Re: Lets end the Mike Tyson debate
I agree with a lot of things people pointed out here. I would like to make a few points . Many people are neglecting changes that are made over time because we tend to talk about past fighters in the their prime as frozen moments when a fighter was at his best. Something like patterson getting flattened because of the peekaboo style against someone like liston... There's almost 25 years between that fight and Tyson starting to climb the ladder. Besides the differences that exist between body types, muscle mass and ring IQ of the fighters... please allow for some tweaking to the system/ style. Another issue, is D'amato's death in relation to the effect it had on tyson. Presence (current tense) and influence (no presence required) are two different things. Whoever said Cus babied Tyson wasn't lying. He had a free pass outside of the ring but Cus demanded perfection in training. After his death, Rooney, Jacobs and several others had positive influence on tyson and the was instrumental to his success in that it kept his confidence high and kept him believing in himself. Ripping through guys in 2-3 rounds does alot for your confidence but it also makes you complacent. Tyson needed to have the right counterbalance for doubt in his corner after an opponent weathered the early storm. It could be seen in some of the fights that went the distance where tyson kept chopping away till a big tree fell or wilted. The disparity of opinions on tyson also come from the range of difference from Tyson being at his best (where the detractors were waiting for an expose that didnt come till 5 years/25-30 fights later?) and fans that believe he was god like but stopped watching as soon as he lost his 38th fight. Looking at that line were things started to turn, its hardly a blip on the screen. The supporting cast of Jacobs, Rooney, Cayton and others was replace by King, Givens and her mother, and other hangers on. Change of employers/management, marriage, divorce, drugs, money problems are all things that could hamper anyone, but raise the stakes and gamble ones fame, ranking and fortune (not to mention health if you're not focused) and you can see where the clu$terfuck of identity crisis, prison terms, slacking off in training, car crash/ purported suicide attempt came from. These are not excuses but just a mention that it doesn't take a hell of a lot for someone to lose it all. The question that begs to be asked is was this a fighter who was coming to point where his talent/edge was tapering off, and it just coincided with these personal issues and he got beat and then stayed too long..... or was he a dominant force that started to lose focus because of these issues but was able to continue on with residual skill and power.. win some, lose some but never regain the will, the focus or control he had when was maintained by better people? Self destructive is self destructive, no matter what kind of wrapper you put on it. I think he was a force that if maintained better would have lasted longer burned brighter though still burned out. While he was here, there was no denying his success. It wasn't just the knockouts, it was the way he knocked them out. Coincidentally, I came across Mike on the street in the south bronx a few weeks ago when he was doing his show in NY. He seems to be in a better place... I guess we all have a path to walk...
They want your @$$ beat because upsets make news. News brings about excitement, excitement brings about ratings. The objective is to bring you up to the tower and tear your @$$ down. And if you don't believe that, you're crazy.
Roy Jones, Jr. "What I've Learned," Esquire 2003
Bookmarks