What really caused Tyson's decline?

Spinks bitched out in that fight. He came to lose. Kinda like that other bitch Seldon. Guys scared outta their minds. Tucker had the skills to beat Tyson but he bitched out too even though he won 3-4 rounds. Dude didn't budge from anything Tyson landed. He could've won it if he fought hard like Douglas did.

 

huh? how many heavyweights in history would have taken all those clean shots without going down? and don't think naming one or two will make a point, history is littered with thousands of heavyweights that would have been put to sleep with those clean shots. much less any who would have taken those shots entering the fight in poor mental and physical condition...

 

immaturity

 

Fragile psyche, poor training, better opponents, bully syndrome, self-destructiveness, lack of discipline, chaotic personal life....

I don't know how much truth there was to the Tyson hype, since hype means money to a degree. I remember a public service skit played before a Tyson fight that showed Mike playing with orphans and handicapped kids and raising pigeons. Should I have also believed the announcer's claims that Mike was a warm and sensitive soul who spent lots of quality time with birds and disabled or disadvantaged children? Tyson was good, but he was also packaged to sell.

 

I don't believe that's accurate.

 

dsimon writes:

... and that should tell you something. Think about it. Spinks was damn good and as skilled a fighter as one could imagine. Yet most people knew Tyson would eat him for lunch. Why? Because Tyson was that good. And he didn't just beat SPinks he demolished him.

 

it is.. I have the tape of the broadcast and watch it from time to time..

 

Sure there were a 'lot' of people who picked Spinks if you surveyed a thousand of them.

Percentage wise it was very low.

 

Spinks took a Seldon-esque dive. Think about it. If a sack of crap like that bum Buster Douglas could eat Tyson's asshole alive, what do you think Spinks might have done if he actually came to fight with a fire under his ass? Guys who were inferior to Spinks gave Tyson a much much tougher fight. Spinks took his money and hid himself in a hole for the rest of his life...in disgrace.
That fight was fishy as hell. Then you see that same familiar face in the crowd.....Don King! The same Don King who manipulated the WBA rankings and got Peter McNeely, padded record and all, into the WBA top 10 to sell him as a legitimate comeback opponent for Tyson in August '95.
Come on ds, you really think Buster Douglas is better than Michael Spinks? ::

 

King also got John Ruiz into the top 10 of the wba.

Lots of people took a dive against Tyson. All King's fault. Tyson had nothing to do with it.

 

Age, and lack of quality opposision.

 

The worst and most blatant dive ever was Bruce Seldon. Clear dive if you ever saw one. Tyson's punch went wailing over the guy's head and the dude fell down like a f*ckin' B-actor.:laughing:
Tyson got what he deserved against Holyfield for robbing people of their money time and again with sh*t like that.

 

You're right.

 

Hookers and blow.

 

dsimon writes:

I think that like a lot of people who choose to be silly you are being a goof.

Look at the tape of the Douglas fight. No matter what one thinks of Douglas and most people do not think much of him career wise... he fought incrediby.

See Hanzy fair weather boxing fans always blow which way the wind blows. So now it is fashionable to say "aw heck Tyson was not that good" and then ten years from now people may revise history yet again. Its the same epistemological distortion one sees with history.

For example, Somehow the ancient Greeks despite augmenting Geometry logic and being the first cuture to separate natural occurances from theology were "strange and capricious mysterious little people" who obviously were incapable of being objective because they describe things historically that ancient Western historians did not believe. 'same convenient dismissal of an idea out of ignorance. Hell you see it in the martial arts as well! you get these MMA guys who are convinced that ancient Japanese Samurai were impractical ceremonial martial artists even though Japanese arts evolved on a battlefield in life and death struggles as compared to in a ring with a ref... people like jaws and Mex believe this crap and bull... so I am familiar with the BS and feel right at home sprouting it off my fine Punjabi friend! :hammert:

 

dsimon writes:

Yeah those guys needed to take a dive against MIke! Right! I love it people and their need to revise. If it does not mesh with the facts then it was made up simple right? All those guys that fell down? Tyson made them take a dive of course. All those guys Plato describes as living on another continent and teaching the Greeks various things? obviously made up!

 

Exactly.

 

It didn't matter what Spinks did, he was going to get KOed anyways. He was in over his head.

 

You are describing Spinks at Light-Heavy, not at Heavy. He was able to barely squeak by a very faded Holmes (and may not have deserved the decision in the rematch) and then sat on the title and didn't fight any legit contenders while waiting to cash out against Tyson. Spinks wasn't shy about fighting all the best fighters at 175, but at heavy he was very carefully matched after upsetting Holmes. ....and THAT should tell you something.

 

dsimon writes:

You make a good point Joe I can't dispute the above and wouldn't want too. However I do want to say that traditionally light heavies who squeaked by and otherwise did a decent job in the division, like evander at Cruiser... generally were not overmatched when fighting a puncher in the division. Holmes was still damn good when Spinks snuck by em as well. So Spinks was not exactly a patsy... more like one of my favorites, Michael Moore.

Ipso facto Tyson's destruction of Spinks was impressive... it was similar perhaps to when Marciano beat Moore. Archie was good enough without being a natural heavy, to give Marciano a hard time for a while.

Look it is part of God's natural order for the guys in the below divisions to sneak up for heavyweight gold...guys like Spinks and Moore, were damn compitant when fighting as heavies. Having said that yeah you are correct for Spinks, both Moores and even Evander arguably... they were better at their natural weight.

 

I dunno, dsimon. To me it's sounding like you're saying that because Evander was very successful at heavy then so would Spinks if he actually had chosen to fight anyone in between Holmes and Tyson.

My problem with this is we know exactly how good Evander was at heavy because we saw him up against the best the division had to offer for over a decade. We didn't see that with Spinks because he spent years avoiding the best the division had to offer. I don't see any real comparison between Spinks and Holyfield at heavy.

Also, I wouldn't go as far to say that Holmes was "damn good" going into the Spinks fight. Holmes had been sliding for years and was mostly getting by on heart and smarts. And this is how the Holmes-Spinks fight came about...Holmes wanted a name fighter he thought he could handle without much trouble and Spinks saw Holmes (and Larry's declining reflexes) as a fighter he could make history against. Do you really think Spinks does anything against Holmes at the time he fought Norton or even Cooney? Do you think Spinks signs for the Holmes fight if Holmes is 28 years old?

All we really have to go on with Spinks is what we saw of him. And if his competition was lacking between the Holmes and Tyson fights, that is entirely his doing. And as smart as Spinks seemed to be during his career, if he was avoiding difficult opposition while waiting on a Tyson fight, then there was definitely a reason for it.

 

dsimon writes:

For one thing why does Spinks act so slippery then take on Tyson?

Holmes was slipping but he was still a threat, I mean he did last a while with Tyson as well.

My point is not to laud Spinks as somoene on Holy's level at heavy... rather I look at Spinks as a sympathetic character... as a guy who had the skills to fight with the big boys and jump up to heavy... much like a guy like Haye would do now. I agree that in a decent division against a prime Holmes forget about it. I see Spinks as fufilling the obligatory role that a guy like Moore did (both moores haha) in that when the heavy weight division gets weak some guys will jump a division and muster up some comp.

I am not saying Spinks was allthat but he was seemingly compitant enough to box and avoid and what not... to establish a presence for himself in the division. Evander was exceptional in a way Spinks was not as a heavy that is true as well.

 

Holmes was in his late 30s and inactive for almost 2 years before Don King threw him some nice change for a Tyson fight. Not the prime Holmes exactly but credit goes to Tyson regardless. That was a good win.
:bears: I just think Tyson was fighting in a transitional period where all the greats had retired or were ageing and slowly dying off. Tyson feasted on them. But he likely still would've been competitive no matter the era. Although I still don't think he has a chance against the Lewis of the Grant/Golota fights. Tyson never looked that good against big guys and I think he'd have had a massive uphill battle against a guy much bigger than himself who had as much boxing skills and as big a punch.
Tyson always came across to me as being genuinely scared of Lewis. When you watch his interviews concerning Lewis, it's obvious he holds Lewis in very high regard.
There was even a story once which Tyson himself confirmed. A short while after Tyson had talked all this sh*t about wanting to eat Lewis's children, Tyson tried to buddy-buddy up with Lewis at some convention where both guys just happened to be attending. Tyson walked up to Lewis to say "Hi" and Lewis stared him down like he was gonna kill him for the sh*t Tyson said about him prior and Tyson hurredly walked away out of the building. Sorry ds, Tyson is a legend but he always suffered from small man's complex. I think Lennox would've eaten his lunch any day. Too big, too strong.

 

dsimon writes:

Lewis was a great fighter and was a challenge for anyone. i don't know hanzy i could not predict that one frankly.

 

I can't believe in 2009 people are still debating the reason for Tyson's decline. ::

 

Why did Spinks fight Tyson? Simple. The biggest payday of his career.

 

unfortunately there's no evidence to suggest that Tyson the front runner would have ever won a fight he was behind in....so it's safe to say he declined once he fought better opposition that didnt fear him

 

Ike I will give you credit here..

this is the shortest, most accurate post on why:bears:

 

Tyson happened along at a perfect time in HW history for a puncher to quickly become a star. For better than a decade prior to Tyson's arrival the HW landscape was littered with dull, mediocre talent everywhere south of the Champion. And even Larry's penchant for controlling fights with his jab didn't always entertain and certainly didn't excite.

When Tyson burst onto the scene knocking out everyone put in front of him, fans didn't care if the opponent was David Jaco or Jesse Ferguson. All that mattered is that this 19 year old kid was ending fights in spectacular fashion. And fans were finally having their appetite for brutality satiated.

The problem with Tyson easily winning fights and stopping 34 out of 37 opponents is that he wasn't prepared to overcome adversity when opponent number 38 came along with the tools to win and refused to cooperate like the typical Tyson challengers by collapsing or running.

Tyson didn't decline. He fell off a cliff in the Douglas fight. He was beaten by a guy that did all the right things. He used a strong jab. He circled. He moved his head. But more importantly, he didn't fold or change his game plan when he got hit. Douglas asked some questions of Tyson and Mike wasn't prepared to answer.

The Buster Douglas from Tokyo would have an even money shot at beating any version of Tyson.

 

Tyson never got up off his back to win a fight. He either stayed down or proceeded to get stopped. Tyson was exciting to watch though. He was very impressive too. He could've been a great regardless of era. He wouldn't be easy to beat for anybody. But as before, I don't see him steamrolling the likes of Foreman, Holyfield, Lewis, etc. Hard call frankly.