BoxRec

He plodded . . was not consistant (didn´t move his head enough) . . always open to counter punches after he loaded up . . .easily discouraged . . . not a great inside fighter . . .very easily tied up . . . relied too much on his power even in the late 80s

holy cow, the guy was great in his early 20's, if he was so bad at inside fightng, how come everyone tried ot box him and keep him on an outside boxing game? it always amazed me that pint sized mike (5'9" to 5'11") that he was able to out jab (6' 5") tony tucker, even on the outside!

since mikey has shown himself to be little ore than a thug and also fight beyond his prime, history will never give him the credit he deserved as the "great" that he was before his career got ruined.

PS - i don't make excuses for him and i don't feel sorry for him, it was 99% his fault. i just feel that it was a mean quirk of nature that all that talent would be wasted on him.

Zherdev wrote:Zurdo - you are blinded by your bias...

Name a boxer who was feared by his peers as much as Tyson. I'd say at that time his PEERS thought he was quite great.

Douglas wasn't all that afraid of him...

Zherdev says:

Name a boxer who was feared by his peers as much as Tyson. I'd say at that time his PEERS thought he was quite great.

zurdo says:

Douglas wasn't all that afraid of him...

i say:
zurdo, you still didn't answer his question.......

It's a completely silly subjective question theres obviously no way to transport back in time and slap an EKG moniter on Joe Louis, George Foreman or Sonny Listons opponents before they stepped in the ring .And then compare them with the readings of Tysons opponents to see which ones more afraid..
Since there is no way to quantify this particular question the only objective information I can give you is..

James(Buster)Douglas KO10 Mike Tyson.

pringle wrote:Zherdev says:

Name a boxer who was feared by his peers as much as Tyson. I'd say at that time his PEERS thought he was quite great.

zurdo says:

Douglas wasn't all that afraid of him...

i say:
zurdo, you still didn't answer his question.......

here's the problem with a lot of people who post on these forums...everyone takes the sum of parts in a career and focuses on those...not the whole career. for instance, when speaking of tyson, many people bring up tyson's loss to douglas and pick his skills apart using those terms. however, when seen as a whole, tyson lost to douglas in a foreign country (japan) with a new corner and under extraordinary personal and professional stress. his corner was using a damn condom with cold water for pressure for God's sake. not to mention that the count for douglas' KD was definitely a min. of 14 seconds....no doubt. IMO, once tyson tasted the canvas, he was mentally rocked and unable to recover that confidence. once he lost to buster, he was never the same, personal demons and the pen ruined a great fighter.

to ask what he would have done to guys like Louis or Marciano is ridiculous. that's like the age old HR question. would Babe be as good today as he was then? who the fornicate knows....and who cares. Babe doesn't play now, he played then. same for tyson...look at his career for what it was and there is no question that he should be ranked as an ATG. could he have fought and beat the Brown Bomber, who knows, they never and will never fight...case closed.

jmanginell wrote: tyson lost to douglas in a foreign country (japan) with a new corner and under extraordinary personal and professional stress.

Buster beat the fornicate out of Tyson in a foreign country, while under extraordinary personal stress (more than Tyson)... So exactly what's your point?

Zherdev wrote:Name a boxer who was feared by his peers as much as Tyson. I'd say at that time his PEERS thought he was quite great.

George Foreman
Sonny Liston
Roy 'Tiger' Williams.

Tantum wrote:

jmanginell wrote: tyson lost to douglas in a foreign country (japan) with a new corner and under extraordinary personal and professional stress.

Buster beat the fornicate out of Tyson in a foreign country, while under extraordinary personal stress (more than Tyson)... So exactly what's your point?

fornicate You!!! My point is that this is a forum to express an opinion to a topic posted. That's what I did. Just because your gay ass doesn't agree doesn't mean you have to be a cocksucker. Counter my point with a more intelligent one, not just a repeat of what I said only opposite followed by a smart ass question that you would never ask me in person! However, my point is that Tyson's biggest loss came at a pivotal point in his career that affected the rest of his life. I noticed that the biggest part of my point, the 14 count when Douglas went down, wasn't refuted (look it up if you have to bitch, it might be too big a word for you). That's because it can't be...Tyson's loss to Buster is questionable only because of the first count in the fight which changed the outcome of two lives. Tyson didn't know how to handle loss...and that hurt him for years to come.

KOJOE90 wrote:

Zherdev wrote:Name a boxer who was feared by his peers as much as Tyson. I'd say at that time his PEERS thought he was quite great.

George Foreman
Sonny Liston
Roy 'Tiger' Williams.

Acceptable - i don't remember those that well (in their prime - Old Foreman everyone has seen).

I'd need to see those guys fight the best of their peers, before i believe they were feared as Tyson was. Michael Spinks was the IBF champ and he had fear all over him.

One comment aside from that...
Who denies that Tyson was clearly a different fighter in the ring during the years before the Spinks fight and the years after. It is obvious to me and I think that is why many think Tyson is an ATG. We could see a different Tyson in the ring around the years of Spinks and then later against Douglas. He lost that MACHINE quality. Douglas beating him was a shock, but i thought he looked beatable in the post-Rooney fights.

Tantum wrote:

jmanginell wrote: tyson lost to douglas in a foreign country (japan) with a new corner and under extraordinary personal and professional stress.

Buster beat the fornicate out of Tyson in a foreign country, while under extraordinary personal stress (more than Tyson)... So exactly what's your point?

With that bout was shown a clip where Tyson sparred and you could see that he was absolutely off balance - which is a indicator that he hasn't done that for a while. This clip was taken two weeks prior to Tyson vs Douglas. He wasnt in a condition to fight anyone that night. but ofcourse in the eyes of a blind dog it doesnt mean anything. ...

Zherdev wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote:

Zherdev wrote:Name a boxer who was feared by his peers as much as Tyson. I'd say at that time his PEERS thought he was quite great.

George Foreman
Sonny Liston
Roy 'Tiger' Williams.

Acceptable - i don't remember those that well (in their prime - Old Foreman everyone has seen).

I'd need to see those guys fight the best of their peers, before i believe they were feared as Tyson was. Michael Spinks was the IBF champ and he had fear all over him.

One comment aside from that...
Who denies that Tyson was clearly a different fighter in the ring during the years before the Spinks fight and the years after. It is obvious to me and I think that is why many think Tyson is an ATG. We could see a different Tyson in the ring around the years of Spinks and then later against Douglas. He lost that MACHINE quality. Douglas beating him was a shock, but i thought he looked beatable in the post-Rooney fights.

yes.. that's true, Spinks fight was the end of his prime. And to be honest I dont still understand how could it change Tyson so much. I think that it wasnt Rooney but rather Jim Jacob's who died after the Spinks fight, the connection that was lost, the connection that made it all worth while.

KOJOE90 wrote:Tyson has always been unable to fight on the backfoot.

( Oh brother!! )

cultus wrote:

Zherdev wrote:

KOJOE90 wrote: George Foreman
Sonny Liston
Roy 'Tiger' Williams.

Acceptable - i don't remember those that well (in their prime - Old Foreman everyone has seen).

I'd need to see those guys fight the best of their peers, before i believe they were feared as Tyson was. Michael Spinks was the IBF champ and he had fear all over him.

One comment aside from that...
Who denies that Tyson was clearly a different fighter in the ring during the years before the Spinks fight and the years after. It is obvious to me and I think that is why many think Tyson is an ATG. We could see a different Tyson in the ring around the years of Spinks and then later against Douglas. He lost that MACHINE quality. Douglas beating him was a shock, but i thought he looked beatable in the post-Rooney fights.

yes.. that's true, Spinks fight was the end of his prime. And to be honest I dont still understand how could it change Tyson so much. I think that it wasnt Rooney but rather Jim Jacob's who died after the Spinks fight, the connection that was lost, the connection that made it all worth while.

Jim Jacobs died before the Tyson vs Spinks fight I think is was within a few weeks of the Tyson vs Tubbs fight.

dempseyfire wrote:He plodded . . was not consistant (didn´t move his head enough) . . always open to counter punches after he loaded up . . .easily discouraged . . . not a great inside fighter . . .very easily tied up . . . relied too much on his power even in the late 80s

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

If he had problems with all that, he should have been easily defeated 6 to 8 different times before the 90's. He wasn't, therefore you have no clue what you are talking about!

zurdo

Your post was WAY TOO LONG, therefore I sure as heck didn't waste my time reading it. Nobody wants to read on and on, for 2 days straight on one post.... So, in most cases your long posts go unread...

Sorry Pal!

dempseyfire wrote:He plodded . . was not consistant (didn´t move his head enough) . . always open to counter punches after he loaded up . . .easily discouraged . . . not a great inside fighter . . .very easily tied up . . . relied too much on his power even in the late 80s

I'd add: mediocre stamina, even in his prime. Tyson was a sprinter who was very dangerous for roughly a third of the fight, moderatley dangerous for the next third, then lethargic with lots of holding and throwing occassional arm punches without much on them down the stretch.

HeavyHitters wrote:zurdo

Your post was WAY TOO LONG, therefore I sure as heck didn't waste my time reading it. Nobody wants to read on and on, for 2 days straight on one post.... So, in most cases your long posts go unread...

Sorry Pal!

You mean you couldn't read it because it had long words in it..

Mike Tyson is an all time great because he was the yougest heavyweight champion in boxing history and the first undisputed champion with the then only 3 sanctioning bodies(WBA,WBC, and IBF). Give the guy some credit, he outboxed Toney Tucker, embarrased Larry Holmes, and crushed Michael Spinks who was undefeated previous to that fight. Though it was brief, Mike Tyson was GREAT. All Time Great? I say yes, but just my opinion.

dan1030 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:He plodded . . was not consistant (didn´t move his head enough) . . always open to counter punches after he loaded up . . .easily discouraged . . . not a great inside fighter . . .very easily tied up . . . relied too much on his power even in the late 80s

I'd add: mediocre stamina, even in his prime. Tyson was a sprinter who was very dangerous for roughly a third of the fight, moderatley dangerous for the next third, then lethargic with lots of holding and throwing occassional arm punches without much on them down the stretch.

Yes, I'd agree with that, his fight with Bonecrusher smith was the perfect example, and also showed how ineffective Mike was in clinches.

zurdo wrote:

HeavyHitters wrote:zurdo

Your post was WAY TOO LONG, therefore I sure as heck didn't waste my time reading it. Nobody wants to read on and on, for 2 days straight on one post.... So, in most cases your long posts go unread...

Sorry Pal!

You mean you couldn't read it because it had long words in it..

:) you copy-pasted some crap from crapy forums and now think people should read this ten year old's fairy tale ... good job, really, you made it.

theboxer wrote:Mike Tyson is an all time great because he was the yougest heavyweight champion in boxing history and the first undisputed champion with the then only 3 sanctioning bodies(WBA,WBC, and IBF). Give the guy some credit, he outboxed Toney Tucker, embarrased Larry Holmes, and crushed Michael Spinks who was undefeated previous to that fight. Though it was brief, Mike Tyson was GREAT. All Time Great? I say yes, but just my opinion.

I agree man.Some people refuse to see the truth.Tyson
embarrased many boxers of his era.
GO TO A CRICKET MATCH!!!!

theboxer wrote:Mike Tyson is an all time great because he was the yougest heavyweight champion in boxing history and the first undisputed champion with the then only 3 sanctioning bodies(WBA,WBC, and IBF). Give the guy some credit, he outboxed Toney Tucker, embarrased Larry Holmes, and crushed Michael Spinks who was undefeated previous to that fight. Though it was brief, Mike Tyson was GREAT. All Time Great? I say yes, but just my opinion.

Now, I don't want to be accused of being a hater here, I'm just a realist--but by your line of reasoning the second youngest undisputed heavyweight champ should be the second best as well....Floyd Patterson?!

As to Mike's accomplishments vs. particular fighters you mention:

1. He outboxed a one-handed Tony Tucker who'd nearly dropped him in the first, then showed no interest in a rematch despite Tucker winning fight after fight during the rest of Tyson's reign.

2. He KOed an out of shape Larry Holmes who took the fight on super-short notice, hadn't fought for a couple of years, and hadn't won in about 4 years. Oh, and Holmes made Tyson look foolish in the 3rd--guy guess is a vintage Holmes would have looked that way for the duration.

3. He intimidated and KOed Spinks: one hell of a good Lt Heavy, who'd been pretty lucky to get the decisions vs. Holmes (especially the second one) then had been stripped for not facing mandatories. Just one man's opinion here, but I've always thought Spinks was fighting for the "Michael Spinks Retirement Fund" after the big wins over Holmes, rather than for the title...could be wrong though, and I do hate disrespecting Spinks that way.

Tyson was damn good, but let's face it; his best win over a good, healthy fighter around their peak was Ruddock. And that aint the stuff of all-time greats, IMO.

Thank you Dan. Look how emotional the Tyson fans get about this . . you people have some real issues about Mike Tyson.

Some brought up the fact that the Douglas fight was in Tokyo . . .so was the Tubbs fight, and that was his best performance!

And Tyson won an ALPHABELT title at 20 years old. Patterson won the true undisputed title at 21 . . so Tyson really wasn´t the youngest HW champion. If some 19 year old kid went and beat Brewster or Ruiz, would he surpass Tyson then?

Actually, Tyosn does deserve credit as the youngest heavyweight champ either way:
Patterson 21years, 10+ months vs. Moore for the title,
Tyson 21 years, 1 month vs. Tucker to unify

See everyone, I'm not a Tyson hater--I give credit where it's due

dan1030 wrote:Actually, Tyosn does deserve credit as the youngest heavyweight champ either way:
Patterson 21years, 10+ months vs. Moore for the title,
Tyson 21 years, 1 month vs. Tucker to unify

See everyone, I'm not a Tyson hater--I give credit where it's due

He didn´t become the undisputed champ until he beat linear champ Spinks, and I believe he was past 21 years 10 months in that fight . . .