You have a perfectly valid point as well. I'm not trying to be a dick or steamroll you on this conversation. You're right that Tyson did show a tendency to fold in his toughest bouts. I'd most notably point to Buster Douglas and Holyfield here as he was still in fine fighting form in these bouts. He gave up on himself fairly early against Lennox, and the Danny Williams fight showed that he had no more resolve left when the going got tough he'd just pack it in, but by that point he was a shell of himself, and was just hoping for a 1st or 2nd round KO or he'd say to hell with it. I don't think those efforts are indicative of what a Prime Tyson would do....the Holyfield fight might be though.jas80s wrote: ↑11 Feb 2018, 16:03Ruddock 2 was probably my best candidate as well. But, he was somewhat limited compared to Vitali. I am not trying to move the goal posts on you, so again I take your reply as a point taken. I just didn't fully agree as I think there was not the same danger of losing in that one, and I think it is the real danger of losing that shakes Tyson and triggers the tendency to lose resolve.gilgamesh wrote: ↑11 Feb 2018, 15:22Razor Ruddock 2 certainly counts as a hard fought Unanimous Decision I'd say. James "Quick" Tillis won 4 of the 10 rounds against Mike as well. That doesn't exactly indicate a walk in the park.jas80s wrote: ↑11 Feb 2018, 15:17
I'm struggling to come up with a fight in Tyson's career where he won a hard fought unanimous decision...If Tyson was in there with a guy who wasn't afraid, was throwing back as opposed to simply trying to survive, and had legitimate talent, he gave up and went away. I don't think you can divorce that dynamic from this type of conversation.
Was Tyson a more dynamic, more talented fighter, quite possible, even quite likely. But, if we are going to pretend that he had a knack for adjusting and digging deep to find a way in two way wars we may as well pretend that Vitali had the hand speed of Roy Jones to even the playing field again.
I don't want to make another post, so I wanted to add that Tillis was a very nice point as well. The reason that I didn't lead with that one myself (other than not remembering it right off the top of my head). Was once again, the danger of losing wasn't really present. Tyson had every reason to believe that he was leading throughout. Similarly, Tyson was consistently getting his punches off and with good effect. I think that fight demonstrated that Tillis was damn tough and showed great courage and resolve.
The point I am making about Tyson is against elite guys who could legitimately beat him through great skills and toughness, he was fragile. Tillis and Ruddock showed some of that certainly, but they didn't really have Tyson thinking, I don't think I can beat this guy. Admittedly, this is just my take on it, obviously, I don't profess to know what is in his head.
I can see him winning the fight, especially at his best. But, I think he would need to break out in front and get Vitali in to some kind of survival mode. Barring that, Vitali's ability to fight tall and take a punch would demoralize Tyson and he would get the win, likely sweeping the later rounds of the fight. My take.
The thing is though. I don't think Vitali is in the same league as Holyfield.
