (most fighter's don't) or you don't.
In the ring, Tyson usually didn't need that much guidance. Outside it, he obviously needed an awful lot.
People try to psychoanalyze him a lot. I think a lot of it is wrong. He didn't just quit if the other guy fought back. It's a little more complicated than he was a bully.

Never could understand how people think an old Foreman would beat Tyson. Tyson would have crushed an old Foreman. Foreman was easy to hit and didn't have the power anymore to hurt Tyson. It would be over pretty quickly.
A young Foreman would have crushed Tyson win about 3 rounds.

[HomicideHenry]

It's interesting that some fighters are only known for their big kos. Tyson (and Liston for that matter) had many fights that went the distance or several rounds.
Tyson didn't destroy Tillis, Smith, Tucker, and Ruddock. In fact he struggled with them. He methodically beat down Thomas and Biggs. You hardly ever hear people talk about those fights.

Tyson was not a manufactured fighter at all; he was a fighter who fought with instinct. That is what made him so aggressive in the ring. You can't have a trainer teach that. You either have it (most fighter's don't) or you don't.
In the ring, Tyson usually didn't need that much guidance. Outside it, he obviously needed an awful lot.
People try to psychoanalyze him a lot. I think a lot of it is wrong. He didn't just quit if the other guy fought back. It's a little more complicated than he was a bully.

Never could understand how people think an old Foreman would beat Tyson. Tyson would have crushed an old Foreman. Foreman was easy to hit and didn't have the power anymore to hurt Tyson. It would be over pretty quickly. A young Foreman would have crushed Tyson win about 3 rounds.

What I mean @ manufactured, was the D'Amato system of numbers for combinations, etc. and his response to not having guidance in his corner.

[L.A. kidd]

hey guys, I new to this site. im 72 years old, and have been a boxing fan all my life,
I grew up in so. cal. and was always going to the fights.
regarding this thread on Tyson, I can only see him as an immature bully, highly
overated. his opposition could not compare to those of the 60s 70s. he would have
been duck soup for ali, foreman, frazier, holmes, quarry would have beat him.


buster douglas wasn't even rated, and he showed the world Tysons true colors.

[Ambling Alp II]

I was no fan of him either. I don't think he was as good as many of his fans claim. ("Prime" Tyson was the best ever etc.) Don't buy the crybaby excuses either.
However, he was very good.
As usual the truth is somewhere between the extremes.

[Ambling Alp II]

It's interesting that some fighters are only known for their big kos. Tyson (and Liston for that matter) had many fights that went the distance or several rounds.
Tyson didn't destroy Tillis, Smith, Tucker, and Ruddock. In fact he struggled with them. He methodically beat down Thomas and Biggs. You hardly ever hear people talk about those fights.

Tyson was not a manufactured fighter at all; he was a fighter who fought with instinct. That is what made him so aggressive in the ring. You can't have a trainer teach that. You either have it (most fighter's don't) or you don't.
In the ring, Tyson usually didn't need that much guidance. Outside it, he obviously needed an awful lot.
People try to psychoanalyze him a lot. I think a lot of it is wrong. He didn't just quit if the other guy fought back. It's a little more complicated than he was a bully.

Never could understand how people think an old Foreman would beat Tyson. Tyson would have crushed an old Foreman. Foreman was easy to hit and didn't have the power anymore to hurt Tyson. It would be over pretty quickly. A young Foreman would have crushed Tyson win about 3 rounds.

What I mean @ manufactured, was the D'Amato system of numbers for combinations, etc. and his response to not having guidance in his corner.

The D'Amato system of numbers for combinations etc. ? huh?
Not having guidance from his corner? huh? He had good trainers.

[Ezzard]

If he started in 1975...

On the way up he’d beat the usual cannon fodder. A guy like Joe Bugner would be the first to take him the distance. In 77 or 78.

He’d probably get fed a washed up Joe Frazier. And feast on the shell of Jerry Quarry. Then he’d be put in with Ron Lyle. A fight he should win but might not.

There’d be a sensational blow out of Ken Norton.

And a dust up with a messed up post-Zaire Foreman.

He’d fight ancient Ali in 78 or 79 and beat him. He’d then hold the title for a while before going into a 3 fight series with Holmes in which he loses 2 and wins 1. Be a lot more wear and tear on Tyson. He takes a year off.

After a couple of easy comeback wins he then loses a very close one in a fight of the year candidate to a young motivated Witherspoon.

Rolling back the years he KOs a comebacking Gerry Cooney in a crossroads fight. This earns him an eliminator with Holyfield who uses him as a stepping stone to a title fight…Despite the loss Tyson fans say he’d have won in his prime.

Evetually Tyson is brought over to the UK and fed to a young Lennox Lewis who mauls him in a couple of rounds. Mike retires.

[The Great John L]

Never could understand how people think an old Foreman would beat Tyson. Tyson would have crushed an old Foreman. Foreman was easy to hit and didn't have the power anymore to hurt Tyson. It would be over pretty quickly.
A young Foreman would have crushed Tyson win about 3 rounds.

You are wise Alp.

[HomicideHenry]

Alp, what I am referring to was when the Tyson/D'Amato/Rooney/Jacobs camp started falling apart. When he started distancing himself from what worked--- he fell apart all around as a fighter, and as a person. Out went the head movement, the personal discipline, etc. It was evident from the start, even as an amateur, that Tyson was mentally and emotionally fragile--- if he didn't have the reassurances of D'Amato, Rooney, Jacobs and Atlas, he would never of made it one iota.

[Ambling Alp II]

He would have been fine with any decent trainer. He had way too much talent to be a journeyman if he had anyone decent.
D'Amato died in 1985 and Tyson became the best heavyweight in the world after that.
Rooney split with him in 1988, and he kept rolling.

Atlas had almost no impact on Tyson's career; his influence is way overblown.
He had Richie Giachetti for several of fights in the 1990s. He had much more to do with Tyson's career than Atlas.

Didn't really matter that much who his trainer was.

[The Great John L]

He would have been fine with any decent trainer. He had way too much talent to be a journeyman if he had anyone decent.
D'Amato died in 1985 and Tyson became the best heavyweight in the world after that.
Rooney split with him in 1988, and he kept rolling.

Atlas had almost no impact on Tyson's career; his influence is way overblown.
He had Richie Giachetti for several of fights in the 1990s. He had much more to do with Tyson's career than Atlas.

Didn't really matter that much who his trainer was.

Tyson was an incredible talent with a pre-disposition to self destruct. He's one of those fighters who is both under and over-rated because opinions are so divergent.

[HomicideHenry]

He would have been fine with any decent trainer. He had way too much talent to be a journeyman if he had anyone decent.
D'Amato died in 1985 and Tyson became the best heavyweight in the world after that.
Rooney split with him in 1988, and he kept rolling.

Atlas had almost no impact on Tyson's career; his influence is way overblown.
He had Richie Giachetti for several of fights in the 1990s. He had much more to do with Tyson's career than Atlas.

Didn't really matter that much who his trainer was.

Anyone who says the Tyson of '88-90 was the same Tyson of '85-87 doesn't know what they are talking about.

The differences was so telling, it may as well of been night and day.

[Ambling Alp II]

Um, no way. What in the world are you talking about?

I would argue that overall the Tyson of 1988-1990 was better.
He lost to Buster Douglas. You yourself keep going on how great Douglas was during that fight. Tyson never had to contend with an opponent that fought that well in 1985-1987. Tyson performed as well in that fight as he did in several fights from 1985-1987.

The rest of his fights from 1988-1990: he crushed Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno and Williams. None of them lasted 5 rounds.
From 1985-1988, he struggled with James Tillis, Tony Tucker, and Bonecrusher Smith. Mitch Green went the distance with him. Jose Ribalta almost did.

[HomicideHenry]

Um, no way. What in the world are you talking about?

I would argue that overall the Tyson of 1988-1990 was better.
He lost to Buster Douglas. You yourself keep going on how great Douglas was during that fight. Tyson never had to contend with an opponent that fought that well in 1985-1987. Tyson performed as well in that fight as he did in several fights from 1985-1987.

The rest of his fights from 1988-1990: he crushed Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno and Williams. None of them lasted 5 rounds.
From 1985-1988, he struggled with James Tillis, Tony Tucker, and Bonecrusher Smith. Mitch Green went the distance with him. Jose Ribalta almost did.

#1- Tyson's overall arsenal was falling apart after the team fractured. He became more of a headhunter, and began using illegal tactics more than he had in the past. Those two are the most obvious. His head movement, and all around combinations started to become infrequent--- in the '85-87 time frame he was easily able to get in on the inside of his opponents reach; whereas after the fracture of the team he slowly but surely became more of a buller, than someone who bobbed/weaved his way in. The Tyson who destroyed Berbick, in my view, was the best Tyson. It was all there.

#2- You argue he fought better from '88-90, but here's the problem... all those guys listed were either old/inactive, fat/out of shape whales, scared out of their mind light heavyweights, over-hyped over-sold Europeans, and glass jawed Stewart and Tillman.... Williams, may of been the best win of all of them, because until that point he never showed that he was weak in any way, shape or form as he had went 15 competitive rounds back when Holmes was champion... then you factor in, he lost to 42-1 under-dog Douglas... so was it because Tyson was getting better, or because Tyson just became more ruthless in matches and that he was facing hand picked dead-men?... You argue '85-87 he struggled with people, and in my view we may as well forget his '85 rookie year because he was facing tomato cans; it was just too easy... '86 he steps up and outside of Tillis and Green (the latter ran away the whole time), he looked phenomenal; the only man who went somewhat competitive with him was Ribalta who was a bonafide contender all in his prime... As far as his championship reign goes, the one blemish on the whole reign seems to be Smith, who was content to clinch and hold for twelve rounds--- and if Smith was not gonna push the issue, then why should we of expected Tyson?... I'll argue day and night that Thomas and Tucker were superior to the likes of Tubbs and Bruno in the 88-90 years.

#3- Mike Tyson the man was in a self-imposed hell; arguments and personal trainer changes aside, he was being conned by Don King and his wife Robin Givens and mother in law Ruth Roper, etc. he began drinking and doing drugs on a regular basis and became lackluster in training camp--- all the personal discipline and focus was gone. Allegations of domestic violence at home and on vacations, along with rumors that he got women pregnant outside of his marriage, etc. were all indications that Tyson was mentally/emotionally falling apart. Tyson also during this time got on anti-psychotic medication for "bipolar disorder" and "mood regulatory disorder", etc. The result--- as stated earlier--- was a man who threw all science and defense to the wind and became strictly a bully-boy in the ring, who used illegal tactics and just threw head punches.

Argue however you wish or want, we all believe certain moments and eras were more nostalgic and important than others, but I think the evidence is overwhelming.