Do you mean C'est la vie?HeavyHitters wrote:Well too bad "Tyson Haters", cause there is a few things you cannot take away from Tyson's Legacy. For one, he was an "Undisputed" Heavyweight Champion. There's no denying that. Most boxers never are able to achive that illustrious title. None of the champions of today can claim they are or ever were a undisputed champ.
Two, Tyson was and still is the "Youngest To Ever Win The Heavyweight Title". To only be 19 to 20 years old, and scaring the heck out of men 10 to 15 years older than you is quite amazing in itself. To actually become Heavyweight Champ at 20 is almost unbelievable!
So no matter what you all say to try and cut down an "inevitably aging" Tyson, he will always have those 2 tags to his name, as he fades into the history books.
Say La Vee!!
He doesn't have any fighting heart!Grimm wrote:How would you rate Mike Tyson in his prime I cannot see any flaws in his skills, great defense, great chin, unbearable power, increadible speed.
Was there any weakness (other than mental weakness) within this man?
I'm not referring to anyone as "Tyson Hater" so that i can disregard their arguments. I didn't even come close to stating that in my post.zurdo wrote:First of all, calling someone a "hater" just a weasely way of trying to squelch debate ..Zherdev wrote:The problem most of you haters seem have is that you don't admit to the two phases of Tyson's career.
The D'Amato era (extended on through Rooney after D'Amato's death)*
The Mike era (the time after Rooney was canned)
In the D'Amato era Tyson was clearly better prepared, more disciplined, and a sharper fighter.
You guys blend the eras together...the Tyson of the King era would have gotten destroyed by the Tyson of the D'Amato era.
To say "I knew Tyson was weak to Douglas style attack when he was coming up" is idiocy - the Tyson that Douglas was fought was quite different than the Tyson that won the Showtime Tourney.
The D'Amato era Tyson is an All Time Great, if not this discussion would not even be had. The King era Tyson was an undisciplined, under-prepared bull. Sure he could be dangerous but the Matador eventually wins.
* This era began unraveling with the screwyness after one of the partners died...Tyson began losing trust at that point.
Your basically saying that you shouldn't have to listen to someone or you can just dismiss everything they say because you slap an arbitary label on them..
D'amato died when Tyson had less than a dozen pro fights ...
I don't believe Rooney has ever developed a top notch fighter on his own..I cant recall any..
If Tyson is the most overrated boxer then Rooney is the most overrated trainer ever
It's just more shoulda, coulda ,woulda
If saintly old Cus had somehow managed to live forever ..Tyson would have been the best of all time.
Yeah Right
Yes, but Curry had 450 amateur fights, surely that took a toll on him... Tyson has no similar excuse.zurdo wrote:I don't believe in the "two eras" of Mike Tyson any more than I believe in the "two eras" of Donald Curry. No one calls Curry the greatest welterweight .
There was another guy who was just as impressive in his own way as Tyson was early in his career Just not as hyped
Eventually Curry Got decisively whipped several times .The Cobra had a good run but nobody goes around saying that he would have blasted Sugar Ray Robinson or Henry Armstrong
Tyson wasn't really champ till he beat Spinks three days shy of his 22nd Birthday to become second youngest champ ever..the8thround wrote: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
pringle wrote:.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 . .
interesting cop-out....and what title did spinks hold while tyson ko'd him in 90 seconds? any agency recognize him as champ?
Lewis sucked, and he was a p*ssy. Consistency?? Is that why he got KO'ed 2 different times on one punch? Did I mention ONE PUNCH!!???jamesmcdonnell wrote:At the end of the day, fighters are rated more highly for consistency, that is why Lewis will generally be remembered as a better heavyweight champion. He maintained a high level of performance over a much longer period of time
I don't really give a shit WHY tyson deteriorated, that is open to debate, what is not open to discussion, is that after he beat Razor ruddock, he would never again beat anyone who was world class, the best name on his ledger post Ruddock that he beat was Golota.
there are so many fighters Tyson never fought, Mercer, Tua, Bowe, Lewis (in his prime he avoided Lewis), Briggs, Grant, need I go on.
All the supposed top challengers never got a shot against Mike who instead feasted on what he thought was a shot holyfield and instead got gobbled up himself.
These are my criteria for a great fighter.
Longevity at the top, including title defences.
quality of opposition.
Manner of victory.
Historical importance.
Skills
Mike does well in only two of those, relatively well in title defences, more than frazier or foreman for example, but on the others, sadly, pretty poor. A very famous and important figure in boxing who dominated his opposition in his early reign, but overall, seriously flawed.
The flaws which were exposed later in his career were always there, he just never fought anyone good enough to exploit them.
Your case is looking kind of shaky..HeavyHitters wrote:
Lewis sucked, and he was a p*ssy. Consistency?? Is that why he got KO'ed 2 different times on one punch? Did I mention ONE PUNCH!!???
ONE PUNCH, BABY!!! POW!!
Two words for you, Bub..... Rahman and McCall!!
I rest my case!!
an early mike tyson was nothing but head movement and hooks. he lost it when he lost cus and got tied up with don king.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
Eventually when Tyson was forced to fight going backwards he was in real trouble..zslayton wrote:an early mike tyson was nothing but head movement and hooks. he lost it when he lost cus and got tied up with don king.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
the only weakness he had was he couldn't fight going backwards. i contribute that to he never had to go backwards. how can you be good at something you never had to do?
This is a great post to end this thread with .. goodbye.. lights out :)natedog wrote:Tyson's defintely top-ten material. I have him somewhere between 8-10 for now. Hopefully, Tyson will win a belt or three. If Tyson does win some belts he easily surpasses Foreman, especially with his previous 10 defenses in the 80's.
- Most exciting fighter of all-time
Youngest Champ ever
4th quickest KO in a Championship bout(Spinks)
Undisputed(WBC, WBA, IBF) + held the Linear title and defended all of them!!!(-Hasnt been done since Holyfield, and the only reason for that is because Tyson unified them orginally) Keep in mind who Holyfield fought for those belts(Buster who was fat and out of shape) Holy then fought two old timers and then lost to the first good HW he faced!!)On a side note Lewis never defended the undisputed title and surrendered belt after belt until Vitali retired him.
Only fighter to ever KO the Great Larry Holmes. It only took Tyson 4 rounds, at that.
Beat all the top-contenders in his era(85-89)If only Tyson/Holyfield happened as it was originally planned we would know the results of a prime/prime match up. Tyson lost to Douglas, and the rest is history. However, keep in mind Muhammad Ali ranks Tyson/Douglas as the tenth greatest fight of all-time! -see Ali's latest book. I mean come on, after the uppercut in the 8th round, the long count, and here comes Douglas rallying in the 9th and 10th. Awesome fight, even though Tyson was mentally out of it.
Tyson is #2 for first round KO's in championship bouts, with 3. Guess who ranks #1? You guessed it, -Joe Louis, with 5!!
Tyson also has some of the best talent to ever grace the HW division. On a who beats who criteria, a prime Mike is the favorite every time!!!!
Yikes,... Mikes the man.
you are just very dumm guy ... you keep sayin all that crap that everybody has said over and over again. Copy Past guy .. you ruined the thread...zurdo wrote:Indeed Cultis has had enough he's tired of fumbling around on the canvas looking for his rhetorical mouthpiece Just like Tyson after Douglas was done with him in Tokyo
moving up in the world..Tyson was one dimensional.. blaa blaa "and failed when forced to fight going backwards" how many times has that been said before ...copy paste guy, its evidentzurdo wrote:Eventually when Tyson was forced to fight going backwards he was in real trouble..zslayton wrote:an early mike tyson was nothing but head movement and hooks. he lost it when he lost cus and got tied up with don king.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
the only weakness he had was he couldn't fight going backwards. i contribute that to he never had to go backwards. how can you be good at something you never had to do?
the great ones are versitle and able change tactics in the middle of the fight if the need arises. Tyson was not able to do that Tyson was too one dimensional even when he was on top of his game
... and it's not his prime anymore - it was exposed against Hollyfield. But we were talking about prime Mike ...Prime Mike changed always his tactics.. but its not like he could make his arms longer and fight dancing. He changed tactics always.. working bod,y going behind the jab and suddenly exploding on his opponents, he was so unpredictable and thats better than any robotic style change. He was most technical fighter everThere won't be two solid wins probably The plan most likely is to have Tyson blast the woeful Mc Bride and then immediatly be granted an undeserved title shot. I don't think the money men behind this latest comeback want to risk Tyson against anyone who is even close to top ten caliber. Becuase he's a puncher ,Tyson might and i mean might have a chance of ambushing one of the weaker contenders .jujigatame wrote:I know this sounds delusional, but while I doubt he'll ever be considered the HW champ again, I think Tyson still has what it takes to peek back into the top 10. All it'd take are 2 solid wins (not counting McBride, which does not count as "solid") against B-level guys like Danny Williams, Lamon Brewster, or Kirk Johnson and he'd be right back in there.
