Tyson of 89-91 V Heavyweights of History

[TIGEREDGE]

I believe that tyson f 86-88 beats everyone except for ali (50-50 on that one). but what about the 89-91 version. he was still considered awesome at the time and still had the speed to go with the power

even though he was nowhere near the fighter he was i still reckon he could beat most hw's in history including prime joe louis.

the hw that would beat him imo are:

Ali of 1964-1974
Holmes of 76-82
Lennox Lewis 1995 onwards (early lewis was too rugged)
Holyfield of 2nd bowe fight
Jack Johnson
george foreman
liston

[ramalinga]

Vitali has a very good chance. Mentally stronger, his leaning back defense and reflexes coupled with his height made him very hard to hit. As great as Mike is with his charging style, Vitali was a master at making opponents hit air. His thudding punches from weird angels would take a toll over the rounds.

[McGrain]

I
the hw that would beat him imo are:

Ali of 1964-1974
Holmes of 76-82
Lennox Lewis 1995 onwards (early lewis was too rugged)
Holyfield of 2nd bowe fight
Jack Johnson
george foreman
liston

Surely you think that Buster Douglas would beat him between 89 and 91?

[janitor]

I believe that tyson f 86-88 beats everyone except for ali (50-50 on that one). but what about the 89-91 version. he was still considered awesome at the time and still had the speed to go with the power

even though he was nowhere near the fighter he was i still reckon he could beat most hw's in history including prime joe louis.

the hw that would beat him imo are:

Ali of 1964-1974
Holmes of 76-82
Lennox Lewis 1995 onwards (early lewis was too rugged)
Holyfield of 2nd bowe fight
Jack Johnson
george foreman
liston

I think that if you listed your top 10 all time heavyweights all of them would have a prety good shot at beating him at thi stage.

[lefthook31]

Tyson peaked at the Spinks fight. At that point his timing was perfect. Just look at how he KO'd Spinks. How did he know Spinks was going to lean to his right as he was throwing that strange righthand punch? His intuition of his opponents movement was amazing. That Tyson could have beaten any heavyweight including Ali.
The Tyson that fought Bruno and Ruddock, wasnt even close.

[Muchmoore]

I think that if you listed your top 10 all time heavyweights all of them would have a prety good shot at beating him at thi stage.

That sounds like a safe assumption. The Tyson that fought Douglas likely loses to most boxers in the top 35-40 all time imo.

I will say though that the Tyson that fought Ruddock in 91 was a step above the one that fought Buster. That Tyson would probably win against anyone who wasn't durable but still lose to most of the fighters we call greats.

[TIGEREDGE]

SORRY. i meant to put definitely beat him before the list

[BITCH ASS]

Vitali has a very good chance. Mentally stronger, his leaning back defense and reflexes coupled with his height made him very hard to hit. As great as Mike is with his charging style, Vitali was a master at making opponents hit air. His thudding punches from weird angels would take a toll over the rounds.

Mike by UD or KO.

Mike has fought similiar opponents to Vitali, except they were faster and more fluid, one hit harder as well.

Early in his career he white washed guys like Vitali on the scorecards if he didn't knock them out.

Late in his career, arguably the best BIG heavyweight of all time went 8 rounds with a guy that was a complete shell of himself.

[ironchamp]

Ali of 1964-1974

If you are using 1st career ali 64-67 then Ali decision.

2nd Career Ali especially up to 74? Tyson via decision or Mid rounds TKO.

Holmes of 76-82: Larry was green in 76 but was still sharp in 1982. I think Holmes may edge him here. I give Tyson more than the proverbial puncher's chance because he had the speed, power, style and durability to get the job done but unless he's in tip top shape physically and mentally Holmes may very well take this.

Lennox Lewis 1995 onwards (early lewis was too rugged): Tyson has the edge IMO because I've always felt that Lennox was a momentum fighter. Mercer lacked the fluidity and speed that Tyson would have had but he approached the Lewis fight with the right gameplan. I think he lost but it wasnt a tactical error on Ray's part. Tyson was stilll physically capable of doing 12 hard rounds. I'm not so sure that he would stop him given Lewis's dimension's and style but his pressure would force Lewis to be defensive long enough to prevent Lewis from fully asserting himself. Lewis would have his moments and so would Tyson for that matter but I believe that neither man would dominate the other to the extent that it can be called a one sided fight. It would be competitive in terms of action, momentum and scoring. 89-91 was a compentant and capable Tyson. After all in 1989 Mike Tyson was still the number 1 p4p fighter in the world. A distinction that put him ahead of the great Julio Cesar Chavez at that time.

Holyfield of 2nd bowe fight: Tyson TKO7. I've always felt that Holyfield fought Tyson at the most opportune time. Mike was inactive for years while Evander was fighting the division's best at the time. Evander grew into a bigger and stronger HW and made a very telling point before his first fight with Mike in 1996. Tyson hadnt been hit since he came out of jail. Bruno, McNeely, Seldon and Mathis didnt really hit Mike. Any inactive fighter will tell you that coming back after a layoff, your body needs to condition itself to absorb blows. Tyson's wasnt. In 1989-1991 Tyson was active no rust whatsoever. I think that Holyfield would have fought bravely but IMO he would come up short.

Jack Johnson: Tyson KO by 5

George foreman: Tyson KO by 6

liston: Tyson UD12

[clark]

Tyson beats some but not nearly all. Ali wins and would not get stopped by a mile. If Ali of '74 was hyped up like he was when he fought Foreman,
Ali stops Tyson before 10.

[lefthook31]

Tyson beats some but not nearly all. Ali wins and would not get stopped by a mile. If Ali of '74 was hyped up like he was when he fought Foreman,
Ali stops Tyson before 10.
Comparing Foreman to Tyson is not fair. Prime Tyson was very difficult to hit cleanly, he was very difficult to hit period.

[TIGEREDGE]

Comparing Foreman to Tyson is not fair. Prime Tyson was very difficult to hit cleanly, he was very difficult to hit period.

were not talking about prime tyson. were talking post prime. big difference between 86-88 mike and 89-91 versio

[Muchmoore]

Yeah, some people that have posted so far seem to be under the impression this is 87 Tyson here. The Tyson that fought Bruno onward was a step down.

[Bill Butcher]

I believe that tyson f 86-88 beats everyone except for ali (50-50 on that one). but what about the 89-91 version. he was still considered awesome at the time and still had the speed to go with the power

even though he was nowhere near the fighter he was i still reckon he could beat most hw's in history including prime joe louis.

the hw that would beat him imo are:

Ali of 1964-1974
Holmes of 76-82
Lennox Lewis 1995 onwards (early lewis was too rugged)
Holyfield of 2nd bowe fight
Jack Johnson
george foreman
liston

Based on Tyson 86-88.....

Its really too hard to say TBH.... Ali 64-67 Id favour... Foreman early 70s stylewise might be one... guys like Holmes, Liston & Louis are 50/50... Mike beats Lewis, Holyfield, Marciano, Frazier, both Klitschko`s & all the rest probably.

Tough choices but its VERY possible peak Tyson beats every HWT in history, Id take peak Ali over him if placing a big bet but not many more & its no guarantee with Ali either but I would favour him.

[TheGreatA]

Tyson peaked at the Spinks fight. At that point his timing was perfect. Just look at how he KO'd Spinks. How did he know Spinks was going to lean to his right as he was throwing that strange righthand punch? His intuition of his opponents movement was amazing. That Tyson could have beaten any heavyweight including Ali.
The Tyson that fought Bruno and Ruddock, wasnt even close.

I get the same feeling while watching Sonny Liston fight although I don't think he would beat every heavyweight in history. Must've been some natural fighting instinct.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
3:40

Mainly talking about 6:10-6:30.

[PetethePrince]

George Foreman always beats Tyson (Not 100 out 100 times. But best vs best). Terribly style matchup. Cus D'Amato told Tyson that "No swarmer beats Foreman." Granted Tyson isn't your typical swarmer (More mid-range fighter) he still needs to get in against a big Foreman. This is why I believe Tyson avoided (Yes, avoided) Foreman at all cost. Granted, Foreman didn't deserve a shot but he wanted nothing to do with George. I believe a 87-91 Foreman beats Tyson as well.

[fists of fury]

were not talking about prime tyson. were talking post prime. big difference between 86-88 mike and 89-91 versio

So the guy who beat the crap out of Bruno and Ruddock, and smashed Williams and Stewart to one round defeats wasn't prime?

Tyson had lost none of his speed, power, timing or reflexes by the time of the Ruddock fights. Physically, he was the same guy he was in '88.
Yes, his style and mentality had changed somewhat, and he wasn't quite as effective as before, but if that wasn't a Tyson in his prime, then I don't know...

By '91, Tyson was more hittable, although he still wasn't easy to hit. He also threw less combinations and went looking for one big punch, which cost him. He didn't set up his punches as he had done previously. There were signs of slippage in the Bruno fight, but by '91 he had become more one-dimensional than during his peak years.
That said, I think Ruddock was one of the better fighters Tyson fought, and it took a Ruddock for us to see that there were convincing signs that Tyson was not employing the hallmarks of his style which made him so effective in the 80's.

To be honest, I still don't see a whole bunch of heavyweights beating him at that point. Outside of the elite level guys, I don't think there would be many (if any) fighters that would beat him, provided Tyson came into the fight in good shape.

The reason Ruddock survived into the latter rounds in the first fight and went the distance is because Tyson's timing was off, and he went looking for the finisher without setting it up. I personally don't see Ruddock going 12 with a Spinks era Tyson.

Even so, the only guy I'd pick without reservation to beat that version of Tyson is Ali. I still think it would be a hard-fought fight for several rounds.

Others who definitely could, but I wouldn't make big favourites, would be

Lewis
70's Foreman
Bowe
Louis
Holyfield
Tua
Holmes

Maybe one or two others. Not many.

To beat a Tyson of that era, one needs a great jab, a strong chin, the willingness to absorb some big shots, decent mobility, the strength to tie him up, sufficient firepower to make him respect you, a strong will, and the right gameplan.

Now someone like Tua may not need all that. He had a concrete chin and big power, and at his best a great workrate. But not many fighters of that style have Tua's chin, power or stamina.

Guys like Jersey Joe Walcott, Gene Tunney and Jack Johnson I feel would try and finesse Tyson too much, and that would be a mistake.
A good all-rounder like a Schmeling is probably just not powerful enough to get the job done, and neither is Patterson, who is too fragile mentally anyway.

Aggressive fighters like Dempsey and Marciano I think would maybe also just not be quite powerful or big enough to beat Tyson at his own game. Frazier is big enough, but I'm not sure he could take a sustained beating, should things start to go in that direction.

Other guys like Mercer, Lyle, Quarry, the early 80's heavyweight champions and contenders...maybe one or two could spring a surprise, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The one fighter I haven't mentioned is of course Liston. He seems to have the right tools, but Tyson's faster hands would dictate most of the fight, imo. He (Liston) definitely is a candidate though.

[TIGEREDGE]

So the guy who beat the crap out of Bruno and Ruddock, and smashed Williams and Stewart to one round defeats wasn't prime?

Tyson had lost none of his speed, power, timing or reflexes by the time of the Ruddock fights. Physically, he was the same guy he was in '88.
Yes, his style and mentality had changed somewhat, and he wasn't quite as effective as before, but if that wasn't a Tyson in his prime, then I don't know...

By '91, Tyson was more hittable, although he still wasn't easy to hit. He also threw less combinations and went looking for one big punch, which cost him. He didn't set up his punches as he had done previously. There were signs of slippage in the Bruno fight, but by '91 he had become more one-dimensional than during his peak years.
That said, I think Ruddock was one of the better fighters Tyson fought, and it took a Ruddock for us to see that there were convincing signs that Tyson was not employing the hallmarks of his style which made him so effective in the 80's.

To be honest, I still don't see a whole bunch of heavyweights beating him at that point. Outside of the elite level guys, I don't think there would be many (if any) fighters that would beat him, provided Tyson came into the fight in good shape.

The reason Ruddock survived into the latter rounds in the first fight and went the distance is because Tyson's timing was off, and he went looking for the finisher without setting it up. I personally don't see Ruddock going 12 with a Spinks era Tyson.

Even so, the only guy I'd pick without reservation to beat that version of Tyson is Ali. I still think it would be a hard-fought fight for several rounds.

Others who definitely could, but I wouldn't make big favourites, would be

Lewis
70's Foreman
Bowe
Louis
Holyfield
Tua
Holmes

Maybe one or two others. Not many.

To beat a Tyson of that era, one needs a great jab, a strong chin, the willingness to absorb some big shots, decent mobility, the strength to tie him up, sufficient firepower to make him respect you, a strong will, and the right gameplan.

Now someone like Tua may not need all that. He had a concrete chin and big power, and at his best a great workrate. But not many fighters of that style have Tua's chin, power or stamina.

Guys like Jersey Joe Walcott, Gene Tunney and Jack Johnson I feel would try and finesse Tyson too much, and that would be a mistake.
A good all-rounder like a Schmeling is probably just not powerful enough to get the job done, and neither is Patterson, who is too fragile mentally anyway.

Aggressive fighters like Dempsey and Marciano I think would maybe also just not be quite powerful or big enough to beat Tyson at his own game. Frqazier is big enough, but I'm not sure he could take a sustained beating, should things start to go in that direction.

Other guys like Mercer, Lyle, Quarry, the early 80's heavyweight champions and contenders...maybe one or two could spring a surprise, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The one fighter I haven't mentioned is of course Liston. He seems to have the right tools, but Tyson's faster hands would dictate most of the fight, imo. He (Liston) definitely is a candidate though.

i think tyson lack of interest in training really effected his speed and timing during the period we are talking about. yes he scored some spectacular ko's but there was still something missing. every fighter loses a bit of speed and timing when the desire goes

when tyson abandoned his combo's, jab and head movement he was a completely different fighter. i agree with you on most points though

if listons chin is like foremans, he definitely beats him. but listons chin is subject to debate

[TIGEREDGE]

George Foreman always beats Tyson (Not 100 out 100 times. But best vs best). Terribly style matchup. Cus D'Amato told Tyson that "No swarmer beats Foreman." Granted Tyson isn't your typical swarmer (More mid-range fighter) he still needs to get in against a big Foreman. This is why I believe Tyson avoided (Yes, avoided) Foreman at all cost. Granted, Foreman didn't deserve a shot but he wanted nothing to do with George. I believe a 87-91 Foreman beats Tyson as well.
definitely beats 89-91 tyson. 86-88 is a different prop

[PetethePrince]

definitely beats 89-91 tyson. 86-88 is a different prop


Nope, not in my mind. Tyson didn't was the same at that point and I don't buy the excuses his fans make for him. His mind was the same mentally if not more mentally strong if he could handle Ruddock's power without faltering. Physically he was the same, but he did falter a bit from throwing combos. I don't believe his defense faltered at all. Tyson was big on his d-fense for that fight.

I also don't buy into the lack of training and all that. Maybe after the loss from Douglas he was somewhat discouraged but I don't feel he went not training all those years and being lazy. I'll give him that for post-Holyfield II where he was a fiasco and for the Lewis fight in 02 but that's about it. Yes, I bet he wasn't as focused or dedicated as the Douglas fight as he was with Berbick or Spinks, but that's not to say he didn't train. Other way that was all on his doings, and I don't believe his conditioning was that bad seeing how long he lasted. I give Douglas the credit, I don't take credit away and make justifications.

Tyson really seems to have a lot of excuses for himself. He also seems to confused and contradictory about him. Even when you listen to him in his new film. I'm a big Tyson fan but the guys mind was all over the place and maybe he had problems dealing with things as a fighter... however I don't buy a lot of his excuses and try taking away from those loses.

If this is such a worse version I guess Tyson's prime is just infinitely small. It's hard to accept that, but truthfully this can only be validated because his mind and focus being weak at that point. I don't see such a huge difference from Tyson of Spinks or Pinklon Thomas or Larry Holmes to Bruno or Tillman or Alex Stewart and etc. Realistically the differences get escalated by Tyson's fans.


Either way, prime Foreman beats any version of Tyson.
Sonny Liston might beat this version of a Tyson
Ali should
Lewis at his best would
And Holyfield

[kmcc505]

Holy beat Tyson whenever and whereever.

[Bummy Davis]

I think Tyson would do well. The thing I notice with Mike is that he did have a problem with the mentally strong but you had to also show him you could take his best shots and hand in there and he had good stamina for about 7-8 rds. Tyson only stopped one man past 8 Jose Ribalta and Mike never got off the floor to win.

As far as Foreman, I think Rudduck was as good a puncher as anyone big George fought or at least as hard of a puncher as Ron Lyle. George avoided the bangers early on but fought a few decent punchers in his comeback and was more relaxed in there and could go more rounds than the younger version ( he learned Pace) I think this fight could go either way.

Holyfield was always a problem for Mike ( for Whatever reason) I thought Evander was going to get murdered after his struggle with Bobby Cyz but he went into the fight with Tyson and walked on water.

Lewis another problem because Lennox disected Iron Mike and fought carefully.

Tyson would beat Bowe ( it may be an ugly fight with a lot of holding and leaning but I think Bowe would get rocked early and the RSC within 8.

Liston would not be easy but Tyson's speed and quick pace early would be a factor but Sonny and Mike would be Bully vs Bully but Liston would be stronger late.

Ali on the other hand was mentally stronger but Tyson had an arsenal for Ali and would throw Ali off with his speed and willingness to mix...Ali could be the stronger at the end of 15 but I think Tyson had the style to cause Ali some grief and would be incouraged with his early success. Tyson also was a good left hooker. I dont think Ali's power would faze Mike and Iron would trade with Ali.Close matchup

As far as Holmes I think tyson had the perfect kryptonite for Holmes and the variety of punches that would alway be a problem for Larry. Mike had the right hand the he could throw over the jab and he could switch up and hook with it. Always a problem for Larry.

Marciano would have to weather the early storm but the fight would get tougher as the rounds went by and Mike may also walk into something early but this fight could boil down to a back and forth battle and Marciano taking charge after the 7th and come on from there with Mike showing discouragement.

I think Dempsey and Tyson would be a war and there men to me are most simular. Fast starters, Mean, good killer instinct and can do the 12 rounds well but not in the top 10 group for stamina and the 15 round route was no friend to either man. This would be a good battle. Dempsey proved he could get off the floor to win, tyson was more of a frontrunner and fizzled when the other guy did not...People may get mad at my opinion but I would put my $ on the ESB underdog JackD.

[Mendoza]

Yeah, some people that have posted so far seem to be under the impression this is 87 Tyson here. The Tyson that fought Bruno onward was a step down.

Bruno was the best in his prime and in shape heavyweight that Tyson had fought to date. If you watched boxing in the 1980's, the media made it feel like Tyson was a lion amongst docile sheep. And indeed he was.

Tyson defeated some of the guys Larry Holmes defeated, and blew out a scared Michael Spinks. But the Bruno fight was a revelation. Tyson could be rocked and hurt. After it was over, I thought to myself, Tyson is not the invicncible destroyer the media is making him out to be. Bruno almost had him. But Bruno himself has major confidence problems.
As Tyson went on a rant in the interview, I thought to myself if he ever meets someone who's willing to stand up to him, he's going to be tested for real.

[Bummy Davis]

Bruno was the best in his prime and in shape heavyweight that Tyson had fought to date. If you watched boxing in the 1980's, the media made it feel like Tyson was a lion amongst docile sheep. And indeed he was.

Tyson defeated some of the guys Larry Holmes defeated, and blew out a scared Michael Spinks. But the Bruno fight was a revelation. Tyson could be rocked and hurt. After it was over, I thought to myself, Tyson is not the invicncible destroyer the media is making him out to be. Bruno almost had him. But Bruno himself has major confidence problems.
As Tyson went on a rant in the interview, I thought to myself if he ever meets someone who's willing to stand up to him, he's going to be tested for real.


if he ever meets someone who's willing to stand up to him, he's going to be tested for real.


That was Mikes problem, call it what you may " Bully syndrom" whatever but he did not like it when you stood up to him. Now if he would have overcome that issue early on in his career and came back he may have developed mentally but that issue has always haunted him.

[lefthook31]

if he ever meets someone who's willing to stand up to him, he's going to be tested for real.


That was Mikes problem, call it what you may " Bully syndrom" whatever but he did not like it when you stood up to him. Now if he would have overcome that issue early on in his career and came back he may have developed mentally but that issue has always haunted him.
I thought RUddock stood up to Tyson quite well. Anyone who watched Tyson closely throughout his career, I think its fairly clear at this particular time he wasnt doing the same things he was under Rooney. He may have been in his physical prime, but he was sliding in his fighting prime. Just like Lewis got better once he hooked up with Steward, Tyson declined when he got away from doing important things that made him special.

[fists of fury]

Nope, not in my mind. Tyson didn't was the same at that point and I don't buy the excuses his fans make for him. His mind was the same mentally if not more mentally strong if he could handle Ruddock's power without faltering. Physically he was the same, but he did falter a bit from throwing combos. I don't believe his defense faltered at all. Tyson was big on his d-fense for that fight.

I also don't buy into the lack of training and all that. Maybe after the loss from Douglas he was somewhat discouraged but I don't feel he went not training all those years and being lazy. I'll give him that for post-Holyfield II where he was a fiasco and for the Lewis fight in 02 but that's about it. Yes, I bet he wasn't as focused or dedicated as the Douglas fight as he was with Berbick or Spinks, but that's not to say he didn't train. Other way that was all on his doings, and I don't believe his conditioning was that bad seeing how long he lasted. I give Douglas the credit, I don't take credit away and make justifications.

Tyson really seems to have a lot of excuses for himself. He also seems to confused and contradictory about him. Even when you listen to him in his new film. I'm a big Tyson fan but the guys mind was all over the place and maybe he had problems dealing with things as a fighter... however I don't buy a lot of his excuses and try taking away from those loses.

If this is such a worse version I guess Tyson's prime is just infinitely small. It's hard to accept that, but truthfully this can only be validated because his mind and focus being weak at that point. I don't see such a huge difference from Tyson of Spinks or Pinklon Thomas or Larry Holmes to Bruno or Tillman or Alex Stewart and etc. Realistically the differences get escalated by Tyson's fans.



Defensively he was not the same, and conteporary articles and reports ALL reflect that. It was one of the reasons guys like Steve Farhood began to think Holyfield could beat him. You really think he was as good at slipping and moving his head as during his peak years?

I do agree with the rest of your post though. He still had the ferocity of the old days, even if it wasn't as controlled. He wanted the title back desperately.
There isn't a great difference between vintage Tyson and say, Bruno Tyson or Ruddock Tyson. Physically, there was no difference. Same guy.
There were small signs that something was up, but yeah, to say he wasn't anything like his best days is off the mark.

[fists of fury]

That was Mikes problem, call it what you may " Bully syndrom" whatever but he did not like it when you stood up to him. Now if he would have overcome that issue early on in his career and came back he may have developed mentally but that issue has always haunted him.

There is truth to this, though like I think like with many issues regarding Tyson it's been overblown and oversimplified.

One thing I think in hindsight that hurt him was that his victories were a little too easy sometimes. He didn't face a gut check early on (You couldn't call the Tillis fight or the Green fight a gut check really) and even during the championship years he won without breaking a sweat most the time.
He didn't have to climb off the canvas to win, nor did he have to stage a late rally when behind on the cards.
Things came a bit too easily for him much of the time.

Tyson was a confidence fighter. When confident, he was brutal, but when he doubted himself he sometimes came unstuck. I think the point is exaggerated sometimes, but there is definitely truth in it.

[PetethePrince]

Defensively he was not the same, and conteporary articles and reports ALL reflect that. It was one of the reasons guys like Steve Farhood began to think Holyfield could beat him. You really think he was as good at slipping and moving his head as during his peak years?


He fought Holyfield in 1996. I'm talking about Tyson of 89-91. Physically he was the same. Maybe not quite as disciplined but I don't buy into their being "Two" different Tyson's as if he completely changed as 21 to 23 year old.

I do agree with the rest of your post though. He still had the ferocity of the old days, even if it wasn't as controlled. He wanted the title back desperately.
There isn't a great difference between vintage Tyson and say, Bruno Tyson or Ruddock Tyson. Physically, there was no difference. Same guy.
There were small signs that something was up, but yeah, to say he wasn't anything like his best days is off the mark.

The Tyson of Ruddock was terrific. Ruddock his probably the best on his resume from anytime as a professional. Spinks would be the best name, I guess. I think Tyson used great defense in the fight and was throwing deadly combos. I agree that he tried looking more for 1 shot more but he had terrific combos. It was the combos that had him win the 1st fight. His defense was game, and had to be game for Ruddock. He was interviewed before the fight saying that "His best defense was his offense" and was praticing on the slip bag like the old days. Just because Ruddock didn't go down like others like Spinks, Berbick, or Bruno doesn't mean he "wasn't the same" it just means Ruddock was that much better.

The only thing I'll say about a Tyson of 89 onwards (Completely excluding the Douglas fight because I do feel that is clearly his worst performance... fighters are allowed bad performances) is that he didn't set punches up with the jab as much. But really, the exaggeration people propogate to try convincing people that the "Peak" version of Tyson that fought Spinks was invincible and it's "clear" that Tyson rapidly declined and was never the same is silly. I see little to no differences when looking from afar. It's like there's to different versions of Tyson. One is on the end of complete invincibility that no man can beat, and the other was mentally weak, unmotivated, and has 1000 justifiably excuses/reasons as to why he isn't nearly as good. Tyson gets a lot of passes. 1991 Tyson is still a prime Tyson. Post prison is another story, even though I do feel that Tyson of post prison was less affected than an Ali of post-prison physically.

However, even a 96 Tyson was thought to beat Holyfield. Only 1 or 2 writers picked Holyfield. And guess what? Almost half picked Spinks against Tyson in 88. That doesn't mean much.

[fists of fury]

Just because Ruddock didn't go down like others like Spinks, Berbick, or Bruno doesn't mean he "wasn't the same" it just means Ruddock was that much better.

That's a fair comment. Ruddock was utterly convinced Tyson was scared of him. As you know, Ruddock was being avoided by everybody at that stage and I think it says a lot for both men that they were willing to face the biggest puncher either had yet fought.
Both could have chosen an easier opponent yet chose to fight each other.


The only thing I'll say about a Tyson of 89 onwards (Completely excluding the Douglas fight because I do feel that is clearly his worst performance... fighters are allowed bad performances) is that he didn't set punches up with the jab as much. But really, the exaggeration people propogate to try convincing people that the "Peak" version of Tyson that fought Spinks was invincible and it's "clear" that Tyson rapidly declined and was never the same is silly. I see little to no differences when looking from afar. It's like there's to different versions of Tyson. One is on the end of complete invincibility that no man can beat, and the other was mentally weak, unmotivated, and has 1000 justifiably excuses/reasons as to why he isn't nearly as good. Tyson gets a lot of passes. 1991 Tyson is still a prime Tyson. Post prison is another story, even though I do feel that Tyson of post prison was less affected than an Ali of post-prison physically.



:lol: Why I'm laughing is that you're pretty much on the money. It's always going to be that way with fans though, isn't it? Your guy is unbeatable if all the stars align correctly. Hey, you're the same with Rocky. :hey
I'm a Tyson fan myself, but I try to keep a sense of balance. Big Marciano fan too, by the way.

[lefthook31]

Nope, not in my mind. Tyson didn't was the same at that point and I don't buy the excuses his fans make for him. His mind was the same mentally if not more mentally strong if he could handle Ruddock's power without faltering. Physically he was the same, but he did falter a bit from throwing combos. I don't believe his defense faltered at all. Tyson was big on his d-fense for that fight.

I also don't buy into the lack of training and all that. Maybe after the loss from Douglas he was somewhat discouraged but I don't feel he went not training all those years and being lazy. I'll give him that for post-Holyfield II where he was a fiasco and for the Lewis fight in 02 but that's about it. Yes, I bet he wasn't as focused or dedicated as the Douglas fight as he was with Berbick or Spinks, but that's not to say he didn't train. Other way that was all on his doings, and I don't believe his conditioning was that bad seeing how long he lasted. I give Douglas the credit, I don't take credit away and make justifications.

Tyson really seems to have a lot of excuses for himself. He also seems to confused and contradictory about him. Even when you listen to him in his new film. I'm a big Tyson fan but the guys mind was all over the place and maybe he had problems dealing with things as a fighter... however I don't buy a lot of his excuses and try taking away from those loses.

If this is such a worse version I guess Tyson's prime is just infinitely small. It's hard to accept that, but truthfully this can only be validated because his mind and focus being weak at that point. I don't see such a huge difference from Tyson of Spinks or Pinklon Thomas or Larry Holmes to Bruno or Tillman or Alex Stewart and etc. Realistically the differences get escalated by Tyson's fans.


Either way, prime Foreman beats any version of Tyson.
Sonny Liston might beat this version of a Tyson
Ali should
Lewis at his best would
And Holyfield

You have to take into consideration the trainer factor. Its very easy for people to say Lennox Lewis became a much better fighter under Emanuel Steward, but everyone thinks its BS about Rooney being a big factor for Tyson.
Lewis was always a boxer puncher, but Emanuel Steward, taught him to use his jab to setup his punches properly, tightened up his footwork, taught him how to fight at range, and helped him deal with a fighter at close range by tieing and holding, leaning etc.
Tyson on the other hand was always a swarmer, but a very unique one. Rooney had him using his jab punching in combinations and most importantly being an elusive target, the biggest thing that started to slip when he left. Rooney also brought a lot of mental stability and confidence to Tysons corner. Tyson at his best was very difficult to hit, and the reason so many opponents went into a shell against him or simply got knocked out is because he could slip and counter his opponent so well so they almost couldnt do anything without the risk of getting countered.
So while ultimately their styles never changed, the fine tuning did, and this is the biggest factor of how a fight plays out especially on the championship level and to me the team is just as important as the fighter. Its like having a fast race car, if you dont know how to drive it you cant win the race.

[Lepermessiah]

Sorry, but tysons was a totally different fighter, film doesn't lie, his head movement at times dissappears, as does his setting up guys, he certainly becoems more one dimensional in looking for the one big shot. His defense is not near as good, Watch tyson, holmes, Tyson, Berbick, then even tyson Bruno, you can see a change in his style, and it is not for the better.

Tyson is the Bo Jackson of boxing, in their primes they could stand with the greats, unfortunately, we will never know becasue one succomed to injury, the other to himself. BUT, you cannot deny tyson at his best had a chance against anyone.

D'Amato was tyson mentor and guardian, Rooney a big factor in tyson using his craft properly, once Don king and crew got involved you can easily see the difference in the fighter. THe post prison tyson still had the power and speed, but he never used much of his technique that made him so effective.

[Lepermessiah]

You have to take into consideration the trainer factor. Its very easy for people to say Lennox Lewis became a much better fighter under Emanuel Steward, but everyone thinks its BS about Rooney being a big factor for Tyson.
Lewis was always a boxer puncher, but Emanuel Steward, taught him to use his jab to setup his punches properly, tightened up his footwork, taught him how to fight at range, and helped him deal with a fighter at close range by tieing and holding, leaning etc.
Tyson on the other hand was always a swarmer, but a very unique one. Rooney had him using his jab punching in combinations and most importantly being an elusive target, the biggest thing that started to slip when he left. Rooney also brought a lot of mental stability and confidence to Tysons corner. Tyson at his best was very difficult to hit, and the reason so many opponents went into a shell against him or simply got knocked out is because he could slip and counter his opponent so well so they almost couldnt do anything without the risk of getting countered.
So while ultimately their styles never changed, the fine tuning did, and this is the biggest factor of how a fight plays out especially on the championship level and to me the team is just as important as the fighter. Its like having a fast race car, if you dont know how to drive it you cant win the race.

Great post dude, spot on.

[ironchamp]

if he ever meets someone who's willing to stand up to him, he's going to be tested for real.


That was Mikes problem, call it what you may " Bully syndrom" whatever but he did not like it when you stood up to him. Now if he would have overcome that issue early on in his career and came back he may have developed mentally but that issue has always haunted him.

I find this to be completely inaccurate.

Tillis, Tubbs, Thomas, Berbick, Ruddock, Biggs (while he could), Botha, Ribalta stood up to him. They all faltered.

Standing up to him is no different than standing up to George Foreman or Sonny Liston or Joe Frazier- unless you present a style or you are able to execute a gameplan that accompanies that then it makes no difference whether you stood up to him or not. He was going to beat regardless. Remember Tyson never got discouraged if you stood up to him. He only got discouraged when he was unable to land.

Another thing is that Tyson never getting off the floor to win means nothing. He had a stellar chin and as a result it took alot more to get him on the floor in the first place.

[SpanishArcher]

˙˙Everybody has a plan until they get hit˙˙ - Mike said that around the Biggs fight I think. And its true.

It's easy for us to judge and be smart - we are not in the ring with the man. Lot's of fighters went into the ring with him with a plan and no fear (those others already mentioned) but thats all fine until they actually feel his power. Many have said afterwards ˙˙I didnt expect him to be so strong˙˙. And thats just it, you cannot prepare for what prime Mike brought to the table. Few body shots are enough for the leg's to go. :bbb

[fists of fury]

Another thing is that Tyson never getting off the floor to win means nothing. He had a stellar chin and as a result it took alot more to get him on the floor in the first place.

To be honest, this has always been a gripe of mine. While I like it when fighters get up off the floor to win, thus displaying heart, courage and sheer guts, guys who don't go down so easily or frequently are seemingly punished for it.
Let's face it, the knockdown against Holyfield aside, where did Tyson get the opportunity to win after a knockdown? (I'm talking about a Tyson that was still relatively effective as a fighter, not the old wreck who later fought the likes of McBride.)

He had been battered from pillar to post by both Douglas and Lewis, and when he went down he was finished. No man could have gotten up from those beatings and still have won.

So aside from the Holyfield fight, where could he have won when put on the floor?

[lefthook31]

To be honest, this has always been a gripe of mine. While I like it when fighters get up off the floor to win, thus displaying heart, courage and sheer guts, guys who don't go down so easily or frequently are seemingly punished for it.
Let's face it, the knockdown against Holyfield aside, where did Tyson get the opportunity to win after a knockdown? (I'm talking about a Tyson that was still relatively effective as a fighter, not the old wreck who later fought the likes of McBride.)

He had been battered from pillar to post by both Douglas and Lewis, and when he went down he was finished. No man could have gotten up from those beatings and still have won.

So aside from the Holyfield fight, where could he have won when put on the floor?
He went down in the Ribalta fight, but more from slipping. He never went down in his fighting prime.

[PetethePrince]

:lol: Why I'm laughing is that you're pretty much on the money. It's always going to be that way with fans though, isn't it? Your guy is unbeatable if all the stars align correctly. Hey, you're the same with Rocky. :hey
I'm a Tyson fan myself, but I try to keep a sense of balance. Big Marciano fan too, by the way.

Haha thanks. Yeah but I'm a big Tyson fan too. I really know his fights like the back of my palm. I feel people exaggerated. Sure there's slight differences but really it's not like Tyson was ultimately a different fighter. I don't believe that a Buster Douglas couldn't have beat him on 1988. He may not have knocked Tyson out, but I wouldn't doubt a decision win. I'm big on Marciano but I don't think he beats a prime Tyson, Foreman, or Ali. I'm somewhat quesitonable on Holmes/Liston (For Holmes it's his ability to engage when heart. For Liston it's Marciano seemingly thinking there was a weakness in the man).

I just gets tiring when you hear someone say that "No man could ever beat Tyson in his prime." I think his performance against Ruddock was solid.

[PetethePrince]

You have to take into consideration the trainer factor. Its very easy for people to say Lennox Lewis became a much better fighter under Emanuel Steward, but everyone thinks its BS about Rooney being a big factor for Tyson.

I do. I've always felt him losing Rooney was a big thing. Rooney would've kept him straight and would have forced him to train and be more serious. But ultimately it does come down to Mike. I do believe his training slightly slipped for Douglas. I heard he didn't want to run much and wanted to have fun. Still, I don't believe that he was out of shape. He was champ, and went 10 rounds with Douglas. I do consider that to be his worst performances, but fighters are allowed to have bad performances. Sometimes the other guy isn't letting you do what you want to.

But Tyson seemed a little hungry in 91. He got training hard, got Holmes trainer and seemed good in his fights with Ruddock. Who knows what would have happened if not the prison sentence. People might not be excusing a 86-88 prime window. To me, Tyson was top notch against his best opponent. Tyson was working on his defense big time before the fight. People don't mention these things... the only thing Tyson did less of was jab at that point. And against Ruddock that's quite understandable.

[Muchmoore]

Tyson defeated some of the guys Larry Holmes defeated, and blew out a scared Michael Spinks. But the Bruno fight was a revelation. Tyson could be rocked and hurt. After it was over, I thought to myself, Tyson is not the invicncible destroyer the media is making him out to be. Bruno almost had him. But Bruno himself has major confidence problems.
As Tyson went on a rant in the interview, I thought to myself if he ever meets someone who's willing to stand up to him, he's going to be tested for real.

Plenty of capable fighters "stood up to him." Like you said, Bruno did and was knocked out.

[lefthook31]

I do. I've always felt him losing Rooney was a big thing. Rooney would've kept him straight and would have forced him to train and be more serious. But ultimately it does come down to Mike. I do believe his training slightly slipped for Douglas. I heard he didn't want to run much and wanted to have fun. Still, I don't believe that he was out of shape. He was champ, and went 10 rounds with Douglas. I do consider that to be his worst performances, but fighters are allowed to have bad performances. Sometimes the other guy isn't letting you do what you want to.

But Tyson seemed a little hungry in 91. He got training hard, got Holmes trainer and seemed good in his fights with Ruddock. Who knows what would have happened if not the prison sentence. People might not be excusing a 86-88 prime window. To me, Tyson was top notch against his best opponent. Tyson was working on his defense big time before the fight. People don't mention these things... the only thing Tyson did less of was jab at that point. And against Ruddock that's quite understandable.
I agree Giachetti was a good step up from Bright and Snowell but Giachetti was not a Damato deciple. He was a good no nonsense trainer, but his style was different, and it showed.

[josak]

Tyson peaked at the Spinks fight. At that point his timing was perfect. Just look at how he KO'd Spinks. How did he know Spinks was going to lean to his right as he was throwing that strange righthand punch? His intuition of his opponents movement was amazing. That Tyson could have beaten any heavyweight including Ali.
The Tyson that fought Bruno and Ruddock, wasnt even close.

:good

[Chris Warren]

Is this another Tyson nutt hugging thread? A prime Tyson got knocked out by Buster Douglas, The prime Tyson avoided old fat slow Foreman like the plague. Any fighter who has a ok chin and is willing to fight back would beat Tyson.

[Canibus81]

Tyson peaked at the Spinks fight. At that point his timing was perfect. Just look at how he KO'd Spinks. How did he know Spinks was going to lean to his right as he was throwing that strange righthand punch? His intuition of his opponents movement was amazing. That Tyson could have beaten any heavyweight including Ali.
The Tyson that fought Bruno and Ruddock, wasnt even close.

The Tyson that fought Bruno and Rudduck looked like a shot fighter. And he definetly was at his very worst for Douglas up until that point and anybody who can't see that needs to go see a doctor to get there eyes checked.

[Canibus81]

He fought Holyfield in 1996. I'm talking about Tyson of 89-91. Physically he was the same. Maybe not quite as disciplined but I don't buy into their being "Two" different Tyson's as if he completely changed as 21 to 23 year old.



The Tyson of Ruddock was terrific. Ruddock his probably the best on his resume from anytime as a professional. Spinks would be the best name, I guess. I think Tyson used great defense in the fight and was throwing deadly combos. I agree that he tried looking more for 1 shot more but he had terrific combos. It was the combos that had him win the 1st fight. His defense was game, and had to be game for Ruddock. He was interviewed before the fight saying that "His best defense was his offense" and was praticing on the slip bag like the old days. Just because Ruddock didn't go down like others like Spinks, Berbick, or Bruno doesn't mean he "wasn't the same" it just means Ruddock was that much better.

The only thing I'll say about a Tyson of 89 onwards (Completely excluding the Douglas fight because I do feel that is clearly his worst performance... fighters are allowed bad performances) is that he didn't set punches up with the jab as much. But really, the exaggeration people propogate to try convincing people that the "Peak" version of Tyson that fought Spinks was invincible and it's "clear" that Tyson rapidly declined and was never the same is silly. I see little to no differences when looking from afar. It's like there's to different versions of Tyson. One is on the end of complete invincibility that no man can beat, and the other was mentally weak, unmotivated, and has 1000 justifiably excuses/reasons as to why he isn't nearly as good. Tyson gets a lot of passes. 1991 Tyson is still a prime Tyson. Post prison is another story, even though I do feel that Tyson of post prison was less affected than an Ali of post-prison physically.

However, even a 96 Tyson was thought to beat Holyfield. Only 1 or 2 writers picked Holyfield. And guess what? Almost half picked Spinks against Tyson in 88. That doesn't mean much.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

There's a big difference in his technique when you watch how straight up he was fighting in the rudduck fight compared to the bonecrusher fight when he was trained under Rooney.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

In this fight he gets more in a crutch and uses more head movement and Bonecrusher was a banger just like Rudduck but Tyson's techincal skills and head movement was much better. It's nite and day.

[Canibus81]

He went down in the Ribalta fight, but more from slipping. He never went down in his fighting prime.

He never went down in the Ribalta fight. He didn't even slip, whered you get this from?

[lefthook31]

The Tyson that fought Bruno and Rudduck looked like a shot fighter. And he definetly was at his very worst for Douglas up until that point and anybody who can't see that needs to go see a doctor to get there eyes checked.
C'mon he didnt look like a shot fighter. He looked like a sloppy wild fighter, and he paid for it when he got tagged. At his best his fury was controlled and tight with emphasis on defense. The Tyson after Spinks was wild and sloppy.

[guilalah]

Tyson vs Other Great HW's
as they were in their prime

I'd favor Mike over:
Sullivan (by a lot)
Jeffries
Johnson
Dempsey
Tunney
Louis (just a little)
Marciano
Liston (just a little)
Frazier

I'd favor Ali and Holyfield over Mike

Toss-up's:
Foreman
Holmes
Lewis


-----


Tyson vs Other Great HW's
if they came along at the same time

Guys I'd favor over Mike:
Sullivan (by a little)
Jeffries
Louis (by a little)
Ali
Holyfield

Toss-ups:
Johnson
Dempsey
Tunney
Marciano
Liston
Foreman
Holmes
Lewis

I'd still favor Tyson over Frazier, a little.

[fists of fury]

He never went down in the Ribalta fight. He didn't even slip, whered you get this from?

I think he meant the Bonecrusher Smith fight, where Tyson lost his balance and fell.

[fists of fury]

The Tyson that fought Bruno and Rudduck looked like a shot fighter.

There's that word shot again. Oh dear.

[PetethePrince]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

There's a big difference in his technique when you watch how straight up he was fighting in the rudduck fight compared to the bonecrusher fight when he was trained under Rooney.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

In this fight he gets more in a crutch and uses more head movement and Bonecrusher was a banger just like Rudduck but Tyson's techincal skills and head movement was much better. It's nite and day.

I think you're exaggerating. He just seems to not be as busy or lively. His head-movement and defense are there. He also respects Ruddock more than Bonecrusher... and for good reasons.