Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 384

Thread: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

Share/Bookmark

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    El Kabong Guest

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    ALL of his losses were stoppages....bar the DQ

    I don't think Mike Tyson was the greatest ever, but I don't think he was a bum either. Sure he had a weaker era than most but he did dominate it pretty decently for a while. Also after a layoff from fighting to serve time he did come back and was able to recapture pieces of the title.

    I do think that people make the biggest mistake thinking if Cus would have lived longer/if Rooney was kept as trainer Tyson would have been undefeated forever

    Let's be clear, Mike Tyson was a pressure fighter, he had huge power for a pressure fighter, but pressure fighters peak out EARLY. You don't see 30 year old pressure fighters having much success. Pressure fighters reach their peaks earlier than most and then start to decline by their early/mid twenties. Even the GREAT pressure fighters get worn down early.

    All this said, I think Mike Tyson missed some very good opportunities to show how class he was by just missing the chance to fight: Riddick Bowe, Tommy Morrison, Ray Mercer, Shannon Briggs, Hasim Rahman, Chris Byrd, George Foreman, The Klitschko's, David Tua, John Ruiz, Nicolay Valuev, Ruslan Chagaev, etc....given the dates those fights could have happened Tyson's chances of winning would have been very good, but due to the lackluster competition he fought after Lennox Lewis I don't know how he would have done.

  2. #2
    El Kabong Guest

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    Also every fight he lost he was the overwhelming favorite. Holyfield was a 20-1 underdog a week before their first fight....ooooh Tyson vs Moorer might have been something. Sure Moorer didn't have the greatest of chins, but the Moorer that beat Holyfield would have been an interesting fight given Teddy Atlas being his trainer and all.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,412
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    821
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    I believe the release of Rooney as trainer had an effect.

    I think he would have won the bigger fights vs Holyfield and Lewis had all his focus stayed on boxing.

    But after Rooney, fight by fight he lost something, even in his wins.



    Tyson is no doubt the best heavyweight puncher in history, fast hands, incredibly accurate combos, that alone is excellence, then you add the brute power and you've got a monster.

    He isn't the best of all time, but he had the potential to be the best.

    Unfortunately his naïveté and life style caught up with him.
    You say tomato,
    ‘n I say …… it correctly.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    McAllen, Texas?
    Posts
    5,505
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1235
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    The problem Tyson had- all D'Amato and Rooney fighters had- is that their style is reflex based. Jose Torres got around this by retiring early. Floyd Patterson quit using the 'peek-a-boo' after the first Johannsson fight; indeed, he'd already started to phase it out. With that style, you constantly have to react to straight punches, always be slipping jabs and right hands. And you are vulnerable to uppercuts. A good fighter- or Buster Douglas on a good night- will land that jab, then he'll start to feint it, to make you react, and look to land something meaningful off your reaction to the feint.
    What happened to Tyson was, he slowed down a little bit, probably due to not training as hard initially. And then he had that bad cut in sparring and started sparring in full head gear, which got him in the habit of standing up straight. (to see under the head gear, a pretty common problem.) Then he was just a short, short-armed fighter with some quickness and a big punch. Some guys he could makes a move on, get in and do damage, others, not so much.

  5. #5
    El Kabong Guest

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    Quote Originally Posted by greynotsoold View Post
    The problem Tyson had- all D'Amato and Rooney fighters had- is that their style is reflex based. Jose Torres got around this by retiring early. Floyd Patterson quit using the 'peek-a-boo' after the first Johannsson fight; indeed, he'd already started to phase it out. With that style, you constantly have to react to straight punches, always be slipping jabs and right hands. And you are vulnerable to uppercuts. A good fighter- or Buster Douglas on a good night- will land that jab, then he'll start to feint it, to make you react, and look to land something meaningful off your reaction to the feint.
    What happened to Tyson was, he slowed down a little bit, probably due to not training as hard initially. And then he had that bad cut in sparring and started sparring in full head gear, which got him in the habit of standing up straight. (to see under the head gear, a pretty common problem.) Then he was just a short, short-armed fighter with some quickness and a big punch. Some guys he could makes a move on, get in and do damage, others, not so much.
    Also if you could catch him coming in then you could really put him in danger

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    McAllen, Texas?
    Posts
    5,505
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1235
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by greynotsoold View Post
    The problem Tyson had- all D'Amato and Rooney fighters had- is that their style is reflex based. Jose Torres got around this by retiring early. Floyd Patterson quit using the 'peek-a-boo' after the first Johannsson fight; indeed, he'd already started to phase it out. With that style, you constantly have to react to straight punches, always be slipping jabs and right hands. And you are vulnerable to uppercuts. A good fighter- or Buster Douglas on a good night- will land that jab, then he'll start to feint it, to make you react, and look to land something meaningful off your reaction to the feint.
    What happened to Tyson was, he slowed down a little bit, probably due to not training as hard initially. And then he had that bad cut in sparring and started sparring in full head gear, which got him in the habit of standing up straight. (to see under the head gear, a pretty common problem.) Then he was just a short, short-armed fighter with some quickness and a big punch. Some guys he could makes a move on, get in and do damage, others, not so much.
    Also if you could catch him coming in then you could really put him in danger
    Yeah, because it would make him thoughtful. Then he'd stand back, straight up, and ponder his next move.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,493
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1379
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    The problem of course will always be that Mike left so many questions in his career. And you're 100% right, it seems like people either act like he's a god, or act like he's an overrated bum.

    To me, Tyson will always belong in any discussion about HW greats. A lot of attributes he had, like his combination of speed and power, was unprecendented and still hasn't been matched today. He had great talent and skill to go along with his brutal power. Mike was truely a great HW, and I think his era was a lot better than people give it credit for. I'm more impressed by Tyson's opposition then I am with a lot of other HW greats like Joe Louis', Marciano's, and a few others.

    I notice people pointing out that all of his losses were stoppages... well, 4/5 of Tommy Hearn's losses were stoppages. Was he not a great fighter?

  8. #8
    El Kabong Guest

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    I don't think Tyson would have ever beaten Holyfield the style matchup was awful for Tyson. Tyson needed to be able to move on the inside and Evander's huge noggin kept crashing in on him. I think James Toney would have been a bad matchup for Tyson as well...not that their careers at heavyweight ever intersected.

    Tyson maybe 2 out of 10 times could have gotten to Lennox Lewis when Lennox was younger, but once Lennox had Manny in his corner he was hard to catch unless he took his eye off the ball in training.

    Under Rooney's training Tyson did move his hands better, he did jab more, he did move his head better, but again that style does have its weak points. If the fighter isn't letting his hands go he's a sitting duck, if the fighter is being tied up or leaned on he'll lose energy, if the fighter isn't moving his head he won't be able to get in range....look at Liston vs Patterson 1 & 2. Patterson was trained by Cus and Patterson got steamrolled twice.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,336
    Mentioned
    680 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    936
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Vendettos View Post
    I believe the release of Rooney as trainer had an effect.

    I think he would have won the bigger fights vs Holyfield and Lewis had all his focus stayed on boxing.

    But after Rooney, fight by fight he lost something, even in his wins.



    Tyson is no doubt the best heavyweight puncher in history, fast hands, incredibly accurate combos, that alone is excellence, then you add the brute power and you've got a monster.

    He isn't the best of all time, but he had the potential to be the best.

    Unfortunately his naïveté and life style caught up with him.
    I think your last sentence sums it up for Tyson. When you can add could have been to a great fighter it is scary. Funny how we as humans can be so strong and so weak. Tyson is an extreme example of that.

  10. #10
    El Kabong Guest

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    Mike Tyson almost gets the Ike Ibeabuchi treatment from his supporters. There's constant "If only Tyson would have ______", "Tyson was negatively affected by ______", "Tyson should have _____".......all fighters great and poor deal with those kinds of things and true champions find a way to survive the adversity. People ignore the weaknesses of his style, they just choose not to see it...yes he was a great boxer but he was never unbeatable, no one is.

    Mike Tyson was a great heavyweight, is he top 10...maybe, if not he's very close to it. I respect his skill and all he achieved but I never view him as this unbeatable indestructible God of a fighter...he's just a man always has been....where are the accolades for guys like Joe Louis who suffered a much more tormented time in the spotlight but successfully defended his title 25 times in a row or a guy like Rocky Marciano who retired undefeated?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1002
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    Let's clear up the Cus D'Amato thing too where people say Tyson would've gone further if only Cus didn't die...

    19 year old Mike Tyson had been a professional for only 8 months when Cus D'Amato died in Nov 1985.
    At the time of Cus' death, Tyson was still fightin' no-hopers and never-wases with not a single ranked fighter on his entire 11 fight resume.

    Tyson won a version of the title in Nov 1986, but many point to the 1988 Spinks fight as Tyson's peak when he won the LINEAL title.
    1988 is a long ways from Cus' death in 1985 in fighter years and development.


    The first time I ever saw Mike Tyson was on tv the month AFTER Cus died, Dec 1985, the Sam Scaff fight, and Tyson looked amazing.
    Yeah, when Tyson the contender was just getting known, the old man had already passed by then. Tyson looked better AFTER Cus was gone, and against better competition too.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,254
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2492
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    Tyson was good , not great

  13. #13
    El Kabong Guest

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    Quote Originally Posted by bradlee180 View Post
    Let's clear up the Cus D'Amato thing too where people say Tyson would've gone further if only Cus didn't die...

    19 year old Mike Tyson had been a professional for only 8 months when Cus D'Amato died in Nov 1985.
    At the time of Cus' death, Tyson was still fightin' no-hopers and never-wases with not a single ranked fighter on his entire 11 fight resume.

    Tyson won a version of the title in Nov 1986, but many point to the 1988 Spinks fight as Tyson's peak when he won the LINEAL title.
    1988 is a long ways from Cus' death in 1985 in fighter years and development.


    The first time I ever saw Mike Tyson was on tv the month AFTER Cus died, Dec 1985, the Sam Scaff fight, and Tyson looked amazing.
    Yeah, when Tyson the contender was just getting known, the old man had already passed by then. Tyson looked better AFTER Cus was gone, and against better competition too.
    And then Rooney getting fired and Jim Jacobs dying are the other excuses. And of course the marriage to Robin Givens is also blamed and Don King and jail, yada yada yada....Champions get the limelight treatment some of them are negatively affected by that others aren't, it's just part of being a champion. People dying is just a part of being a human, all humans regardless of what they do go through adversity.

    I think part of what gets the Tyson fans upset is that guys like Holyfield & Lewis had more lasting careers due to their style and when they turned pro (AFTER Tyson's major successes). Tyson like many heavyweights didn't have his Joe Frazier and George Foreman...he had guys who were good but not great Frank Bruno, Donovan Rudduck, those guys he had closer and better fights with rather than Holyfield and Lewis, but that's my opinion. Tyson did demolish the old guard though in Holmes, Berbick, and Spinks....he tore through those guys.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, FL
    Posts
    655
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    939
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    Quote Originally Posted by bradlee180 View Post
    Let's clear up the Cus D'Amato thing too where people say Tyson would've gone further if only Cus didn't die...

    19 year old Mike Tyson had been a professional for only 8 months when Cus D'Amato died in Nov 1985.
    At the time of Cus' death, Tyson was still fightin' no-hopers and never-wases with not a single ranked fighter on his entire 11 fight resume.

    Tyson won a version of the title in Nov 1986, but many point to the 1988 Spinks fight as Tyson's peak when he won the LINEAL title.
    1988 is a long ways from Cus' death in 1985 in fighter years and development.


    The first time I ever saw Mike Tyson was on tv the month AFTER Cus died, Dec 1985, the Sam Scaff fight, and Tyson looked amazing.
    Yeah, when Tyson the contender was just getting known, the old man had already passed by then. Tyson looked better AFTER Cus was gone, and against better competition too.
    i think it just lasted him for a while, after fame came, he discpline slipped and he kept beating guys only because of his strong foundation, i dont think , and this is purely opinion, that tyson was a complete project, i think he couldve develped further and possibly never have been beaten

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Windsor
    Posts
    955
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1185
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

    Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
    Mike Tyson almost gets the Ike Ibeabuchi treatment from his supporters. There's constant "If only Tyson would have ______", "Tyson was negatively affected by ______", "Tyson should have _____".......all fighters great and poor deal with those kinds of things and true champions find a way to survive the adversity. People ignore the weaknesses of his style, they just choose not to see it...yes he was a great boxer but he was never unbeatable, no one is.

    Mike Tyson was a great heavyweight, is he top 10...maybe, if not he's very close to it. I respect his skill and all he achieved but I never view him as this unbeatable indestructible God of a fighter...he's just a man always has been....where are the accolades for guys like Joe Louis who suffered a much more tormented time in the spotlight but successfully defended his title 25 times in a row or a guy like Rocky Marciano who retired undefeated?
    Did the Rock ever have a world title fight against anyone under 40 years old? Just the luck of who's around at the time. Fighters like Ken Norton were just in the age group where they had a selection of 'greats' active at the time, for me Ken Norton beats Mike Tyson any day of the week.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-14-2012, 05:15 AM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-17-2011, 08:37 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 05:04 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-07-2007, 10:50 PM
  5. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 09-24-2006, 10:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2025 Saddo Boxing - Boxing