When Did Mike Tyson's Prime End?

[tiny_acres]

The shortest prime in history according to most.

Not as short as Buster Douglas' prime.

very true

[Boxing Writer]

I think somewhere in the middle of the 879,643 Tyson threads lies the truth. However much like the little boy who cried wolf, that truth has been distorted by the bullshitt.

We have had, amongst other cobblers, the following excuses for Tyson's first defeat, in February 1990

Cus D'Amato's death.

All very well but the man died in November 1985.

The divorce from Robin Givens.

Hmm, just the one small problem. ELEVEN DAYS after said divorce Tyson beat the crap out of Bruno in 5 rounds. February 1989.

The sacking of Kevin Rooney.

The problem there of course is in the 2 fights before Spinks, Tyson disposed of Holmes and Tubbs in a total of 6 rounds. Funnily enough in the 2 fights immediately after Spinks he disposed of Bruno, and Williams in a total of ??????????????????????????????? yep, you guessed it. 6 rounds. So that theory doesn't hold water either.

Now we have the stories of booze, dope, and whoring in the run up to the fight, coupled of course with the biggest load of LYING BULLSHITT evert invented by the human brain. He was " out of shape "

BOLLOX.

Plenty of fighters have a drink, and screw women in the run up to a fight. As for the drugs, the one that stays longest in your system is cannabis, which can still show up in a piss test 20+ days later. And the weight? He was a mere 2 lbs heavier than when he had beaten Spinks nearly 2 years earlier.

So like every other myth there is a truth of sorts in there somewhere.

You are right that Tyson's fanboys are awful in many things (as well as Klitschko's, Pacquiao's, Mayweather's etc.), but considering the weight nothing can compare to Lewis' fanboys calling him 'fat' in the first Rahman fight. He was just 2½ lbs (or 0,99%) heavier than he was in the rematch against McCall. And he never looked even remotedly fat in that fight. He was extremely overconfident and thus unforcused, but fat? NO WAY! I bet John Ruiz would dream to be that 'fat', not to mention guys like Arreola

[elmersalsa]

I think it ended when he went to jail in 1992. When he came back in 1995, lots of people thought that he was gonna destroy everybody because he was mad at the world. It seemed like he was invincible in his first 4 fights when he got out of prison, beating up TOMATO CANS, but the great Evander Holyfield exposed him so bad that once he fought a real fighter he would fold. And it happened.

[Controversial]

I think somewhere in the middle of the 879,643 Tyson threads lies the truth. However much like the little boy who cried wolf, that truth has been distorted by the bullshitt.

We have had, amongst other cobblers, the following excuses for Tyson's first defeat, in February 1990

Cus D'Amato's death.

All very well but the man died in November 1985.

The divorce from Robin Givens.

Hmm, just the one small problem. ELEVEN DAYS after said divorce Tyson beat the crap out of Bruno in 5 rounds. February 1989.

The sacking of Kevin Rooney.

The problem there of course is in the 2 fights before Spinks, Tyson disposed of Holmes and Tubbs in a total of 6 rounds. Funnily enough in the 2 fights immediately after Spinks he disposed of Bruno, and Williams in a total of ??????????????????????????????? yep, you guessed it. 6 rounds. So that theory doesn't hold water either.

Now we have the stories of booze, dope, and whoring in the run up to the fight, coupled of course with the biggest load of LYING BULLSHITT evert invented by the human brain. He was " out of shape "

BOLLOX.

Plenty of fighters have a drink, and screw women in the run up to a fight. As for the drugs, the one that stays longest in your system is cannabis, which can still show up in a piss test 20+ days later. And the weight? He was a mere 2 lbs heavier than when he had beaten Spinks nearly 2 years earlier.

So like every other myth there is a truth of sorts in there somewhere.

Your right most of the excuses are crap i.e. Givens, Cus etc... but his lifestyle was key to his undoing. Plus Douglas being on his A game. No one gave Douglas a chance, why would you train your arse off and be motivated to fight a 42-1 underdog that hadn't beaten anyone of note before and all the experts are saying will last a round or two. Other fighters have come unstuck for underestimating opponents and not training accordingly, Tyson was just another one of them.

[Ruthless-RKO]

I think it would be when the fighter is at their peak prime. Could be a range of time and not just one date. It's true some are at their peak best in their early years and some later in their career. Usually HW's peak in their late 20's.. lets not forget Tyson fought an awful lot before he even won a world title..

[Controversial]

Your right most of the excuses are crap i.e. Givens, Cus etc... but his lifestyle was key to his undoing. Plus Douglas being on his A game. No one gave Douglas a chance, why would you train your arse off and be motivated to fight a 42-1 underdog that hadn't beaten anyone of note before and all the experts are saying will last a round or two. Other fighters have come unstuck for underestimating opponents and not training accordingly, Tyson was just another one of them.

I see your point Controversial, but I still have a couple of issues with it.

1. I firmly believe that for every Hopkins, Hagler, Mayweather etc, etc, etc, that live a dedicated ( to boxing ) lifestyle there are 20 who don't, and for all the hype about Tyson, some of those guys lifestyles would make him look like a hermit.

2. If you or I tried to blame the lifestyle of say a Hatton or a Duran for any of their defeats, we would be shouted down and told we were talking shite and the other guy was just better than them.

There are many HWs who haven't been dedicated enough over the years and quite a few have won a world title and got into some sort of substance abuse and stopped training so hard. It doesn't happen so much in the lighter weights that a nobody becomes a multi-millionaire and worldwide superstar like Tyson did.

Ali had a similar fate with Spinks, he underestimated him and cut corners in training. No one gave Spinks a chance but he bought his 'A' game and beat Ali. Once he won the title Spinks went off the rails, pretty much like Douglas did after beating Tyson.

The way I look at it is this, was Tyson at his very best mentally and physically when he faced Douglas, personally I don't think he was. Douglas was great but only for that one fight but that was enough on that occasion.

[Boxing Writer]

Your right most of the excuses are crap i.e. Givens, Cus etc... but his lifestyle was key to his undoing. Plus Douglas being on his A game. No one gave Douglas a chance, why would you train your arse off and be motivated to fight a 42-1 underdog that hadn't beaten anyone of note before and all the experts are saying will last a round or two. Other fighters have come unstuck for underestimating opponents and not training accordingly, Tyson was just another one of them.

I see your point Controversial, but I still have a couple of issues with it.

1. I firmly believe that for every Hopkins, Hagler, Mayweather etc, etc, etc, that live a dedicated ( to boxing ) lifestyle there are 20 who don't, and for all the hype about Tyson, some of those guys lifestyles would make him look like a hermit.

2. If you or I tried to blame the lifestyle of say a Hatton or a Duran for any of their defeats, we would be shouted down and told we were talking shite and the other guy was just better than them.

There are many HWs who haven't been dedicated enough over the years and quite a few have won a world title and got into some sort of substance abuse and stopped training so hard. It doesn't happen so much in the lighter weights that a nobody becomes a multi-millionaire and worldwide superstar like Tyson did.

Ali had a similar fate with Spinks, he underestimated him and cut corners in training. No one gave Spinks a chance but he bought his 'A' game and beat Ali. Once he won the title Spinks went off the rails, pretty much like Douglas did after beating Tyson.

The way I look at it is this, was Tyson at his very best mentally and physically when he faced Douglas, personally I don't think he was. Douglas was great but only for that one fight but that was enough on that occasion.

I'm not sure if any version of Tyson would be able to beat that version of Douglas. Buster was excellent fighter - big, tall, skilled, he had amazing jab, right and left hooks, great right uppercut and absolutely fantastc streight left hand which he threw from the southpaw stance. He also KO'ed (or knocked down) Mike Williams with the same punch. Douglas also put great combinations mixing body/head punches extremely well. Fast-handed and heavy-handed too. He was extremely gifted and talented fighter, but also really lazy one.

[Boxing Writer]

I'm not sure if any version of Tyson would be able to beat that version of Douglas. Buster was excellent fighter - big, tall, skilled, he had amazing jab, right and left hooks, great right uppercut and absolutely fantastc streight left hand which he threw from the southpaw stance. He also KO'ed (or knocked down) Mike Williams with the same punch. Douglas also put great combinations mixing body/head punches extremely well. Fast-handed and heavy-handed too. He was extremely gifted and talented fighter, but also really lazy one.

That reads as though you are disagreeing with yourself B.W. You say correctly that Douglas had exceptional skills, and you don't think any version of Tyson beats him ( on which I totally agree ) but then write as though it was a one off performance by Buster. It wasn't, plenty of people knew about his ability and had seen it on display, conversely they had seen the lazy side of him as well.

However pure common sense tells you against a natural bully like Tyson a guy like Buster was always going to bring his A game, rather than risk unnecessary injury.

No, you misunderstood me. Buster was very lazy, but he wasn't one-hit wonder. He beat 4 world heavyweight champions (Tyson, McCall, Berbick, Page) and he completely destroyed Mike Williams (pre-drug-addiction version), who gave a very tough fight to prime Tim Wtherspoon. But he looked average against Ferguson, Tangstad, White - guys that he should have beaten easily. Therefore, people mistakingly underestimated him. Douglas had unique thing in his technique, that wasn't posessed even by highly skilled guys like Holmes, Lewis, Holy and Ali. It was his murderous streight left hand which he thrown when his left foot was begind his right one - from unnatural for him southpaw stance. I believe it totally cought Tyson by surprise - he didn't think Douglas can end his attacks with a streight left hand. He used the same punch even when he was old and shot - Brian Scott wasn't a world beater, but he KO'ed unbeated highly-touted prospect Courage Thsabalala in his previous fight:


His great uppercut would always trouble any version of Tyson, who always held his chin very low. And Buster's mentality, of course, too - after being knocked down in the end of the eight round, he started to pound Tyson like a heavy-bag from the very beginning of round 9.

[Ned Merrill]

As I have said before Tyson is a polarizing figure. He has people who worship him and and have excuses for everything. Then you have the opposite. With the exception of Ali and Leonard, there has been more Tyson "haters" on this Forum than anyone else. Just mention his name in passing and often people get all bent out of shape.

Like many, I loathe him as a person. However, we need to rate fighters how good they are whether or not I like them. As a fighter, Tyson was not as good as the "fanboys" say and better than the "haters" say.

Great points.

[Nile4000]

Probably around 1989. His outside influences help cut it short.

[Kalan]

As I have said before Tyson is a polarizing figure. He has people who worship him and and have excuses for everything. Then you have the opposite. With the exception of Ali and Leonard, there has been more Tyson "haters" on this Forum than anyone else. Just mention his name in passing and often people get all bent out of shape.

Like many, I loathe him as a person. However, we need to rate fighters how good they are whether or not I like them. As a fighter, Tyson was not as good as the "fanboys" say and better than the "haters" say

You admit you loath Tyson... Loathing is hating... You are NOT a person who would be even handed in assessing his ability.... He was Heavyweight Champion at 20 -- with a quick KO of a Heavyweight Champion who went 15 rounds with Larry Holmes.... He was UNIFIED Heavyweight Champion at 21 -- by knocking the Lineal Heavyweight Champion OUT in 91 seconds -- an Olympic Gold Medal winner who had never been beaten before and beat ATG Larry Holmes, 48-0...

Exactly WHO were the astounding, undefeated challengers who Joe Louis beat???

Louis got FLATTENED by 2 men who were so small they never were able to fill out to the Cruiserweight limit.

Tyson won his first 10 Heavyweight Championship Fights and NONE of his opponents were as light as a Cruiserweight... Tyson slipped and ducked punches very well and had an overpowering offense that destroyed anyone Joe Louis's size... During Louis's prime, the color-line was 90% intact... He fought "Bum of the Month" challengers as a result .... Tyson fought at a time when the color-line was fully rendered and ALL 16 of his World Championship opponents were black.. Louis was behind on points to 174-pound Billy Conn after 12 rounds... Exactly how many seconds to you think it would take a 21-year-old, peak Mike Tyson, to run over Billy Conn???

If a peak 21-year-old Mike Tyson fought Joe Louis, the Brown Bomber would end up like hapless Michael Spinks... How would Billy Conn have fared against peak Michael Spinks, Bob Foster, Ezzard Charles, or Archie Moore at LHW?

The last thing people forget is -- there's 4 times as many people in the world today as there were in the 1930's... There's a bigger and broader pool of talent out there... Olympic and World Records fall like clockwork... Professional Boxing is gaining a powerful foothold in a huge slice of the planet where it never existed before... Louis faced a weak talent pool.

[HomicideHenry]

1990. Definitely. From that time on he was just a headhunter with no discipline and next to no defense. Sure you could argue he lost the mental drive and focus prior to that, but in 1988-1989 he defeated the likes of Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno, Williams as if they were nothing. He did as what was expected from him. Only from 1990 onwards did he appear a shell of what he was.

[Ruthless-RKO]

So i'm not sure how many of us got involved, but many believe Tyson's prime ended before his first loss..

We had an argument earlier though, some claiming that Tyson 'fan boys' would sat that it ended before his first loss etc.

[keithmoonhangover]

Performances slipped post-Spinks.

Had uneven showings following his 90 second destruction of Spinks.

At that time it was probably more mental than physical.

Tyson was still very young and had taken little punishment in his career.

But he lost a lot of his drive and hunger once he became lineal champ, and achieved mainstream celebrity.

Post-Spinks, the Tyson party-years had begun, and his skills suffered.

This

[keithmoonhangover]

According to his fanboys, his prime ended the first time he lost.

If I think Tyson's prime ended after Spinks, does that make me a fanboy?

[keithmoonhangover]

According to his fanboys, his prime ended the first time he lost.

If I think Tyson's prime ended after Spinks, does that make me a fanboy?

Unless you would like to give us some in depth explanation as to how a mere 8 months after Spinks, tyson managed to drop Bruno in the 1st, force him to get a point deducted for holding before stopping him in the 5th equates to him being past his prime, you decide, whether or not you could be considered a fanboy. Not to mention getting rid of Williams inside 1 round a mere 5 months after that

Is this the level you're at? Calling people 'fanboys' and using .

Aren't we here to discuss boxing?

[keithmoonhangover]

Unless you would like to give us some in depth explanation as to how a mere 8 months after Spinks, tyson managed to drop Bruno in the 1st, force him to get a point deducted for holding before stopping him in the 5th equates to him being past his prime, you decide, whether or not you could be considered a fanboy. Not to mention getting rid of Williams inside 1 round a mere 5 months after that

Is this the level you're at? Calling people 'fanboys' and using .

Aren't we here to discuss boxing?

I'm just quoting the facts and stats, which make something of a nonsense of those Tyson fanboys claim that his prime ended immediately after Spinks. He was NEVER going to be able to beat someone with the size and ability of Douglas, prime or no prime, and that is what his fanboys have trouble getting into their heads.

Same goes for either Holy or Lewis. These guys were ALWAYS going to take the fight straight to him, and his bully boy mentality wouldn't be able to cope with it.

These aren't facts, they are just your opinion.

Can I just ask, if I think Tyson's prime ended after Spinks, does that mean I'm a fanboy?

[Boxing Writer]

According to his fanboys, his prime ended the first time he lost.

If I think Tyson's prime ended after Spinks, does that make me a fanboy?

I'd rather say his peak has ended after the Spinks fight. His physical prime lasted until 1997. The first fight when he looked much slower than before was a fight against Botha. Tyson of 1989-1997 has abandoned some of his technical elements, but physically he was as good as his peak version (1986-1988).

[Controversial]

There’s a difference to being underprepared, unmotivated and over confident than being physically shot or past your best. Lots of fighters lose under these circumstances. Had Tyson been in the same mindset and condition that he fought Spinks I doubt Douglas would’ve had the same success. Boxing is often about timing, Douglas was at his very best and Tyson was at his worst at that stage of his career. There are lots of reports at the time of the fight to say Tyson was overweight and looking poor in training, having public sparring sessions cut short because sparring partners were making him look bad. That’s why he lost, not because he was past his best.

[Ambling Alp II]

Good points. There was no reason why he should have been past his prime for long after the Douglas fight. For whatever reasons, he was not at his best vs Douglas; and that is on him.

If he was at his best vs Douglas, what would have happened? That is one of boxing's great questions. I think Douglas still might have won. He was that good that night. Of course, I have a feeling the judges may have hosed him.

[oogiebe]

When Jim Jacobs passed away...opened the door for Don "slimey" King's minions to take hold. Really a shame.

[bollocks]

You have to wonder if Jacobs would have made any difference. Tyson was a bit of a lunatic / timebomb

[Controversial]

There’s a difference to being underprepared, unmotivated and over confident than being physically shot or past your best. Lots of fighters lose under these circumstances. Had Tyson been in the same mindset and condition that he fought Spinks I doubt Douglas would’ve had the same success. Boxing is often about timing, Douglas was at his very best and Tyson was at his worst at that stage of his career. There are lots of reports at the time of the fight to say Tyson was overweight and looking poor in training, having public sparring sessions cut short because sparring partners were making him look bad. That’s why he lost, not because he was past his best.

1988-06-27 218¼ Michael Spinks 212¼

1990-02-11 220½ James Douglas 231½

I know Tyson was something of a stumpy little guy for a Heavyweight, but he wasn't so small that 2 and one quarter pounds would make a huge difference to his body.

I meant in the run up to the fight, he was on a soup diet to get down to 220lbs, hardly ideal prep. He wasn't past his prime, just not prepared.

[Controversial]

1988-06-27 218¼ Michael Spinks 212¼

1990-02-11 220½ James Douglas 231½

I know Tyson was something of a stumpy little guy for a Heavyweight, but he wasn't so small that 2 and one quarter pounds would make a huge difference to his body.

I meant in the run up to the fight, he was on a soup diet to get down to 220lbs, hardly ideal prep. He wasn't past his prime, just not prepared.

I gather that, but he is far from the only one. For instance both Duran and Hatton had to waste weeks of their preparation time just to shed excessive weight, but they still went out and won more often than not. It is not uncommon for fighter to pile on the pounds between fights, but Tyson seems to get a free pass.

You could make the same excuse for Lewis not giving a fuk about acclimatising to South Africa, preferring to stay in Las Vegas until the last possible moment making some stupid film with Vladimir Klitschko amongst others, causing him to lose to Rahman. But nobody does, they use it as an example of his shortcomings.

Some of us believe ANY version of Douglas ( except the one who simply turned up to get the money against Holyfield so he could retire for 6 years ) beats Tyson. He fought very similarly against Tucker, but because Tucker kept firing back at him, he quit in a fight that was dead even. Against Tyson, despite the best efforts of the tame judges it was pretty much one way traffic, giving Buster no reason to look for a way out.

The same goes for Lewis and Holy, they would ALWAYS beat any version of Tyson, because he couldn't take being backed up and bullied himself.

His fanboys make a huge deal about him proving his mettle in the 2 Ruddock fights.

Ruddock was a one trick pony with his " hookercut " / smash, about a level up from Bruno, but nowhere near the same class as Douglas, Holy, or Lewis.

Im not giving him a pass, its his problem for not preparing but shows why he looked flat. He has said he didn't train too hard in other fights that he won and he didn't think it would be any different against Douglas, he was obviously wrong. There were reports of Tyson saying he wanted to retire after the Spinks fight as he had lost interest in boxing, thats why many consider him at his peak in that fight. After he lost he was never really the same again.

[Controversial]

I would take anything he or his fans said about him wanting to retire after Spinks with a large pinch of salt. The serious money came his way for the 2nd Bruno fight, the 2 Holyfield fights and Lewis.

Well he didn't retire so obviously not that serious but its a sign that all wasn't well, he was hardly the most level headed person in the world as it was. Big $$$ are a huge draw and often the only incentive to carry on boxing for many.