BoxRec

One of Mike's more noteworthy wins. Not the most Noteworthy, but a respectable accomplishment all the same.

gilgamesh wrote:One of Mike's more noteworthy wins. Not the most Noteworthy, but a respectable accomplishment all the same.

I don't think Tyson gets anywhere near the credit he should get for the Spinks fight. I'm not sure if any other heavyweight in history would have got Spinks out of there in 91 seconds.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:One of Mike's more noteworthy wins. Not the most Noteworthy, but a respectable accomplishment all the same.

I don't think Tyson gets anywhere near the credit he should get for the Spinks fight. I'm not sure if any other heavyweight in history would have got Spinks out of there in 91 seconds.

Hell that's considered his biggest win isn't it? Or at least right up near the top of the list I would think surely. I agree with you it was an impressive win, although Spinks was petrified and mentally defeated before the bell even rang.

gilgamesh wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:One of Mike's more noteworthy wins. Not the most Noteworthy, but a respectable accomplishment all the same.

I don't think Tyson gets anywhere near the credit he should get for the Spinks fight. I'm not sure if any other heavyweight in history would have got Spinks out of there in 91 seconds.

Hell that's considered his biggest win isn't it? Or at least right up near the top of the list I would think surely. I agree with you it was an impressive win, although Spinks was petrified and mentally defeated before the bell even rang.

Mind games are all part of the business though mate.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

gilgamesh wrote: Hell that's considered his biggest win isn't it? Or at least right up near the top of the list I would think surely. I agree with you it was an impressive win, although Spinks was petrified and mentally defeated before the bell even rang.

Mind games are all part of the business though mate.

I know, I wasn't trying to take credit away from Mike by making that point. I know he did a lot more stuff on his own to add to the intimidation factor of his opponents. Especially with Michael, entering with the clanking metal and chains and just the overall ominous feeling of doom.

Mike was a master of intimidation no doubt. He needed to be.

I agree with you it's either his very best win or right up there near the top.

gilgamesh wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

gilgamesh wrote: Hell that's considered his biggest win isn't it? Or at least right up near the top of the list I would think surely. I agree with you it was an impressive win, although Spinks was petrified and mentally defeated before the bell even rang.

Mind games are all part of the business though mate.

I know, I wasn't trying to take credit away from Mike by making that point. I know he did a lot more stuff on his own to add to the intimidation factor of his opponents. Especially with Michael, entering with the clanking metal and chains and just the overall ominous feeling of doom.

Mike was a master of intimidation no doubt. He needed to be.

I agree with you it's either his very best win or right up there near the top.

With that reputation, don't you think it's a little odd that he didn't get involved in stare downs until his after prison comeback?

Tyson's win over Holmes, classic example of a fight/performance whose significance is revealed in layers over time.

Firstly, Holmes' strong showings against Mercer and Holyfield made those guys look weak initially.
Mercer went on to prove that he was a handful for Lewis. As for Holyfield, well say no more.

Holmes' credibility as a challenger becomes stronger over time, to the point where you could argue that he was Tyson's most impressive defense of the title.
I can see that from the perspective of Tyson being at HIS absolute peak. The prognosis for prime v prime does not look good for Holmes, on this logic.

But for my money, Prime Larry gets out of the disastrous 4th to school Tyson down the stretch and take close decision.

witherspoon wrote:Tyson's win over Holmes, classic example of a fight/performance whose significance is revealed in layers over time.

Firstly, Holmes' strong showings against Mercer and Holyfield made those guys look weak initially.
Mercer went on to prove that he was a handful for Lewis. As for Holyfield, well say no more.

Holmes' credibility as a challenger becomes stronger over time, to the point where you could argue that he was Tyson's most impressive defense of the title.
I can see that from the perspective of Tyson being at HIS absolute peak. The prognosis for prime v prime does not look good for Holmes, on this logic.

But for my money, Prime Larry gets out of the disastrous 4th to school Tyson down the stretch and take close decision.

Very good post. Pretty much my thoughts on the matter as well.

Prime vs Prime, I think the fight hinges on how effective Larry's jab is. If Tyson is still slipping it in the mid and later rounds, Tyson takes the decision. If not, Larry wins a close one. One thing's for certain, it would be a superb fight to watch and I'd be cheering for the Easton Assassin at the top of my voice.

Controversial wrote:I remember at the time the press made a big thing about Holmes's age (38) when he fought Tyson but was age really a factor in his defeat? Considering how highly Holmes is rated by people (in most peoples top 3 greatest HW ever) Tyson's quite emphatic destruction of Holmes is rarely given credit.

Lets not forget after losing Holmes fought another 24 times, going 21-3 only losing to Holyfield (aged 42), McCall (aged 45) and a disputed loss to the undefeated Brian Nielsen (aged 47). He was never stopped again, beat the undefeated Ray Mercer quite handily four years after the Tyson loss and had two more cracks at the world title losing on points to Holyfield and McCall much later in life.

I'm not sure why he never had any warm up fights for Tyson, fighting him two years after losing to Spinks. Saying that I'm not sure how warm up fights wouldn't ultimately helped him against Tyson as Tyson wasn't your average heavyweight in those days.

So how do you rate this win for Tyson?

I wish Holmes had yet active between 86-88 than it would have been a greater fight. The active holmes who fought holyfield in 92 was a better fighter than the fat unready holmes of 88.

A very good win

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I think it's more convenient than it is true. I'd pick that Douglas to beat any version of Tyson.

Serious? Tyson was a shell of his former self against Douglas, he hadn't trained properly and dropped in sparring. Douglas was such a high outsider, no-one gave him a chance of winning and that came across with how serious Tyson prepared. The Tyson that fought Holmes would've been too good for Buster and pretty much any other heavy who ever lived.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

gilgamesh wrote: Hell that's considered his biggest win isn't it? Or at least right up near the top of the list I would think surely. I agree with you it was an impressive win, although Spinks was petrified and mentally defeated before the bell even rang.

Mind games are all part of the business though mate.

I know, I wasn't trying to take credit away from Mike by making that point. I know he did a lot more stuff on his own to add to the intimidation factor of his opponents. Especially with Michael, entering with the clanking metal and chains and just the overall ominous feeling of doom.

Mike was a master of intimidation no doubt. He needed to be.

I agree with you it's either his very best win or right up there near the top.[/quote]

With that reputation, don't you think it's a little odd that he didn't get involved in stare downs until his after prison comeback?[/quote]

His stare-down with McNeeley may be my favorite ever

As for the Holmes fight, you can't really say "well Larry beat Mercer and was competitive with Evander/McCall when he was older" since he did the smart thing in his second comeback and whupped on a lot of tomato cans on the USA network to get his body and reflexes back into condition. Vs Tyson he just dived into the deep end, which is never a good decision for an older fighter. So I give Mike some credit, but not the same credit as I would've beating the older but more prepared Larry who fought Evander and Mercer.

As far as Larry only having 'a few weeks to prepare', he is interviewed by Reg Gutteridge on the UK broadcast of Tyson/Biggs, talking about his impending fight with Tyson in January. That's a full three months before fight time.

Holmes needed some tune ups and could have been better. That being said he was still a handful for most and Tyson went through him. It's a good result for Tyson, but Holmes had seen much better days.

Controversial wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I think it's more convenient than it is true. I'd pick that Douglas to beat any version of Tyson.

Serious? Tyson was a shell of his former self against Douglas, he hadn't trained properly and dropped in sparring. Douglas was such a high outsider, no-one gave him a chance of winning and that came across with how serious Tyson prepared. The Tyson that fought Holmes would've been too good for Buster and pretty much any other heavy who ever lived.

Absolutely, switch up Buster with Holmes and Mike gets his ass kicked all over the ring. Tyson wasn't out of shape or a shell, he was a prime fighter getting beat up. As for any other heavy who ever lived. Okey dokey, I see where we're at.

You think Tyson looked or fought the same as he did against Holmes? Sorry can't agree there, Tyson wasn't "up" for that fight, it was reported at the time his training camp was bad and he didn't punch in his normal manner, he just tried to KO Buster thinking it would be an easy night, as pretty much everyone thought it wold be. That coincided with Buster being in the best shape and mindset in his entire career.

He fought like he always did, his opponent fought differently and he couldn't get past his jab. Mike was a dynamic force but he had one of the lower Ring IQ's of a great fighter, he couldn't make adjustments and he wasn't much of an in-fighter. Buster was his daddy.

Controversial wrote:You think Tyson looked or fought the same as he did against Holmes? Sorry can't agree there, Tyson wasn't "up" for that fight, it was reported at the time his training camp was bad and he didn't punch in his normal manner, he just tried to KO Buster thinking it would be an easy night, as pretty much everyone thought it wold be. That coincided with Buster being in the best shape and mindset in his entire career.

I am complete agreement with you. I don't know how anyone of sound mind can think Tyson was at his absolute peak, physically and mentally when he stepped into the ring with Douglas.

Regarding the Buster/Mike fight.

When I look at the big picture of give and take on sports discussions....one thing does seem to stand out.

For some of us the most difficult thing to imagine is the concept that "it is what it is".

We demand that something be more complicated, more dramatic, more intense, more delicious, more interesting, more compelling.....

than just the reality.

Once again...I'm going to offer the "conspiracy" that there was no conspiracy. Ore even any terribly odd loose cannon dynamics. Buster COULD have been knocked out...as could happen to anyone facing Mike. But Buster was as perfect an opponent to beat Mike as there ever was. He had two things going for him....

1. Because of life circumstance (his mom passing) he could honestly look at Mike's resume and say "This aint nothin". With the intimidation factor taken out, he could simply plan his work, and work his plan. His psyche was strong and solidified on the goal.

2. He had the right skill set for that opponent.

And with a little luck it worked out.

He was never great, but he had a great moment. And it was legit in every way. No excuses. IMHO.

BoxBuzz wrote:Regarding the Buster/Mike fight.

When I look at the big picture of give and take on sports discussions....one thing does seem to stand out.

For some of us the most difficult thing to imagine is the concept that "it is what it is".

We demand that something be more complicated, more dramatic, more intense, more delicious, more interesting, more compelling.....

than just the reality.

Once again...I'm going to offer the "conspiracy" that there was no conspiracy. Ore even any terribly odd loose cannon dynamics. Buster COULD have been knocked out...as could happen to anyone facing Mike. But Buster was as perfect an opponent to beat Mike as there ever was. He had two things going for him....

1. Because of life circumstance (his mom passing) he could honestly look at Mike's resume and say "This aint nothin". With the intimidation factor taken out, he could simply plan his work, and work his plan. His psyche was strong and solidified on the goal.

2. He had the right skill set for that opponent.

And with a little luck it worked out.

He was never great, but he had a great moment. And it was legit in every way. No excuses. IMHO.

Do you think Tyson trained the best he could, had the best cornermen and was at his physical and mental peak at the first bell.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Regarding the Buster/Mike fight.

When I look at the big picture of give and take on sports discussions....one thing does seem to stand out.

For some of us the most difficult thing to imagine is the concept that "it is what it is".

We demand that something be more complicated, more dramatic, more intense, more delicious, more interesting, more compelling.....

than just the reality.

Once again...I'm going to offer the "conspiracy" that there was no conspiracy. Ore even any terribly odd loose cannon dynamics. Buster COULD have been knocked out...as could happen to anyone facing Mike. But Buster was as perfect an opponent to beat Mike as there ever was. He had two things going for him....

1. Because of life circumstance (his mom passing) he could honestly look at Mike's resume and say "This aint nothin". With the intimidation factor taken out, he could simply plan his work, and work his plan. His psyche was strong and solidified on the goal.

2. He had the right skill set for that opponent.

And with a little luck it worked out.

He was never great, but he had a great moment. And it was legit in every way. No excuses. IMHO.

Do you think Tyson trained the best he could, had the best cornermen and was at his physical and mental peak at the first bell.

He was physically in top shape at 220 lbs. Bright's corner advice was as good as anything Rooney would've said (Kevin Rooney is likely the most over-rated trainer in history); he just couldn't execute the gameplan.

BoxBuzz wrote:Regarding the Buster/Mike fight.

When I look at the big picture of give and take on sports discussions....one thing does seem to stand out.

For some of us the most difficult thing to imagine is the concept that "it is what it is".

We demand that something be more complicated, more dramatic, more intense, more delicious, more interesting, more compelling.....

than just the reality.

Once again...I'm going to offer the "conspiracy" that there was no conspiracy. Ore even any terribly odd loose cannon dynamics. Buster COULD have been knocked out...as could happen to anyone facing Mike. But Buster was as perfect an opponent to beat Mike as there ever was. He had two things going for him....

1. Because of life circumstance (his mom passing) he could honestly look at Mike's resume and say "This aint nothin". With the intimidation factor taken out, he could simply plan his work, and work his plan. His psyche was strong and solidified on the goal.

2. He had the right skill set for that opponent.

And with a little luck it worked out.

He was never great, but he had a great moment. And it was legit in every way. No excuses. IMHO.

dempseyfire wrote:He was physically in top shape at 220 lbs.

What a load or horsesh1t. Being at a certain weight does not mean a fighter is in top shape. You are talking bollocks.

I think it was Saad who brought up the issue of Tyson's low ring IQ.

That, to me is the whole issue in a nutshell.
Dempsey (I think) said that Jay Brights instructions were no different to what Rooney would have said.

The difference is, Tyson respected Rooney and followed his instructions. But there's more to it than that. Watch the Holmes fight, after a tricky first round Tyson comes back to the corner with his nose bloodied and starts to whine, Rooney knows Tyson inside out and he comes down hard on Tyson right there.

Rooney knew how to handle Tyson, and if he couldn't have made enough of a difference to beat Douglas, he would definately have motivated Tyson better than Jay Bright.

But then if I am right, do we not credit the success of Mike Tyson in the 80's to Kevin Rooney? What I am saying is that any IQ that Tyson deployed in that time came directly from Rooney.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:He was physically in top shape at 220 lbs.

What a load or horsesh1t. Being at a certain weight does not mean a fighter is in top shape. You are talking bollocks.

Have to side with you here buddy...Tyson against Bruno / Douglas / Tillman was a grade below the peak years. . . no doubt in my mind.

I think people take their personal feelings for Tyson into their overall consideration...In my opinion and viewing tens of thousands of bouts on film recently while trying to digitalize my film collection fail to see a fighter to match Tyson 1986 - 1988. Just my opinion of course.
As I stated before I cannot consider him the Greatest of all time as the consistency and longevity was not there. But he may have been the Greatest fighter ever on a given night..and should have been the gretest of all time!

Please fill in hate mail here '.......................................................'

evren

evrenb wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:He was physically in top shape at 220 lbs.

What a load or horsesh1t. Being at a certain weight does not mean a fighter is in top shape. You are talking bollocks.

Have to side with you here buddy...Tyson against Bruno / Douglas / Tillman was a grade below the peak years. . . no doubt in my mind.

I think people take their personal feelings for Tyson into their overall consideration...In my opinion and viewing tens of thousands of bouts on film recently while trying to digitalize my film collection fail to see a fighter to match Tyson 1986 - 1988. Just my opinion of course.
As I stated before I cannot consider him the Greatest of all time as the consistency and longevity was not there. But he may have been the Greatest fighter ever on a given night..and should have been the gretest of all time!

Please fill in hate mail here '.......................................................'

evren

The daft thing is, I get accused of being a Tyson nuthugger, because I defend him, but I was never a fan. Tyson says he stopped training properly before the Bruno fight and it shows.

Even before the fight, the media in the UK were saying he hadn't prepared properly.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

evrenb wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: What a load or horsesh1t. Being at a certain weight does not mean a fighter is in top shape. You are talking bollocks.

Have to side with you here buddy...Tyson against Bruno / Douglas / Tillman was a grade below the peak years. . . no doubt in my mind.

I think people take their personal feelings for Tyson into their overall consideration...In my opinion and viewing tens of thousands of bouts on film recently while trying to digitalize my film collection fail to see a fighter to match Tyson 1986 - 1988. Just my opinion of course.
As I stated before I cannot consider him the Greatest of all time as the consistency and longevity was not there. But he may have been the Greatest fighter ever on a given night..and should have been the gretest of all time!

Please fill in hate mail here '.......................................................'

evren

The daft thing is, I get accused of being a Tyson nuthugger, because I defend him, but I was never a fan. Tyson says he stopped training properly before the Bruno fight and it shows.

Even before the fight, the media in the UK were saying he hadn't prepared properly.

This is comically hypocritical when compared to your take on Leonard/Duran II.