[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
No offense, but this is absurd. Tyson would level Toney within half a minute. People remember post-Buster Douglas Tyson and forget how incredible young Tyson really was. If not for D’amato’s death and the ensuing flaming downward spiral that followed, we’d be talking about the best heavyweight in history.[/quote]
agree 100%.
As I said earlier, prime Tyson beats absolutely everyone in HW history never mind the likes of fucking James Toney lol. [/quote]
No he doesn’t. Lots of people beat him. Ali whips him, Frazier whips him, Foreman absolutely destroys him.
[/quote]
Did you leave out Joe Louis just to give me an ulcer? Because it is working.
[quote]
Tyson was great, especially when young, but some fighters were just better than him, especially in the head. [/quote]
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
No he doesn’t. Lots of people beat him. Ali whips him, Frazier whips him, Foreman absolutely destroys him.
Tyson was great, especially when young, but some fighters were just better than him, especially in the head. [/quote]
No way does Ali beat him. Having thought about this some more, Foreman would be very close, but that is it.
Your last point about his head isn’t accurate. In his prime Tyson had extreme mental strength. Anyone with his size and style would have to have. To dismiss him as a bully which is the common view now, is nonsense (not saying you necessarily are).[/quote]
Mike Tyson never, never had any degree of mental strength. There are two states to that fighter - with Cus D’Amato, and without Cus D’Amato.
In a fight with no lead up, maybe Tyson wins because he could have been a Frazier-like foil physically, especially with his left hook. But in a fight where Ali runs his mouth for three months prior, all my money says that he shakes Tyson up so bad that Tyson doesn’t know which way is up by fight time and gets kayo’d by round nine.
Foreman utterly annihilates him. Tyson always, always had trouble with bigger fighters, and he would get dropped repeatedly just like Frazier. He would swarm in, take a couple shots, and not know what to do with himself.
Frazier v. Tyson is indeed the most interesting though, because they’re mirror images of each other. It’s a banger that lasts maybe four rounds. Who wins… I can’t be sure. I like to think Frazier, but now that I think on it more I think it’s a toss up
And as for Tyson’s defense being “better” than Frazier’s - it wasn’t. It was just different. Tyson was a peekaboo style that relied on lots and lots of side-to-side movement, while Frazier employed much more of a bobbing and weaving, cross-armed style.
Frazier’s style is a better overall defense because while Tyson was excellent in his formative years, the second he slowed down - and it happened relatively early - he got caught with EVERYTHING.
Floyd Patterson called it after watching Tyson, and it happened exactly as he predicted.
Again, not saying that Tyson at 19 wasn’t awesome, because he was, but he fought a bunch of nobodies before taking the title. I think if you put him in the Ali-Frazier-Foreman-Norton-Patterson-Liston era, he gets more losses and is exposed as a relatively incomplete fighter much earlier.
Hell, I don’t know that he could beat a guy like Liston in his prime, either. And yes Robert, Joe Louis beats him handily.
And on the Ali point - many people forget that he was actually the same size as George Foreman. He was not a small man by any means, and would have had Tyson by four inches, a shitload of inches in reach, and in his prime, he could have kept Mike chasing him for six rounds before he landed a punch.
Don’t think of the slower Ali in 73, think of the lightning fast Ali of 1967… that Ali, between his long reach, his jab, his powerful right hand, and his movement, gives Mike fits.
People look at Tyson’s power and think, “My god, he’d have beaten anybody,” but power don’t mean shit when you can’t find the target. Mike fought in the era of bigger, slower, lumbering heavyweights and blown up cruisers like Holyfield (who also whipped him). If he fought in the era where heavyweights could not only punch, but MOVE, he would have had more trouble than he did against… oh I don’t know, Trevor fuckin Berbick…
And lastly… Tyson vs. Marciano is the one fight I would have given anything to see.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And on the Ali …he could have kept Mike chasing him for six rounds before he landed a punch.
Don’t think of the slower Ali in 73, think of the lightning fast Ali of 1967… that Ali, between his long reach, his jab, his powerful right hand, and his movement, gives Mike fits.
People look at Tyson’s power and think, “My god, he’d have beaten anybody,” but power don’t mean shit when you can’t find the target. If he fought in the era where heavyweights could not only punch, but MOVE, he would have had more trouble than he did against… oh I don’t know, Trevor fuckin Berbick…
Mike Tyson never, never had any degree of mental strength. There are two states to that fighter - with Cus D’Amato, and without Cus D’Amato.
all my money says that he shakes Tyson up so bad that Tyson doesn’t know which way is up by fight time and gets kayo’d by round nine.
[/quote]
Come on man, why talk in such extremes! PRIME tyson “couldn’t find the target” against some of these guys? Are you joking?! 6 rounds before he landed on Ali!
It is laughable to say that a 19 year old kid going and fighting the toughest guys in the whole fucking world doesn’t have any mental strength. That takes EXTREME mental fucking strength. To say things like he “never, never” had any just reduces this whole thread to a load of nonsense rather than a discussion at all.
Again, we are talking about this guy’s peak, I am not arguing for one minute that he did not turn into a complete train wreck pretty much from 1990 and lost his head, desire, movement and speed.
vs Foreman, Tyson has a far greater array of punches and movement than Frazier so I think that fight is close and personally Tyson wins as he is so much faster than Foreman. But yeah, that’s my opinion and I sure can see why guys disagree.
Just as much as Tyson didn’t face guys of the 70s calibre, equally they faced no one like him. I absolutely love Frazier too, but a peak Tyson had FAR more speed, head movement and ACCURACY of punches than him or any of these guys. Before you say his opponents were slow/ no good, so were the vast majority of these guys opponents, no one has a career of fighting 30 different George Foreman’s. At his peak, the variety and accuracy of Tyson’s punches were pretty much unparalleled.
It is a shame that guys with boxing knowledge in this thread are reducing a PRIME mike tyson to a mentally weak coward who could punch hard.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hell, I don’t know that he could beat a guy like Liston in his prime, either. And yes Robert, Joe Louis beats him handily.
[/quote]
Liston had a better jab, but Tyson had better footwork in the D’Amato/Rooney years. Of course it could be argued that a “prime” Liston was actually Liston before he got a title shot. I don’t think there is much film to judge. Supposedly he was already in decline when he saw to Patterson.
Glad you agree about Louis.
I agree with the rest, especially Marciano. I think the rules/enforcement are what decide that meeting. 1950’s-1960’s refereeing and Marciano rapes Tyson in the ring. Simply because everyone fought dirty at the time and that was a skill Tyson never really mastered. His showings against Holyfield prove it.
On the other hand, with a modern ref, ringside doctor, and 3 knock down rule, I think Tyson cuts or knocks over Marciano enough to get the TKO within 6 rounds. Keeping in mind a 3 knock down rule alone would have robbed Marciano of several wins.
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
It is a shame that guys with boxing knowledge in this thread are reducing a PRIME mike tyson to a mentally weak coward who could punch hard.[/quote]
That is not what I am reading.
My point, and I think FightinIrish is somewhat in line with this, is that the “prime” Mike Tyson was dependent on a corner/camp that he trusted and would listen to. When he was destroying everyone en route to dethroning Berbick he never had to face adversity in the ring. He was too good, and too aggressive. I am not claiming him a coward, or a weakling, but his courage was a belief in his own invulnerability. He certainly knew fear, and fought on. What he never knew was defeat.
He handled the tough time BoneCrusher Smith gave him well enough to get the W, but he broke mentally in the Douglas fight(granted his corner and camp was a collection of fail).
Mike Tyson never had the opportunity to get through a war and have a coach/trainer mold it into a formative experience. If D’Amato could have lived longer then perhaps Tyson could have developed the mental strength and discipline to go with his physical and technical prowess. That never happened.
As it stands, I think a “prime” Tyson was the best in the world when things were going his way. If he was better, it was going to be over quick. The notion that a “prime” Tyson could beat all comers seems to be a notion of a Tyson who was never in the ring. Perhaps the best Tyson we ever saw showed up to demolish Michael Spinks. Two years later that same Tyson couldn’t handle Buster Douglas.
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Come on man, why talk in such extremes! PRIME tyson “couldn’t find the target” against some of these guys? Are you joking?! 6 rounds before he landed on Ali!
[/quote]
Hey man like I said, I agree with a lot of your points about Tyson. Definitely about his power, speed, and accuracy. But you’ve also got to keep in mind that Ali faced huge punchers, he faced quick fighters, he really did it all. And when he had his legs and was young, he was much harder to find.
Again, highlight reels look awesome, but even a guy who can hit like a train can’t do much if he can’t find his target - see Pavlik v. Hopkins, Ali v. Liston, Pacquaio v. Marquez III.
And as I remember (and I could be wrong), but Tyson was a stalker, a swarmer. He wasn’t the type that really knew how to cut off the ring with movement and angles. Hell, a lot of times he just walked forward.
I’m not saying that Tyson could never win. I’m just saying that he never fought a fighter like Ali… and that Ali fought the earlier blueprint of Tyson in Frazier and beat him twice - the last time, nearly to death.
And Frazier NEVER slowed down after round 6 the way Mike always did.
The mental strength - or discipline, you might call it - to train hard and train ever day is much different than the mental strength it takes to withstand a constant stream of verbal berating and insults that Ali would have leveled at him.
This one is about size. Foreman was much bigger, and Mike was never great at fighting taller fighters.
[quote]
Just as much as Tyson didn’t face guys of the 70s calibre, equally they faced no one like him. I absolutely love Frazier too, but a peak Tyson had FAR more speed, head movement and ACCURACY of punches than him or any of these guys. Before you say his opponents were slow/ no good, so were the vast majority of these guys opponents, no one has a career of fighting 30 different George Foreman’s. At his peak, the variety and accuracy of Tyson’s punches were pretty much unparalleled.
It is a shame that guys with boxing knowledge in this thread are reducing a PRIME mike tyson to a mentally weak coward who could punch hard.[/quote]
No, that’s what he was at the end of his career (minus the coward part.)
He was good. Could have been one of the greats. But there were just other fighters that were better, tougher, and smarter.
There’s a reason that Tyson is not in the top 50 on anyone’s list of greatest fighters of all time. Even ESPN ranked him 50 out of 50.
He had the potential to be the greatest, I think, but it was never realized. Don’t get sucked into the Tyson ethos… it’s just not based in reality.
[quote]Robert A wrote:
He handled the tough time BoneCrusher Smith gave him well enough to get the W, but he broke mentally in the Douglas fight(granted his corner and camp was a collection of fail).
Mike Tyson never had the opportunity to get through a war and have a coach/trainer mold it into a formative experience. If D’Amato could have lived longer then perhaps Tyson could have developed the mental strength and discipline to go with his physical and technical prowess. That never happened.
As it stands, I think a “prime” Tyson was the best in the world when things were going his way. If he was better, it was going to be over quick. The notion that a “prime” Tyson could beat all comers seems to be a notion of a Tyson who was never in the ring. Perhaps the best Tyson we ever saw showed up to demolish Michael Spinks. Two years later that same Tyson couldn’t handle Buster Douglas.
Regards,
Robert A
[/quote]
I just don’t understand some of this as pertains to the argument of this thread. I am not talking about his whole career.
To say Tyson v Spinks and then “2 years later couldn’t handle Douglas” is just not relevant at all. It’s like saying Ali may have beaten Foreman but he couldn’t handle Berbick. Both Tyson and Ali were past it. Tyson prepared for that fight by watching Bruce Lee movies.
Clearly not a single person in this thread means the Ali towards the end of his career, rather when he was at his best. Equally, no one means Foreman after he fought Ali and was completely mentally shot, they mean the indestructible ogre who knocked everyone senseless beforehand. Similarly, I am not talking about Tyson from Douglas onwards, but seemingly everyone else is along with Cus being dead etc.
It is supposed to be the night when all of these guys bring their absolute peak into the ring against one another. In my view, the only strong argument anyone has actually made is Foreman, but again in my opinion Tyson is far superior than Frazier (most seem to be saying Tyson would lose v Foreman for the same reasons Joe did) and would have too much variety and definitely speed to Foreman.
Anyway, as is the case with this stuff, NO ONE will be persuaded to change their views by anything anyone says lol me included no doubt.
To say Tyson v Spinks and then “2 years later couldn’t handle Douglas” is just not relevant at all. It’s like saying Ali may have beaten Foreman but he couldn’t handle Berbick. Both Tyson and Ali were past it. Tyson prepared for that fight by watching Bruce Lee movies.
[/quote]
Dude, seriously… look at what you’re saying.
Tyson was 24 years old when he lost to Douglas. TWENTY-FOUR! Most guys have been pros for maybe a couple years at 24 now. That’s the prime of his life.
Ali, when he fought Foreman at 32, had slowed down. He was 39 when he fought Berbick. When he was 24, he fought Floyd Patterson, and it was the big win that LAUNCHED his career.
So you’re really comparing apples with oranges here.
[quote]
It is supposed to be the night when all of these guys bring their absolute peak into the ring against one another. In my view, the only strong argument anyone has actually made is Foreman, but again in my opinion Tyson is far superior than Frazier (most seem to be saying Tyson would lose v Foreman for the same reasons Joe did) and would have too much variety and definitely speed to Foreman.
Anyway, as is the case with this stuff, NO ONE will be persuaded to change their views by anything anyone says lol me included no doubt.[/quote]
I hear you. I just don’t think you’re basing things on the careers they had. Tyson’s best nights were against fighters that were not really all that good. Berbick was a mediocre champ, famous more for getting knocked out by Tyson that for anything else.
Michael Spinks was probably his best night, but Spinks was another one… good champ, but no where near a Liston/Foreman/Frazier type in terms of quality of fighter.
On his best night, Ali frustrates and knocks out Tyson in the late rounds.
This is obviously all speculation an “what ifs”, but if all those “what ifs” go Tysons way I firmly believe we’re talking about the best heavyweight - and maybe the best fighter period - of all time. But, it’s a moot point ss we’ll never get a chance to find out.
Tyson was 24 years old when he lost to Douglas. TWENTY-FOUR! Most guys have been pros for maybe a couple years at 24 now. That’s the prime of his life.
Ali, when he fought Foreman at 32, had slowed down. He was 39 when he fought Berbick. When he was 24, he fought Floyd Patterson, and it was the big win that LAUNCHED his career.
So you’re really comparing apples with oranges here.
On his best night, Ali frustrates and knocks out Tyson in the late rounds.
[/quote]
I’ll just say one last thing. It’s not apples and oranges because their “prime” doesn’t relate to their age. Yeah Tyson was 24 against Douglas but he was already past it. His prime was 18-23, yeah a short time, yeah Ali lasted much longer etc. My point was that all fighters eventually fade, this is about these guys on their best possible form, not who was best over 10 years.
As far as the opponents he faced during his prime, there is not much he can do about that. He wiped all of them off the planet though and with his head on straight and Cus in his corner, he beats the 70s guys too.
Anyway, some good points made here by you guys. Not much else to say now haha.
Tyson was 24 years old when he lost to Douglas. TWENTY-FOUR! Most guys have been pros for maybe a couple years at 24 now. That’s the prime of his life.
Ali, when he fought Foreman at 32, had slowed down. He was 39 when he fought Berbick. When he was 24, he fought Floyd Patterson, and it was the big win that LAUNCHED his career.
So you’re really comparing apples with oranges here.
On his best night, Ali frustrates and knocks out Tyson in the late rounds.
[/quote]
I’ll just say one last thing. It’s not apples and oranges because their “prime” doesn’t relate to their age. Yeah Tyson was 24 against Douglas but he was already past it. His prime was 18-23, yeah a short time, yeah Ali lasted much longer etc. My point was that all fighters eventually fade, this is about these guys on their best possible form, not who was best over 10 years.
As far as the opponents he faced during his prime, there is not much he can do about that. He wiped all of them off the planet though and with his head on straight and Cus in his corner, he beats the 70s guys too.
Anyway, some good points made here by you guys. Not much else to say now haha.[/quote]
Fighters don’t fade at 24! The fighters that fade that early are guys like… well, Prince Naseem and a bunch of other guys you never hear about because they faded at 24!! hahahah
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Fighters don’t fade at 24! The fighters that fade that early are guys like… well, Prince Naseem and a bunch of other guys you never hear about because they faded at 24!! hahahah[/quote]
wtf are you talking about man. Seriously. It’s like you need someone to draw you a picture. The discussion is about Tyson fighting guys at his peak and at their peak on a one off occasion.
It is not about who had the better career/ is he in the all time top 50/ what about when Cus died/ his lack of mental strength (lol)/ how he couldn’t handle Ali in press conferences (lol) etc ad nauseum. It’s extremely straightforward. I can only assume you are choosing to be intentionally obtuse.
Also, Hamed was 27 against Barrera when his career finished. He was also a world champ who held the WBC, IBF and WBO belts. Pretty decent (and COMPLETELY irrelevant to this discussion).
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Fighters don’t fade at 24! The fighters that fade that early are guys like… well, Prince Naseem and a bunch of other guys you never hear about because they faded at 24!! hahahah[/quote]
wtf are you talking about man. Seriously. It’s like you need someone to draw you a picture. The discussion is about Tyson fighting guys at his peak and at their peak on a one off occasion.
It is not about who had the better career/ is he in the all time top 50/ what about when Cus died/ his lack of mental strength (lol)/ how he couldn’t handle Ali in press conferences (lol) etc ad nauseum. It’s extremely straightforward. I can only assume you are choosing to be intentionally obtuse.
[/quote]
Just because I disagree does not mean I haven’t considered your position. You can insult my intellect or my character, but it still won’t make it so.
If we are picking the “peak” Tyson, age 18-22, then we are sending a Tyson into the ring that did not know how to deal with being fouled and could not make adjustments in his style between rounds (or even between fights as his 2 part with Holyfield showed). If Mike Tyson couldn’t do these things later in his career than I submit he sure as shit couldn’t do them earlier when he was less experienced.
The 22 year old Tyson who crushed Michael Spinks looked to be on track to be the greatest, but he never got there. If things went his way in a fight he may have been the best finisher in history, but he was not the best at putting guys in a position to be finished. He never developed the ability to get himself out of trouble and still win. Against Ali, Frazier, Foreman, or Louis that gets him long odds.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
This is obviously all speculation an “what ifs”, but if all those “what ifs” go Tysons way I firmly believe we’re talking about the best heavyweight - and maybe the best fighter period - of all time. But, it’s a moot point ss we’ll never get a chance to find out.[/quote]
I think he had the POTENTIAL to be the best heavyweight. However that potential was never realized. The fact he had two fights to figure out Holyfield and couldn’t indicates that he needed some skill and in ring knowledge development as well as just a longer period at the top to claim that title.
[quote]Robert A wrote:
Just because I disagree does not mean I haven’t considered your position. You can insult my intellect or my character, but it still won’t make it so.
[/quote]
No need for the patronising tone man. Post wasn’t even directed at you. “Insulted your character” lol you take yourself too seriously. You make it sound like you are Martin Luther King.
I have read this forum for a while and alot of the content is excellent. However, I am aware that there is a longstanding group who love to high 5 one another and use a superior tone. It is disappointing that this thread is a perfect example of it.
Yolo… this thread hasn’t been that way at all, and there’s no reason for you to get all butthurt.
And if anyone is ever condescending, it’s me, not Robert. That dude is one of the coolest, most even keeled posters on this site and never gets into arguments.
So lose the estrogen and quit the bitch shit man. Nobody was gettin on you.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Fighters don’t fade at 24! The fighters that fade that early are guys like… well, Prince Naseem and a bunch of other guys you never hear about because they faded at 24!! hahahah[/quote]
wtf are you talking about man. Seriously. It’s like you need someone to draw you a picture. The discussion is about Tyson fighting guys at his peak and at their peak on a one off occasion.
It is not about who had the better career/ is he in the all time top 50/ what about when Cus died/ his lack of mental strength (lol)/ how he couldn’t handle Ali in press conferences (lol) etc ad nauseum. It’s extremely straightforward. I can only assume you are choosing to be intentionally obtuse.
Also, Hamed was 27 against Barrera when his career finished. He was also a world champ who held the WBC, IBF and WBO belts. Pretty decent (and COMPLETELY irrelevant to this discussion).[/quote]
See? This is what I’m saying. You’re getting all cunty for NO reason.
This is just a discussion. That’s it. There’s no reason to get angry because I don’t agree with you.
I understand your premise well - Tyson beats everybody on his best night. Got it. It’s clear.
But me, I think Ali on his best night beats Tyson on his best night.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And as I remember (and I could be wrong), but Tyson was a stalker, a swarmer. He wasn’t the type that really knew how to cut off the ring with movement and angles. Hell, a lot of times he just walked forward.
[/quote]
This is most certainly not true. He was a stalker and a swarmer for sure, but while he was under the tutelage of Rooney, tyson’s movement and angles was some of the best I’ve seen, shit there is a highlight of him against (I think?) Berbick, and berbick leaps in with a looping hook, instead of just ducking down and swinging back, Tyson dips and then leaps to Berbick’s side, and lands a counter hook, it’s a brilliant move and put him in the perfect position to drop Berbick without allowing berbick the chance to land a counter. He definitely knew how to cut off of the ring, hell it’s the only way he could get to his larger opponents who would spend the fight circling and backpedalling to avoid the wave of aggression.
I think the point you raised earlier in the thread is absolutely right, there are two states to mike tyson: with us and without Cus. Although I’d change that to with Rooney and without Rooney, because while Cus provided the emotional and mental support Tyson so desperately needed, it’s Rooney who reinforced the need for him to utilize head movement, combinations and angles if he ever wanted to be anything more than ‘just’ a slugger - which is exactly what post prison, post Rooney Tyson was.
[quote]Robert A wrote:
Just because I disagree does not mean I haven’t considered your position. You can insult my intellect or my character, but it still won’t make it so.
[/quote]
No need for the patronising tone man. Post wasn’t even directed at you. “Insulted your character” lol you take yourself too seriously. You make it sound like you are Martin Luther King.
I have read this forum for a while and alot of the content is excellent. However, I am aware that there is a longstanding group who love to high 5 one another and use a superior tone. It is disappointing that this thread is a perfect example of it.
Regards[/quote]
yolo84,
I am not trying to be patronizing. I am saying that I disagree with you about a 19-22 year old Tyson’s abilities. If you read my post and thought I was trying to pick a fight then I apologize for being unclear.
If there is a longstanding group loves “to high 5 one another and use a superior tone” I am unaware of them. I am certainly not aware of being in such a group.
I am really not tracking why you think FightinIrish is being intentionally obtuse. I think he has done a good job of stating why he believes the way he does. Since I agree with him in this case I prefaced my comment that way in order to make it clear that I was considering your opinions, and simply came to a different conclusion. My intention was to not make you feel like you were being dismissed unfairly. Clearly I failed. Again I apologize.
I really do not understand the Martin Luther King reference. I am pretty sure it wasn’t supposed to be a compliment though.
