BoxRec

Tyson had inside game but it wasn't as good as Frazier. Frazier as far as I'm concerned had the best coach in the world for inside boxing, Eddie futch. Also why owe fought so well inside for a big man.

I hate comparing fighters from different eras in mythoical match ups though. There's no proof and everyone has a favourite and an opinion they won't let go.

I can say that Foreman is all wrong for Mike though

The rest, Frazier, holy etc, I don't think anyone can rule out Tyson when he was at his absolute best. The biggest weakness with Tyson was his peak was so short, so I think he loses overall standing points with people. Rightly in many ways. But that's a different arguement to comparing who'd win at there best

He had zero chance against evander on the best night of his life, zip, nada. I think a prime Tyson would be more competitive but he still takes a beating.

candyslim wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You thinks wrong, good honest evaluation. I don't understand why you find it so puzzling that a guy 4 inches shorter with tremendous speed and power could win a fight from midrange.

Simple physics it's a question of reach. See how Foreman's height and reach allied to his prodigious punching power proved an insurmountable obstaclle for Frazier, without the height and reach disparity, this fight would not have been the mismatch it turned out to be.

Syntax Error wrote:.

You don't need to ask the question; just watch Tyson's fights during that period & see whether he had a good inside game.

He beat his opponents with an unmatched combination of speed & power.

When he was up close, he often preferred to hold & clinch & wait for the referee to separate them, rather than pound out openings to the body.

This is not to say he never worked the body; he did (the Ruddock fights show you that), but that was not his game overall.

You don't think an ability to tie up an opponent when required isn't part of an inside game? Not the whole part admittedly. I'm going to take you up on your suggestion of re-watching his fights because I know I'm a very long way from infallible and my memory is a tricky beast.

Where do you suggest I start i.e. which of his (pre-nineties) fights do you consider best illustrates your point?[/quote]


The best fight to illustrate Tyson's lack of an inside game was his fight against Boneclutcher Smith.

Smith held onto Tyson all night as if Mike was his new girlfriend & what did Mike do; nothing!

He was quite happy to hold & clinch until separated.

Tyson won the fight comfortably, because Smith did nothing (apart from the last 10 seconds of the fight when Smith stunned Tyson to his boots with an overhand Right).

If he had an inside game, he could arguably have taken Smith down.

You really have to consider the emotional and mental weaknesses that Tyson had in this type of discussion. He relied on intimidation, if a great fighter was still there after a couple of rounds taking his punches and firing back, he tended to wilt. No matter how talented he was, he still had that problem. Even in his all to rare wins in give and take fights, he was still in control for the most part, so his fragile psyche wasn't threatened. But, if another supremely talented guy could make him think for a second, am I good enough?? It was game over.

The guy was beyond mesmerizing to watch and he had exceptional talent and an underrated work ethic, but there is a reason he never beat a great fighter or came from behind in a fight to beat anyone. Still, I would have love to have seen him focused for longer.

jas80s wrote:You really have to consider the emotional and mental weaknesses that Tyson had in this type of discussion. He relied on intimidation, if a great fighter was still there after a couple of rounds taking his punches and firing back, he tended to wilt. No matter how talented he was, he still had that problem. Even in his all to rare wins in give and take fights, he was still in control for the most part, so his fragile psyche wasn't threatened. But, if another supremely talented guy could make him think for a second, am I good enough?? It was game over.

The guy was beyond mesmerizing to watch and he had exceptional talent and an underrated work ethic, but there is a reason he never beat a great fighter or came from behind in a fight to beat anyone. Still, I would have love to have seen him focused for longer.

Completely correct.

This sums up Tyson to a tee.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He had zero chance against evander on the best night of his life, zip, nada. I think a prime Tyson would be more competitive but he still takes a beating.

Agreed.

Evander Holyfield is all shades of wrong for Mike Tyson.

He's the worst kind of opponent for someone with a fragile psyche like Tyson who relied on intimidation.

Syntax Error wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He had zero chance against evander on the best night of his life, zip, nada. I think a prime Tyson would be more competitive but he still takes a beating.

Agreed.

Evander Holyfield is all shades of wrong for Mike Tyson.

He's the worst kind of opponent for someone with a fragile psyche like Tyson who relied on intimidation.

Yup,.So is Joe.

Tyson working the heavy bag is the most awesome training footage I have ever seen FWIW

no, but he was up there.

All very good post here, that I don't dispute

I have no problems with those who favoured Holyfield or Frazier for reasons stated

My area of support for Tyson is that up to and around the time he won the belt I believe he was that good, that for them to make it to the stage of self doubt he may have been too physically on top of the fight. When he stopped training and his volume went down it was easier to punch with him, stay in the fight, therefore testing his mentality

Even during his prime, fighters like Pinklon Thomas showed how quickly he ran out of ideas against good boxers.

Stop trying to sound all scientific once he figured out Pinklon he get him out there! Why doesn't Tyson get credit for beating Tony Tucker? At that

time Tucker had height, reach, chin, stamina, boxing ability, jerry curl juice, you name it! Tony Tucker was tough!

Mitch Green was a decent initimidating fighter Tyson beat as well, hell even Jessie Ferguson was on tough SOB. Lots of wins Tyson didn't really get

the true credit he derserved.

Mitch green was a journeyman. Tough, but certainly not intimidating to anyone. Tucker was one of his better wins, he probably doesn't get much credit because the fight was horrible. They both did more holding than punching.

bnovelist wrote:Stop trying to sound all scientific once he figured out Pinklon he get him out there!

He didn't figure out shit.
He simply wore him down with his youth; since Thomas was a crack head it wasn't too difficult.
Prime Tyson just wore out good but old boxers.


Foreman would have destroyed him.

Ali would have clowned him.

Holyfield would have outfought him.

Lennox would have outsmarted him.

Prime Holmes would have outpointed him.

Counter-puncher wrote:Tyson working the heavy bag is the most awesome training footage I have ever seen FWIW

Yeah I agree. That 4 punch combo he does in 1 second was pretty frightening.

Tyson was very good in his prime, would have given sticky moments to any heavyweight in history, but he was not close to the best heavyweight in history.

As promised, I've been watching Tyson fights on you-tube. I've watched a few amateur and his early pro career up to the Gross fight so far, in chronological order. Obviously I've a way to go but I thought I'd check in because I implied I would re-consider my opinion and report back having done so. Actually this is the first time I've watched Tyson fight since he was a force in the division - I'm a long-time boxing fan but relatively new to BoxRec and to boxing on you-tube.

I wanted to check out Saad's theory that Tyson fought mainly from mid-range, and Syntax-Error's that Tyson had no inside game. Watching him again my opinion veered wildly from fight to fight: I found myself thinking "What the hell are they on about?" and then "Yeah, I see exactly what they mean". Although definitely a pressure fighter, he did like to give himself punching room, in fact there were times when having successfully closed the range, he was quite content to let the opponent cling on for dear life and wait for the referee to part them despite the fact his hands were free and he could have pummelled the torso. A prime example would be the James "Quick" Tillis fight.

On the other hand there were fights like Reggie Gross where (probably knowing he had no need to conserve energy as Gross wasn't going to be around very long) Tyson destroyed him with a blistering inside body attack although culminating in a knock-out sweeping uppercut to the jaw. His body-punching could be fearsome but I concede his preference was definitely to head-hunt.

So in conclusion based on what I've seen so far, I would have to say yes he did like to box from mid-range, and although he did have an inside game when he wanted, he rarely made as effective use of it as he could and should have done. It has been educational to look again at what I thought I knew.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone go back and reevaluate their opinion like that. Well done.

I think Vitali was the best ever, absolutely not Mike Tyson.

asdfjkl wrote:I think Vitali was the best ever, absolutely not Mike Tyson.

The (complete) Siamese Klit could be considered top ten. Individually? Just no.

Thank you Saad although I rather prefer my romanticized memory of him. At least few would argue he was one of the most exciting and intimidating Hwts of all time, at least I had conceded he wasn't the best.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I don't think I've ever seen anyone go back and reevaluate their opinion like that. Well done.

internet history is made!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:Tyson working the heavy bag is the most awesome training footage I have ever seen FWIW

Yeah I agree. That 4 punch combo he does in 1 second was pretty frightening.

it is the only heavy weight footage i
know of that feels like it is running
on increased speed.

asdfjkl wrote:I think Vitali was the best ever, absolutely not Mike Tyson.

Ali was TBE, #2 and 3 are/were Lewis or Foreman. The rest ? God Almighty knows.

Ali & Louis are clearly 1&2. Vitali isn't top 50.