Printable View
umm .. ok then ill go into all of it then he was in possibly greatest round ever the slugfest with ken norton the slugfest with mike weaver hes jab and quick combos were exciting bit like young ali he was in battle with renaldo snipes aswell and ur telling me he was boring well maybe i like to see good boxing match instead of people getting blasted away in 1 or 2 rounds
Firstly :coolclick: Miles - you know what time it is!!
The point people make about Tyson's fights against Holyfileld and even as far back as Douglas don't really hold any merit in this argument as far as I am concerned. The questions is about Prime. Against Douglas, Tyson was a zombie, almost certainly on drugs and showed none of the attributes that made him what he was - he never did after that fight either.
People bring up Tucker causing him problems and Holmes causing problems, PLEASE wach those fights, Tucker caught Tyson with 1 decent punch and was pretty much outboxed for 12 rounds, Holmes came out dancing like Wayne Sleep in round 4 and landed a few jabs, but hardly something that was troubling Tyson. Fact is every great fighter even if their prime will be tested, but when did Tyson really look vunerable or anywhere remotely close to losing during those years?? I actually think Bonecrusher was his hardest fight during his prime and he still won that with ease!
I am not speaking as a fan cause I think the guys is a nob head, but if you really want to talk about primes you have to look at 1986-89, or else we should be looking at Larry Holmes v Butterbean and Muhammad Ali v Trevor Berwick.
BK you have said before that after the Spinks fight you had Tyson as number 2 on your all time list, you have also acknowledged that his prime ended in 89, so how can you now change your mind on a question based on primes, but paying credence to fights that happened when the guy was a zombie and after being incarcerrrated for 3 and a half years!!
It's all heresay that the trates he showed later in his career were already there, and if they were then the likes of Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs and a very clever great jabber like Pinklon Thomas would have been the ones to expose them, not Danny Williams and Kevin McBride.
If anybody can watch a Tyson fight form Douglas onwards and see the same fighter, with the great jab, great defence, awesome combinations, side to side head movement, lateral waist movement then you watched different fight to me
Deep breath Lol ;D
how was bonecrusher hes hardest fight i thought tyson won all 12 rounds
how did hes prime end in 1989 when he was only 22 ??
;DQuote:
Originally Posted by BIG H
It is not hearsay but a fact that as a pro boxer Mike Tyson never won a fight that he was not in control of.
Holmes on the other hand has shown that he had the ability to win fights that he did not have in control.
If Tyson of 88 fought a Holmes of 78, Tyson would not have total control of the bout, Holmes would always be in there, and the evidence of Tyson's career is that, that would be too much for Tyson to handle.
And as for having Tyson at #2 in 1988, yes I did, but I also had Charley Burley at #2 in all-time rankings, until I saw and read more about him...
As previously stated, IMO you are perfectly entitled to reevaluate a fighter, as you get more of an insight into how his career developed, thus as the years went by Tyson slipped down from #2 in my heavyweight rankings.
i think holmes is better fighter im sorry but i dont know how people can say tysons prime finished when he was only 22 and fights with holyfield i think hoylfield was more shot than tyson because holyfield didnt look good in hes loss to bowe and hes loss to moorer and on other hand tyson was champ at that time and was knocking out every opponent in average of 3 rounds or less and holyfield was like 40-1 i think cant remember exact betting odds
tyson knocks him out easily
it would never be easy i cant believe people think that
Because he was always in control during his prime ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
The theory that you have to avange defeats and come back from the brink of defeat doesn't add up to me, surely it's better to never be at the brink of defeat and to not lose - which in his prime he didn't ;)
Because prime does not always mean your age!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Do you think he was in his prime aged 25-28 when he was in prison. Check out Tyson's life in the late 80s, he had already lost his mentor Cus D'amato, then he lost Jim Jacobs, his marriage was in ruins and all the demons of his past had surfaced - he was mentally not at the races after 89!!
Watch the fight instaed of checking the cores on Boxrec ;) Bonecrusher posed Tyson more problems than arguable anybody in that period. That said he didn't pose many coz nobody did, hence Tyson being so good. And check out round 12 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Tony Tucker and Mitch Green gave Tyson fits....Smith wasn't spectacular but he didn't make Mike look spectacular which was a step in the right direction. And that being said do you rate Holmes above Tucker??? I do, I think Tyson wouldn't beat Larry because Tyson had trouble with guys like that and Holmes had a great fight mentality too, which would have Tyson SCREWED from the get go
just i thought commentator said all bonecrusher done was hold and try to survive but in ur view big h how many rounds did he win ??
obviously many people disagree with me on this...I'll concede that the tyson post Rooney wasn't as good, but I think we are talking about a differnce in small degrees not light and day. On another note I think most peoples knock on Mike is a lack of discipline/focus and fortitude. This are attributes every good champion has. To me Mike didn't have them no matter who was in his corner. On a sidenote I thought bonecrusher had one thing in mind when he fought Mike. Make it twelve rounds without being KO'd at any cost.
Here is my longwinded thought on Tyson that I've posted before
man it seems like this is discussed weekly. I have very mixed feelings about Tyson's placement in history. Tyson's wins are against mostly average to decent fighters. Not that this is his fault and not that many fighters(marciano, Louis,holmes etc) don't have the same dilemma in regards to their legacy. I think quite often it wasn't who he beat but the electrifying way he did it. I often ask myself if Tyson was a defensive master who out pointed and embarrassed fighters would we feel the same way? If he was the pernell whitaker of the HW era would he have such a fan base? Tyson embodied what we as fans want in our champion. I think people quite often get wrapped up in the sheer entertainment value of Tyson. His wins over Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Ruddock, tubbs, thomas, biggs etc are impressive in that he cleaned out a division and in the manner he did them but the actual opposition is really just slightly better than average. Tyson has two great wins: the destruction of Spinks and Holmes. Although Holmes went on to several more decent wins I don't think anyone will argue that he was the same man who himself had cleaned out a division. And I don't think we will ever know why spinks gave such a sorry performance. The biggest problem with grading Tyson's career is that his "prime" was so short. He didn't face any truly good HW's in their prime until late in his career. Obviously Tyson's management decisions and personal demons had a lot to do with his decline as a fighter, but this is a part of who Tyson was as a fighter. He simply didn't have the dedication and focus of other great HW's. I look at him alot like Bowe. They both had all the skills to be ATG's but couldn't capitalize. I don't judge Tyson's career after the Lewis fighter b/c it was obvious he didn't care. That being said whether he came in poorly prepared or not he was beaten soundly by douglas, holy, and Lewis. Great fighters rise to the occasion and Tyson didn't. When he met fighters who weren't intimidated, were bigger, had a decent jab and could back him up and tie him up he was definately frustrated. Tyson is one of the greatest power punchers ever, and arguably the most exciting fighter ever. He will stand as an icon in boxing of what might of been, but in my personal oppinion not an all time great fighter and hugely overrated.