Young Mike Tyson

:doh: :doh: :doh: When did I mentionned Vitaly, and Tyson showed plenty of heart in his losses to Buster-Holy I and Lewis, if you cant recognize that, theres no point in continuing this topic, youre blinded by hate.

 

He showed heart against Buster because he was delusional and thought he was invincible. He didn't show heart against Holy 2, Williams and McBride? They don't count :dunno: Then your blinded by love.....

 

dsimon writes:

Tyson had a short prime no doubt. And he did clean house during that prime. Douglas fought a perfect fight that night, he looked like Ali. Tyson still almost knocked Buster out BTW. I will never forget that fight as nobody could believe it. But Douglas fought like Ali, not like Klitchko. he was simply never there to be hit when Mike went for him.

I will say this. No matter how the tales are spun, when Tyson was winning nobody could touch him. His skills, his attitude and his game were that good. Lewis was also a dominant heavyweight no doubt, but the Klitschkos are not. And yeah there were guys who historically were better, but Tyson was incredible. The greats used to wonder how anyone would ever touch him.

Tyson beat himself in the end. But on his finest day he would have made a peroshki out of the Klitschkos I have no doubt.

Lewis was another great and holmes in his prime was as well. These guys could have beat Mike. Louis was another one. But look at Sam Peter! the guy it turns out sucks and so Vlad beat him :dunno:? The closest Vlad came to fighting a puncher like Mike was Corrie Sanders and we all know what happened that night.

 

Sorry, Douglass was part of his prime, so was Holyfield.....he chose Buster and deserved what he got. Anyone saying Tyson wasn't prime when he fought Douglass,.......then when did the EXACT fight of convenience end?

I always like reading about Super Douglass and his out of body experience.

 

dsimon writes:

Mike was in a lot of trouble already and he wasn't at his best at that point. you want to call it a prime so be it. But on his best days he was better than when he fought Douglas. And Douglas fought an incredible fight that night. It would be an injustice to Douglas to say otherwise. he probably achieved the most remarkable upset in boxing history that night. And... Mike still almost knocked him out. Some people, like with Dempsey and Tunney (nice coincidance) thought the count was long.

 

Which is it, Douglass fought an incredible fight or Tyson lost his prime? Or is it that Douglass would have lost because he should not have fought so good, even with Tyson past his prime ::

Tyson looked good to me in that fight, nobody can really say otherwise except appologists.....

 

dsimon writes:

Its both. There is no logical inconsistency. And when one evaluates Mike as an all time great the fact that his prime was short and that he lost to guys who were his only real challenge figures in which is why I wouldn't figure him on the level of Lewis or Louis or many other great heavies.

Besides good as Mike was a prime LL beats him.... but not a Klitschko!

 

Just to set the record straight, in no way shape or form are either of the Klitchko's as good as Lewis, however.....Tyson seemed to be intimidated by huge men, if he actually was getting in trouble.....I think he could fold because he was fragile mentally.........which in no way shape or form you can talk about him as an all-time great. An all-time great has a longer shelf life than the conveniant one Mike has to possess to become one :nono:

 

dsimon writes:

I disagree only because for his brief shining moment he showed incredible attributes. And yeah when you put him in the mix longevity was a real weakness. But anyone who was around when Mike was king (as you were) cannot deny the incredible skill he showed and how thoroughly, despite his small size, he psychologically dominated the division. He was the right size for a heavy... and yeah he could have been a little bigger, but he beat up plenty of big men. If Lewis had one tenth of that intimidation with Lewis' size..... Nobody would have ever gotten into the ring with him.::

Now maybe to you his lack of longevity takes him off the list, but not to me. I do think it is a factor though, just not enough to take him off the list.

 

So Roy is out for attributes and longevity, but Tyson is in without longevity :nono:

Tyson didn't get into the ring with Lewis because he was intimidated, he tried to get out of it many times in his career. Tyson lost against the fighters that would have made him great. Tyson cannot be on an "all-time" list based on attributes ......if that is true, then RJJ must be goat :clap:

 

If you watched all of Holmes' career, you would know that the Holmes who fought Tyson and Mercer was a shadow of his best years. Holmes started declining as early as 1983. He had slipped from a heavy who was considered one of the top 5 ever to one who couldn't even get past Michael Spinks...and then he retired for two years....and THEN he faced Tyson without so much as a tune up.

And Mercer's loss to Holmes was more about Mercer's inadequacies than Holmes' skills. Prior to the Holmes fight...Mercer was being handled rather easily by Francesco Damiani before landing that flukey shot on Damiani's nose. And then shortly after the Holmes loss...Mercer mananged to lose to journeyman Jesse Ferguson. Mercer was capable of good performances and really awful ones.

 

dsimon writes:

What does Roy have to do with the price of tea in China? Of course Roy is in. There are many types of greatness in boxing, not one monolithic greatness with a capitol G.

For example, Rubio, when he concentrates on boxing will often point out attribuites of a fighter who people don't know about but had some qualities of greatness. Somebody like Maxie Rosenbloom.

Tyson was past it when Lewis started to get good Tyler. And let me tell you this... When Lewis started to get good people in the know were in the minority. It amazes me how revisionist people are. I remember very vividly that people thought Lewis, even after beating Ruddock, was a victim for the next puncher.

My point is that Tyson knew differently. And yes he knew at that point in his career that Lewis was better.

What you are missing is another attribute of greatness: {Lewis, Tyson, Ali...} were DOMINANT champs. That is an attribute of greatness {Quarry,Liston, Patterson, Holmes,...} are examples of decent to great heavyweights who could never dominate the division. Quarry was never even the champ yet fought and beat two of the best (Lyle and Shavers).

Think for a minute of all the heavyweight champions.... Heavyweight being the premiere division in the world of boxing.... who were truly dominant, outstanding and uncontested in their reign. Its a short list Tyler and Tyson is on it.

 

One thing you fail to point out is that Mike Tyson up to the Douglas fight had never been in a war of attrition. He was a frontrunner and a bully. Douglas didn't turn chickensh*t and fall down for him the way many intimidated opponents tended to do.
When did you ever see Tyson hit somebody with a 3 punch combination on the ropes and then his opponent pushes him off and smashes him back with a 4-5 punch combination?
Tyson wasn't mentally a strong fighter, when fighters stood up to him, he looked ordinary. He had a good chin and took his beatings for the most part.
He was an insecure bully.

 

dsimon writes:

Yeah Holmes versus Tyson was Louis versus Marciano all over again.:dunno:

 

Actually Lewis and Tyson sparred in Catskill as teens and Lewis presented a challenge which Tyson didn't like. That respect/fear was carried by Tyson even up to 20 or so years later when they finally met, and it was a fight Tyson wanted nothing to do with.
I agree with the rest of your post.

 

Except not nearly as sad...












...in fact it was a most JOYOUS occasion! :bears: :bears: :bears:

 

I can watch round 4 of Holmes vs Tyson at least once a day, just before going to bed, and I'll have a nice peaceful sleep..

 

First of all...if you're gonna dispute what I said...then maybe try addressing the points I made rather than just tossing out some weak one-liner. What EXACTLY did I say that was incorrect? Or is it that I refuse to pretend Holmes was still in (or anywhere near) his prime when he fought Tyson.

As for your Marciano-Louis comment. Tyson-Holmes is not that far off. Holmes was an out of retirement much lesser version of his prime self in the Tyson fight...as evidenced by the last few years of his title reign, the less-than-impressive Spinks fights and his RETIREMENT. If you watched Holmes' career, you would know that he had slipped considerably from his best days BEFORE he had retired. Compare the Holmes of the Norton & Cooney fights to the much slower and aging version who barely got by against hand-picked opposition until finally staying around for one fight too long against Spinks.

Tyson vs. Holmes in their respective primes is a helluva fight. Tyson vs. Holmes in 1988 was a mismatch going into the fight and ended up pretty much as expected.

 

A young Tyson KO'd an inactive 37 year old Holmes. I wonder what happens if a young Holmes takes on a 37 year old Tyson(from the Danny Williams fight).:dunno: Maybe Holmes gets all the credit in the world.

 

Hell...DANNY WILLIAMS doesn't get any credit for that win from Tyson fans...I don't see why Holmes would either.::

 

I hate Danny Williams. If he had just done what he was expected to do which was take that first Tyson punch and then fallen down and gone home, everything would've been fine.
Tyson's confidence would've been back on a high, the fans would've paid to see more Tyson fights, Tyson would've been able to make more money and paying back the IRS, etc.
F*ck Danny Williams for not falling down as he was supposed to!!!!!!!
Seldon, Etienne, etc all did it. Why didn't he?

 

'cause he actually had some heart??? Shame on Tyson's management taking a fight with a stiff who actually came to fight. ::

 

Danny Williams showed more heart in that one fight than Tyson did in his entire career.

 

I call BS. Tyson showed more heart then that in the Holyfield 1, Douglas and Lewis fights.

 

He showed chin in them, not really heart. Against Holyfield he almost tried till the end, but against Douglas and Lewis he merely kept taking beating. Williams didn't give up when the shit hit him, instead he actually tried to turn things around and did just that

 

Against Douglas he tried until the end too. I think he tried harder in that than he did in the first Holyfield fight.

The Lewis fight, he was mentally beaten pretty early on and probably just figured "I'll take my beating like a man and hopefully I can catch him with something big".

 

Tyson had no chance at winning against Lewis. He was up against a guy much taller and heavier who was hitting him whenever he wanted with powershot after powershot. Tyson bravely took a beating with no chance of winning.

 

I never got that argument. Tyson showed heart in getting knocked out by a guy with heart problems, a bum and an old man? When you talk about a fighter who has heart, you're talking about the kind of determination that wins matches, not the type of determination that gets you knocked out by a guy with heart problems, a bum and an old man.

 

I don't think he looked very determinated against Douglas went things started going wrong. Sure he landed that one uppercut when Douglas got over-excited, but apart from that Tyson remained passive when the only thing that might have helped him was to open up

 

My bad what a pussy Mike was. Thanks for showing me the light