Mike Tyson And The Irony Of Cus D'Amato

[Ezzard]

Tyson fans make me laugh, no offence guys, with their excuses.

He beats Spinks and all we hear is "Tyson took the rumbustious circumstances in his life and swallowed them like a hen party girl swallowing helium from a balloon. He then expelled all his rage and anger at his messed up life and ejaculated punches the likes of which the world has never seen, including five that he made up that night, to beat Spinks in the greatest performance of all time. Oh, and that was his peak, it lasted for 90 odd seconds, it was awesome."

He loses to Douglas and we hear "Tyson, burdened by life, came into this fight with the lack of vigour Pip showed towards the end of 'Great Expectations'. His expectations not met he crawled into the fight pussy whipped by Geisha's, and Robin Givens, and he was not the same man. Rooney was gone, Cus, oh great Cus, was gone. The magic was gone. What was that? Douglas had worse personal shit going on in his life without having the luxury of being a multi-millionaire. So what. Mike was hurting bad and lost because he was genuinely upset. Douglas was merely slightly miffed."

Tyson lost because he did not have the mental capacities to flip a fight and lack of guardianship meant he could barely manage his own life. Boo hoo.

As Dundee said, before he lost, if you could get a big heavy who throws his jab about like a welterweight and can bring over decent rights, all while tying Mike up inside, then Mike will lose.

You forgot to mention head movement. If you don't mention head movement then it's not 'prime' Tyson and therefore nothing you say actually matters.

[Robinson]

Yeah that Tyson was shit eh....
we should go take him out back and kick the shit out
of him...

[Ezzard]

That's pretty much how I see it.

Black and white thinking on any subject shows an emotional attachment that will blind you to the real evidence.

There's a reason why every fighters loses. Some fighters are lucky enough to get second and third chances to put them right. If they do then that's something special, when they don't then you really do have to look at what actually happened.

Boxing is about much more than who hits fastest and hardest.

Mike was not wasted potential. He reached his potential. He became the very best that Mike Tyson could ever be.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

You guys know boxing. I am in awe.

Yeah, I bet Foreman had never been hit before in his life since he was a boxer who sparred and trained for many years. He was just a bully. When Ali swung at him a few times in Zaire, he got scared and lost his composure. Same with Tyson, never been hit before until Douglas, then he fell apart. Liston, same thing, never been hit in his life until Ali stood up to him in Miami, then his whole life collapsed.

As we all know from reading boxing biographies, some "mean" boxers like Liston, Tyson, and Foreman go into the gym the first day, start intimidating everyone and never get hit until they finally run into a "good" guy like Ali who dismantles their psyche and then beats them up while we all cheer.

The circumstance around all of those fights probably had nothing to do with what happened. Liston was completely above board in his personal life and nothing suspicious would ever happen in one of his fights. He was so distraught about the loss to Ali that he even demanded and got a rematch. In the rematch, Ali really showed the bully what would happen when he messed with the wrong guy. Ali, for the only time in his whole career unleashed a vicious shot. That "punch" knocked Liston out in seconds. There was no doubt about the validity of either fight, Ali tamed the bully.

Foreman loved being in Zaire, even more than Ali. Foreman didn't want to leave the country and was enthusiastic about being there. Right. When Ali swung at him in the first and then headlocked him, he probably thought, "oh no, I'm in a fight. I'm just a bully so I need to find a place to lay down." The rest of the fight had little to do with Foreman's wild, looping, tense. swinging. It had nothing to do with Foreman not pacing himself, and it had nothing to do with Foreman fighting a man as big as himself who had better skills. It was just Foreman being taught the lesson of what happens to the bully.

And Tyson, the biggest bully really got taught a lesson in Tokyo. That Tyson had gotten rid of everyone who had trained him up to that point in life had nothing to do with the fight. That Tyson was unprepared, beset with personal problems, and his corner was incompetent had nothing to do with the fight. That Buster Douglas, a 6-4, 230 pound boxer with all of the skills prepared and fought the best fight of his career on a down night for Mike Tyson had nothing to do with the fight. No, Tyson just found that Buster was not afraid so he became afraid. Buster stood up to him so Tyson stopped fighting.

All of the "bad" men got beaten up. So concludes a boxrec. fairy tale. Now everyone can sleep well knowing that the "bad" guys always get exposed by the "good" guys. It just shows that a man can fight and be successful as an amateur, even win the Olympic gold, then the world title, but just be a bully waiting to be exposed. Maybe some of you experienced posters can help me to understand how Liston, Foreman, and Tyson reached the level they had reached before being "exposed as a bully" while fighting at the top level of boxing. I am just having a problem grasping the notion that everyone that all of them had fought previously was afraid of them.

Are you making the argument that in a sport where the ability to take physical punishment is paramount that character which is reflected in the ability to get hit and keep coming back is of no moment?

Even the fictional Rocky knows better, ergo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1tXhJniSEc

He should have made that speech to young Master Tyson...

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Yeah that Tyson was shit eh....
we should go take him out back and kick the shit out
of him...

Respectfully, you are setting up a straw man...Nobody (sane or rational) is suggesting that Mike Tyson was shit but he was a deeply flawed man and boxer...What he has made out of his life is a tragedy. There is no greater waste than wasted potential...

[ebeneezer]

No. It's boring to read a poor attempt at irony by a pseudo-intellectual like you.

Real intellectuals do Origami

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS19YHI9cl8

[TheOneIsHere2008]

BBJ,
It probably is boring to you. Is it difficult to understand ideas that you haven't read in the Hauser-Mailer collection?

Are you the esteemed boxing historian formerly known as granberry?

[Seamus]

I have to strongly disagree with the claim that Tyson was a deeply flawed fighter (and I enjoyed seeing him get KO'd by Douglas and Holyfield) If Tyson had one real weakness at his peak, it was his seeming lack of a plan b in fights that went past the 6th or 7th. He showed a marked tendancy to become frustrated when he didn't put a hurting on an opponent in the first few rounds, but his conditioning, despite what some posters have claimed on here over the years can never be questioned. Tyson was always in great shape.

Tyson lost plain and simple to Douglas, because he stopped using the great head movement he'd displayed as recently as his last fight, when he knocked out Carl the Truth Williams an outstanding jabber with a long reach, by slipping his jab and dropping him with a counter to the head. Against Douglas, Tyson was just walking around eating jabs followed by straight rights throughout the fight. Starting right there, Tyson apparently decided that all he needed to win fights was one big punch whenever he could land it, and pretty much for the remainder of his career that strategy was enough to beat everyone but Holyfield and Lewis.

So by age 24 Tyson was on the downhill slide. Sure, and I don't believe his problems outside the ring were an excuse for abandoning what got him to the top, but for 37 fights he was pretty close to being a flawless fighter. Not many guys in the history of the sport have had the speed, power and accuracy that Tyson had in both hands, not to mention the razor sharp reflexes.

[John Galt]

toih3008, Big BJ, and eben,
I am so sorry I came across as a psuedo intellectual in my earlier post. Now, since I have learned more about you guys and where you get your boxing knowledge, I will try to keep my posts more at your level.

While I have often wondered where some of you get your boxing ideas I guess that was answered by the Rocky Youtube clip so graciously posted by toih08. Those Rocky movies are a real boxing resource to a guy like you I guess? Watching Rocky and taking it all in would probably prepare one for boxing as well as watching Rambo would prepare one for war. Just put that headband on, apply the grease and after a few viewings of Rocky and Rambo you will be well versed on boxing and war.

You showed that you are a serious student of Rocky because you book mark the video when he says things that inspire you. Who do you think would win if Stallone fought Mike Tyson? Would Stallone stand up to Rocky, push him, slap his gloves together, scream out "Adrienne" and make Mike fold?

You three are not alone in your respect for the Rocky movies. When Joan Rivers asked Tex Cobb if Rocky was a realistic boxing movie, Tex said something like, "I think Rocky is a realistic movie about how an actor sees a boxer's life." I think Joan Rivers respected Rocky as a boxing authority too. You are in good company.

Again, thanks for your posts. I have learned a lot about you and your boxing knowledge. Looking forward to your answer(s) concerning Tyson - Stallone.

[Big Bad John]

[quote="John Galt"]toih3008, Big BJ, and eben,
I am so sorry I came across as a psuedo intellectual in my earlier post. [/list]Actually, it was you using an Ayn Rand character as your username that got you pegged as a pseudo-intellectual.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

toih3008, Big BJ, and eben,
I am so sorry I came across as a psuedo intellectual in my earlier post. Now, since I have learned more about you guys and where you get your boxing knowledge, I will try to keep my posts more at your level.

While I have often wondered where some of you get your boxing ideas I guess that was answered by the Rocky Youtube clip so graciously posted by toih08. Those Rocky movies are a real boxing resource to a guy like you I guess? Watching Rocky and taking it all in would probably prepare one for boxing as well as watching Rambo would prepare one for war. Just put that headband on, apply the grease and after a few viewings of Rocky and Rambo you will be well versed on boxing and war.

You showed that you are a serious student of Rocky because you book mark the video when he says things that inspire you. Who do you think would win if Stallone fought Mike Tyson? Would Stallone stand up to Rocky, push him, slap his gloves together, scream out "Adrienne" and make Mike fold?

You three are not alone in your respect for the Rocky movies. When Joan Rivers asked Tex Cobb if Rocky was a realistic boxing movie, Tex said something like, "I think Rocky is a realistic movie about how an actor sees a boxer's life." I think Joan Rivers respected Rocky as a boxing authority too. You are in good company.

Again, thanks for your posts. I have learned a lot about you and your boxing knowledge. Looking forward to your answer(s) concerning Tyson - Stallone.

I bookmarked it because I find the fictional Rocky to be an inspiring character, nothing more and nothing less...I'm not a big fan of Rambo...All the grunting is rather tiresome...

Cus D'Amato said "It is the mark of a great fighter when he has character plus skill because a fighter with character and skill will often rise and beat a better fighter because of this..."

How is that different from Rocky Balboa telling his son:

"...You let people stick a finger in your face and tell you you're no good. And when things got hard, you started looking for something to blame, like a big shadow. Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done! Now if you know what you're worth then go out and get what you're worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody! Cowards do that and that ain't you! You're better than that..."

Maybe in your response you can wax eloquently about how Muhammad Ali's achievements in and outside the ring were pedestrian and that those who admire him and find inspiration have been hoodwinked...

I'll await your response, granberry...

[TheOneIsHere2008]

toih3008, Big BJ, and eben,
I am so sorry I came across as a psuedo intellectual in my earlier post. [/list]Actually, it was you using an Ayn Rand character as your username that got you pegged as a pseudo-intellectual.

We have Ayn Rand fans here...Wow...I am in august company... I admire her intellect but I'm not a big fan of objectivism...

If granberry is an objectivist then his writing makes all the more sense...

[TheOneIsHere2008]

~

[Big Bad John]

Any Rand was a crappy, repetitive writer, and a hack as a philosopher.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Any Rand was a crappy, repetitive writer, and a hack as a philosopher.

Her biterness also infected her writing...

I have a question...

I feel like I am the only American posting here...It seems as if many of my cultural references are lost on folks here...

I hope granberry comes back to tell us how character is of no moment in boxing...While he's at it he can try to explain away this little chestnut:



Before the infamous second Tyson-Holyfield fight, Atlas a trainer who and a man who possesses a great understanding the psychological side of the fight game. Stated according to Evander Holyfield in his autobiography "Becoming Holyfield". Before the fight at a party Atlas stood up and claimed, that if Tyson knew he was behind he would start fouling Holyfield to get disqualified, and later in the fight when Tyson bit off Holyfield's left ear leading to the disqualification Atlas admitted he was not shocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Atlas

[Robinson]

In regards to Ayn....some people have good reason to be
bitter and it helped inspire her writings and philosophies.

I know she is not as graceful or utopian in her ideals as
many heroes of those that post here, such great
writers such as Marx or Engles.

John Galt is not Granberry, I can verify that. Though I
shall not disclose who he is. Should it matter ?

Holyfield never fouled Tyson in any of their bouts ?

Tyson was the only fighter to ever foul...last time I checked
some great fighters of the past made a career of it.

I find it painfully general that people are happy to label a
fighter as being just a bully and once they meet some one
who is not scared of them, that they become exposed....

in fact it kinda makes me a tad sleepy hearing people use
this magic paint brush for an athletes personality and overall
nature.

The only reason Tyson ever won a fight was because he
scared everyone before the opening bell.

Ali was a master at psychological warfare in and out
of the ring.

Foreman was a brute of a man, a bully that only knew
how to steam roll an opponent until he mellowed out
for ten years and re-created himself.

Yes I have read all of those things time and time again..
so what? Just because it is written does not make it
truth.

Nothing is so simple...it never is and never shall be.

[Robinson]

I am sure it is well documented.

The fact remains, they are two strong personalities
and some times, even after time people clash.

Tyson also had so much going on in his life, bad
influences and he seemed to become a man that
knew better than everyone else. A little napoleon...

How good a trainer was Rooney ??
He did a bit with pazienza who else ?

[My2Sense]

How good a trainer was Rooney ??

Not very.

I know everyone makes fun of the guy that replaced Rooney (I forget his name, Aaron Snowell I think), but the fact remains he is a far more accomplished trainer than Rooney. He trained Frankie Randall to score his humongous upset over JC Chavez, and he also molded fighters like Julian Jackson and Tim Austin into very formidable fighters.

[Robinson]

He also was pretty young and seemed to do well when
he was training Tim Witherspoon.

Rich Giachetti was also a pretty accomplished trainer as
well.

Rooney gets way to much credit for Tyson's success, like
most trainers. It some times seems that a fighter is merely
a mindless car and the trainer the race car driver.

[My2Sense]

Didn't Rooney supposedly have a big gambling problem at the time he worked with Tyson? I remember hearing a story (though I don't know how credible it is) that he bet his share of the purse (and maybe Tyson's too?) that Tyson would KO Spinks in one round, and then begged him to do that when the fight happened. According to that story, that was one of the reasons Tyson got angry with Rooney and chose to dump him.

[Robinson]

I recall reading on the boxing forum at MMA.tv
about 4 years ago that Tyson and Rooney split
because Rooney would borrow money and never
pay it back.

I was not there and had only heard it on that forum
by a boxing guy who posted it. But I suppose that
confirms in a way what you just mentioned.

[Big Bad John]

Rooney made Tyson a legend. To argue that the shithead who showed up to the Douglas fight without an Enswell was better is stupid and wrong. Here's what Rooney said about the split:

KAGAN: Well, and that's also about the time that he fired you too. So we should point that out, right?

ROONEY: Well -- no, Don King fired me because I said that Don King was trying to muscle his way in. And then there was a lawsuit and that took two years to be resolved and be resolved in my favor. So I didn't go out like nothing.

[raylawpc]

Rooney made Tyson a legend. To argue that the shithead who showed up to the Douglas fight without an Enswell was better is stupid and wrong. Here's what Rooney said about the split:

KAGAN: Well, and that's also about the time that he fired you too. So we should point that out, right?

ROONEY: Well -- no, Don King fired me because I said that Don King was trying to muscle his way in. And then there was a lawsuit and that took two years to be resolved and be resolved in my favor. So I didn't go out like nothing.

Without calling anyone "stupid and wrong," I have to agree that the corner work for Tyson in the Douglas fight is about the worst I've ever seen in a top fight. Those guys were totally unprepared for anything but a one or two round blowout by their fighter.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Rooney made Tyson a legend. To argue that the shithead who showed up to the Douglas fight without an Enswell was better is stupid and wrong. Here's what Rooney said about the split:

KAGAN: Well, and that's also about the time that he fired you too. So we should point that out, right?

ROONEY: Well -- no, Don King fired me because I said that Don King was trying to muscle his way in. And then there was a lawsuit and that took two years to be resolved and be resolved in my favor. So I didn't go out like nothing.

I thought Tyson fans blame his loss to Douglas and subsequent deterioration to the absence of Kevin Rooney...

[Robinson]

How did Rooney make Tyson a legend?