Once and for all: When was Tyson's "prime"?

[Rumsfeld]

Please define it as specifically as you can.

[ThePlugInBabies]

including and between his fights with berbick and spinks. so 86-88.

you could see the start of his downfall during the first bruno fight, especially when bruno got off the canvas in the first and rocks tyson, if bruno had a little more belief in himself we may well never have needed buster douglas.

[Mrvooh]

This is easy. It's like any other fighter .
The huggers say when he won all his early matches, the haters say when Buster KO'd him :good

[rydersonthestorm]

The day he fought spinks lol

[lefthook31]

86-89. I would say he reached his pinnacle during the Spinks fight, because after he got rid of Rooney and Cayton, his skills were on a steady decline.

[Bigcat]

Tyson V Alex Stewart ........

That was a very Driven Mike..

Starving to regain title..
Breaking himself to redeem himself.........
Not a man to stand in the way of...........

[Relentless]

86 to 96

[lefthook31]

Tyson looked good post Buster Douglas in a couple fights, but certainly not the same fighter. He looked good against The Truth too, probably one of the best counter lefthooks Ive seen to put him down, but he started showing inconsistencies, when he got tagged by Bruno, and looked sloppy against Ruddock at points.
Prime to me is when you consistently fight at your best against the best compeitition. Tyson reached that pinnacle against Spinks, and then started showing the inconsistencies and the loss the Douglas which eventually led to prision. Still he compacted a lot of fights in that short 3-4 year stretch, something fighters today, never do.

[cross_trainer]

He was in his prime up to his prison term, but he peaked during the Spinks fight.

[ironchamp]

1986-1991 was Tyson's Prime.

1986-1988 was when he was (in retrospect) his absolute best.

[Loufatski]

Please define it as specifically as you can.

...in the 80s when he KO'ed a series of bums...

[Thread Stealer]

1986-1991 was Tyson's Prime.

1986-1988 was when he was (in retrospect) his absolute best.

Agreed.

You could say late 86' to 88' for peak as he got more experience throughout 1986.

[Asterion]

1986-1991

[Bigcat]

1990... 1991 was his solid prime, Stewart , Ruddock 1 and 2 .. he was starting to look increadible.. Before his loss he was starting to go stale and look bored occasionally...

[Rumsfeld]

He was in his prime up to his prison term, but he peaked during the Spinks fight. I tend to agree with Cross Beeker. :smoke

[Dorfmeister]

Mike Tyson against Pinklon Thomas... Tyson had already proven his incredible reflexes on offensive and defensive mode and his punching power was feared by any of the titlists. Coming off a display like against Berbick, Tyson had to live up to that so that he could get those unification fights against Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker... He eventually fought hard against both defensive Smith and Tucker and would come victorious but against Thomas ( trained by A. Dundee whom Mike respected much), Mike would solidify his status as an unstopable force with a patient attitude and putting together massive punches at the right time and that would have anybody's senses reeling... I guess that was his prime, not his best moment as a pro (which was definitely against Spinks in Trump Plaza, AC), but I feel Mike in 1986-87 was the better Tyson ever, came slightly down on his game in 87, bombed away Holmes and Spinks in 88, and was never the same since then until January 1990...

[Stezzie]

86-89. I would say he reached his pinnacle during the Spinks fight, because after he got rid of Rooney and Cayton, his skills were on a steady decline.

Exactly...:good

[LogDog69]

including and between his fights with berbick and spinks. so 86-88.

you could see the start of his downfall during the first bruno fight, especially when bruno got off the canvas in the first and rocks tyson, if bruno had a little more belief in himself we may well never have needed buster douglas.

I agree. :good

[2ironmt]

Please define it as specifically as you can. don't get hung up on terms such as "prime." the fact is that he was a one of a kind force from 85-88/89 and was damn good before and after.

[SwollenGoat]

He was in his prime up to his prison term, I disagree.

He had already begun to lose focus and head movement as early as the Holmes fight,instead of relying on movement and combos,he began to simply wade in looking for the big shot.


but he peaked during the Spinks fight.Tough to tell.:lol:

I will say that he was far from shot when he lost to Buster and,in fact,fought a fine fight,taking and giving some MONSTER shots.

But his footwork,and headmovement had already gone downhill quite a bit at this point,IMHO,costing him the fight.

[BewareofDawg]

Tyson is a rare case. He never actually entered his prime. At one point he had the skills and the physical tools primed, but he wasn't fully matured or seasoned yet. So, he never did.

[Rollo]

Ask Michael Spinks.

[TBooze]

His prime fight with hindsight was the Biggs bout. Holmes and Tubbs caused him irritations for a small time, and Spinks fight lasted 90 seconds or so, so IMO cannot be really judged, he may just of caught Spinks cold (which is not an excuse, a pro like Spinks should of been prepared for a fast start).

But against Biggs, he was motivated and technically as good as he had ever been or ever was.

I think people sometimes forget that the power Tyson had was an amazing bonus, at his peak he would of been brilliant if he hit as hard as Chris Byrd.

[BewareofDawg]

Ask Michael Spinks.
What? You honestly don't think the Tyson from the Douglas fight would've done the same thing?

That fight lasted what? 30 seconds :lol: Any version of Tyson can go out there and unleash that fury.

[Rollo]

1.What? You honestly don't think the Tyson from the Douglas fight would've done the same thing?

2.That fight lasted what? 30 seconds :lol: Any version of Tyson can go out there and unleash that fury.

1. I think that the Tyson who fought Douglas would still have beaten Spinks, but not in 30 secs - perhaps by KO somewhere between rounds 2-5.

2. Not ANY version. At least his "fury" didn´t have much succes against quality opposition(post-Douglas), apart from Alex Stewart and Frank Bruno.

[Danny]

Tyson's prime, for me, was from the Berbick fight until the fight against Carl Williams. Tyson in his prime, was a brilliant fighting machine.

I've said it many times before, Tyson at his best was the most physically & naturally talented fighter I've seen. People may say Ali deserves this accolade, but he did not possess the unique combination of speed & power. No HW has possessed those two attributes like Tyson did & perhaps no HW ever will!

One question I have regarding Tyson & his peak: What's the earliest Tyson could have won the title? What I mean is, could Tyson have won the title, say after only 10, 15, 20 fights?

[TBooze]

One question I have regarding Tyson & his peak: What's the earliest Tyson could have won the title? What I mean is, could Tyson have won the title, say after only 10, 15, 20 fights?

Leading up to the last week of Berbick/Tyson the fight was pick-em with the bookies, late money made Tyson a comfortable favourite, but there had been enough evidence for people to have doubts.

I do not think a Tyson without the Tillis and Green fights under his belt could beat the absolute best of the division at the time.

[Beebs]

Whenever it best suits his nuthuggers arguments, anytime he looked good was his prime, whenever his flaws, either personal, physical, or stylistic are shown, he was not in his prime, even if he was in his prime beforehand and afterword.

It's rediculous.

[josak]

Tyson's prime was 86-88'. It ended when he got rid of Rooney and you can see the evidence of this in the Bruno fight (89'). He got his determination back post-Douglas, but he still wasn't the same fighter; he was actually more of a straight-up head-hunter, rather than the scientific fighter he used to be.

[josak]

Whenever it best suits his nuthuggers arguments, anytime he looked good was his prime, whenever his flaws, either personal, physical, or stylistic are shown, he was not in his prime, even if he was in his prime beforehand and afterword.

It's rediculous.
Wrong. His prime was 86-88', this just can't be argued. During this time, he showed basically none of these flaws that you described. When Tyson lost, it was when he wasn't training properly, wasn't focused, or flat out didn't care about boxing anymore. It's just like Tyson himself said: his career ended in 1990. But his prime ended in 88' when he dropped Rooney and went with Don King. That's when it stopped being about boxing and started being about money alone.

[BigReg]

Wrong. His prime was 86-88', this just can't be argued. During this time, he showed basically none of these flaws that you described. When Tyson lost, it was when he wasn't training properly, wasn't focused, or flat out didn't care about boxing anymore. It's just like Tyson himself said: his career ended in 1990. But his prime ended in 88' when he dropped Rooney and went with Don King. That's when it stopped being about boxing and started being about money alone.

So he was past his prime at 22, and his prime only lasted 3 years?

[josak]

So he was past his prime at 22, and his prime only lasted 3 years?

Well you could say his prime was 85-88 too, but yes, he peaked early, it happens. He was a very good fighter afterwards, but he was never the same. His absolute best was 86-88'.

[BigReg]

Well you could say his prime was 85-88 too, but yes, he peaked early, it happens. He was a very good fighter afterwards, but he was never the same. His absolute best was 86-88'.

How many fighters can you name that peaked at 22?

[josak]

But don't forget how much Tyson fought in those few years (34 fights between 85-88 )

[BigReg]

But don't forget how much Tyson fought in those few years (34 fights between 85-88 )

If he didn't fight so often, ho probably would've lost focus at an earlier age

[Thread Stealer]

How many fighters can you name that peaked at 22?

Pipino Cuevas, Wilfred Benitez, Meldrick Taylor, Fernando Vargas.

Arguably Ruben Olivares who was 22-24 when he was probably in his peak. Same for Jeff Fenech.

[BigReg]

Pipino Cuevas, Wilfred Benitez, Meldrick Taylor, Fernando Vargas.

Arguably Ruben Olivares who was 22-24 when he was probably in his peak. Same for Jeff Fenech.

Vargas still looked good against DLH at age 25, Meldrick Taylor might have suffered some brain damage against Chavez, and I'm too young to have seen Cuevas and Benitez fight around that age(although Benitez did beat Duran at age 24)

[Thread Stealer]

Vargas still looked good against DLH at age 25, Meldrick Taylor might have suffered some brain damage against Chavez, and I'm too young to have seen Cuevas and Benitez fight around that age(although Benitez did beat Duran at age 24)

Tyson still looked good at age 24 in the first Ruddock fight, and at 29 in the Bruno rematch, but he still peaked at 20-22 or so. Taylor had some decent wins such as Davis after Chavez, but he still peaked around 21-23.

Same with Vargas. His peak was 21-22 although he looked pretty good when he was roided up against DLH.

[josak]

Dear Sir
kind regards
This is a good question, but simple enough to answer.
Mike Tyson's prime was from 1985 to 1988.
Tyson was a polished machine untill about 1988 when he beat Spinks, this match cemented his legacy as an ATG, but he was never the same after this.
Renowned boxing author Burt Sugar says exactly the same thing and he is right.
Tyson lost Rooney as his trainer and his personal life spiralled out of control.
Tyson is quoted as saying that his career ended in 1990 after Douglas knocked him out.
yours thankfully
John
well said, good sir.

[brisback]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[LoBlow]

Tyson's prime was between when he turned pro and before he first became champion

[Dorfmeister]

Ask Michael Spinks.

Michael Spinks wouldn't be able to tell you that cause Michael was stripped of the IBF Title unfairly ( which was disputed by Tony Tucker and James Buster Douglas himself) while he kayoed Gerry Cooney in 5 ... He was the linear heavyweight champ ( and Ring Mag Heavyweight Champ) and Tyson had to fight him anyway, no way Michael believed Tyson was superior to him back then... What happened was that Spinks was waiting and waiting for Mike's entrance and when he did, Iron Mike rushed inside a packed Trump Plaza under some horrible, deafening metallic drums, Michael may have gotten distracted and was caught cold as Mike started the fight elbowing him along the ropes, in close... The rest was history, great moment for Mike Tyson, unfortunate moment for all-time great, classy Michael Spinks... Tyson was caught too many times by Tucker and even by Bonecrusher before, he was already declining but in other circumstances, Michael Spinks would have done what Douglas did to him and Spinks did to Holmes!

[Rollo]

Tyson was caught too many times by Tucker and even by Bonecrusher before, he was already declining but in other circumstances, Michael Spinks would have done what Douglas did to him and Spinks did to Holmes!

Those "circumstances" doesn´t exist in this world! Spinks had absolutely nothing that could hurt Tyson.

[Dorfmeister]

Those "circumstances" doesn´t exist in this world! Spinks had absolutely nothing that could hurt Tyson.

Michael Spinks had a whole lot more than Tyson ever had. Boxing is not just about who knocks the other fella for the ten count, you know? Holyfield and Douglas and Lewis exposed Tyson for what he didn't have and what is that? Couldn't be short about that answer so go straight to state Tyson KO1 Spinks was simply as much unexpected as Michael Dokes KO1 Mike Weaver and James Bonecrusher Smith TKO1 Tim Witherspoon, those s**** simply happen! In other "circumstances" ( less pressure from Don King, Butch Lewis, Donald Trump, Ring Mag), it wouldn't happen - I remember it like it was yesterday.

[Rollo]

Michael Spinks had a whole lot more than Tyson ever had. Boxing is not just about who knocks the other fella for the ten count, you know? Holyfield and Douglas and Lewis exposed Tyson for what he didn't have and what is that? Couldn't be short about that answer so go straight to state Tyson KO1 Spinks was simply as much unexpected as Michael Dokes KO1 Mike Weaver and James Bonecrusher Smith TKO1 Tim Witherspoon, those s**** simply happen! In other "circumstances" ( less pressure from Don King, Butch Lewis, Donald Trump, Ring Mag), it wouldn't happen - I remember it like it was yesterday.



I see we have a disagreement here. But I still believe that if they had 100 fights, Tyson would be; 100 wins(100 KO´s), against Spinks.

[thesandman]

Michael Spinks had a whole lot more than Tyson ever had. Boxing is not just about who knocks the other fella for the ten count, you know? Holyfield and Douglas and Lewis exposed Tyson for what he didn't have and what is that? Couldn't be short about that answer so go straight to state Tyson KO1 Spinks was simply as much unexpected as Michael Dokes KO1 Mike Weaver and James Bonecrusher Smith TKO1 Tim Witherspoon, those s**** simply happen! In other "circumstances" ( less pressure from Don King, Butch Lewis, Donald Trump, Ring Mag), it wouldn't happen - I remember it like it was yesterday.

Bullshit.

Spinks was bricking it. Absolutely fucking bricking it before that fight.

I watched it live with the old man. He got me into boxing, through Hagler, Hearns etc. I rushed home from school to see the fight. (I was in NZ).

All week I'd been banging on about Spinks being the one to beat Tyson, through skill etc.

When the coverage showed Spinks before his ring entrance, the old man simply said "He's shitting himself. He wants to be anywhere but there. I'll give you ANY money he doesn't get out of Round 2".

I took him on. Bet him all the money I had (was fuck all, I was about 15) and various other work around the home (I'll do X, Y, Z, and we'll call that 50 bucks??)

Was he laughing like fuck about 60 seconds after the fight started.....


I've never seen the old man as sure about anything. When I watched it again, he was right. Tyson could have fought like my Ma, and Spinks would have fallen over that ngiht.

[Dinoman]

1986-1991 was Tyson's Prime.

1986-1988 was when he was (in retrospect) his absolute best.


I agree as well.

[chimba]

ESB Posters have bastardized the meaning of Prime:-(

WHen you lose and you're only 24, youre shot your prime was when you were 18.

To me your prime is when you are able to compete at a world class level. Doesnt matter what age. Now within your prime youll have some good nights and bad nights

Nah ...ignore this post ...it doesnt make sense

[Decker]

Agree with the many poster that say Tyson's prime was around '86-88+. When he had that top head & torso movement, could get inside the bigger HWs and rip uppercuts & hooks... he was a great fighter. As Moralman stated, post Rooney, and when his personal life started going into the dumpster, was the beginning of the end for MT's prime - as the Douglas loss showed. Mike was still a top HW for many years after that, but he had a short and early prime.

[Dorfmeister]

Bullshit.

Spinks was bricking it. Absolutely fucking bricking it before that fight.

I watched it live with the old man. He got me into boxing, through Hagler, Hearns etc. I rushed home from school to see the fight. (I was in NZ).

All week I'd been banging on about Spinks being the one to beat Tyson, through skill etc.

When the coverage showed Spinks before his ring entrance, the old man simply said "He's shitting himself. He wants to be anywhere but there. I'll give you ANY money he doesn't get out of Round 2".

I took him on. Bet him all the money I had (was fuck all, I was about 15) and various other work around the home (I'll do X, Y, Z, and we'll call that 50 bucks??)

Was he laughing like fuck about 60 seconds after the fight started.....


I've never seen the old man as sure about anything. When I watched it again, he was right. Tyson could have fought like my Ma, and Spinks would have fallen over that ngiht.

No bull in my pocket, sandman, glad to reply to someone who has vivid recollections of that unbelievable atmosphere in Trump Plaza, AC, NJ, 1988...

Michael Spinks was cool as his nickname but I don't know why, he always had that unsteady look before fights, remember he looked as frozen against Holmes in 1985 and HBO commentators pointed it out. Fact is that he performed, got over "The Easton Assassin" and was seen as the next great thing in hwt boxing even before Tyson fought Berbick in LV and Witherspoon fought Bruno in Wembley.

Glad to have read about your pleasant times back then in NZ, even though you lost your bet, but maybe your Dad was right after all... Michael was feeling the heavy atmosphere on his shoulders, and that Tyson entrance was orchestrated ( including the deafening metallic drums and rush-style entrance) to intimidate poor ole Michael, even Colonel Bob Sheridan was feeling goose bumps and shivers down the spine and he wasn't fighting, Tyson was nervous and still makin the sign of the cross, Kevin Rooney embracing and encouraging him for the best and 4 the worst... The result was a bad night for everybody except 4 Iron Mike and his fans, Michael was never down as a professional and never should have tried to trade with Tyson with the over-hand right, coming off the 1st knockdown... Neither would that have happened once again out of Rollo's 100 matches ( in our own healthy disagreement) the same way Jimmy Thunder wouldn't be stopped a second time by Derek Williams or the Tuaman would have stopped Double M in 30 seconds 1 more time... S*** happens when you least expect it, that's how it has always been and will be.

[TBooze]

How many fighters can you name that peaked at 22?

Could be argued Benitez was past his prime at 22...

[lefthook31]

Spinks was picked to win by a lot of so called experts during that fight. He wasnt shitting himself like some said. Its just the fact that Tyson destroyed him, that people say this. Same goes for Bruno, and Stewart, and all the others, but the fact is most guys never faced a guy like Tyson who came roaring out at the first bell. There was no feeling out process, he went right to brawling, and most of the fighters didnt know how to deal with it, and they got caught, because he was super fast and an accurate puncher.
Spinks tried like hell to land something and get Tyson off of him, but he kept missing. Tyson overwhelmed him with speed and power, and Spinks was helpless. He got caught with a vicious bodypunch and uppercut that dropped him, but he got right up. He tried to throw a right hand at an onrushing Tyson and Tyson timed it perfectly with a righthand accross his body on Spinks chin. Watching that shot in slow motion tells you how good Tysons timing was dialed in during that period in his career. Dont discount that win, it was something spectacular. That also was the pinnacle of Tyson's prime.

[Rumsfeld]

ESB Posters have bastardized the meaning of Prime:-(

WHen you lose and you're only 24, youre shot your prime was when you were 18.

To me your prime is when you are able to compete at a world class level. Doesnt matter what age. Now within your prime youll have some good nights and bad nights

Nah ...ignore this post ...it doesnt make sense

You are on to something, here.

Prime tends to mean "physical prime", as in (in your words) "when you are able to compete at a world class level".

Mental lapses or lack of dedication should not mean one is "past his prime", as is often the case with Tyson fans.

[lefthook31]

You are on to something, here.

Prime tends to mean "physical prime", as in (in your words) "when you are able to compete at a world class level".

Mental lapses or lack of dedication should not mean one is "past his prime", as is often the case with Tyson fans.

Isnt prime the best of your career? There is also something referred to as fighting prime. Tyson was physically still in his fighting prime all the way through 2000 really, but the prime of his career was reached at the Spinks fight in my opinion.