When did Tyson's prime end?


I don't even think Buster Douglas thinks he was a better boxer than Tyson. If you can't see the difference between the Tyson that beat Spinks, who's a much better fighter than Douglas, and the Tyson that fought Douglas, you're just horribly biased. Tyson lost that fight fair and square but not due to a skills deficit.
 
I don't even think Buster Douglas thinks he was a better boxer than Tyson. If you can't see the difference between the Tyson that beat Spinks, who's a much better fighter than Douglas, and the Tyson that fought Douglas, you're just horribly biased. Tyson lost that fight fair and square but not due to a skills deficit.
The question isn’t whether Douglas deserved to beat Tyson. The question is when did Tyson’s prime end. If you think he was still prime after Douglas please say so and explain why, nobody else has tried that so it would be interesting to see your rationale?
 
Mike and Rooney were a dream team. Casuals often bring up Cus D'Amato, which is bollocks...Cus was dead when Mike's star started to rise as a pro.
To quote Cus himself, he possibly said it to Rooney ... "The work is done. Now you just have to keep him busy".

Mike got complacent. With Rooney, he lived like a robot...eat, sleep, train.
Rooney commented on Mike's fights without him, you can google his interviews from 25 years ago...he pointed out how Mike didn't seem in proper shape and how the head movement and whatnot was gone.
Mostly agree
Cus was impr for keeping his head right
Rooney was the one who kept the peekaboo style sharp
I feel after cus died mikes own nature was always gonna take him on self destruct without that father figure
Rooney if i recall don king may have gotten rid of

Teddy atlas may have also been there with cus in his amtuer days but got kicked out after the infamous threatening tyson with a gun incident..
 
The question isn’t whether Douglas deserved to beat Tyson. The question is when did Tyson’s prime end. If you think he was still prime after Douglas please say so and explain why, nobody else has tried that so it would be interesting to see your rationale?

sorry, I meant to quote the guy with the long winded explanation of why Tyson was not as good as Buster. But no, I don't think he was in his prime - he was still in his physical prime but he wasn't all there mentally....
 
In boxing, if you're not psychologically there anymore and that has an impact on your performances and approaches to boxing, you're not prime. You can be in your 'physical prime' though but still past prime overall.
 
the ref is supposed to pick up the count from the official at ringside which he didnt do. he started his own count from one.. and leave me alone tysons my fav fighter of all time just agree with me so we can b friends

you're totally missing the point, all Buster Douglas had to do was get up before the ref reached 10, he didnt have to add the timekeepers count to the refs to get the 'idiots' count
 
you're totally missing the point, all Buster Douglas had to do was get up before the ref reached 10, he didnt have to add the timekeepers count to the refs to get the 'idiots' count

im not saying the ref has to add any time to the count, im saying the ref has to pick up the count from the ringside officials count. if the ringside official is at a count of 3 thats where the refs count has to start. he cant start his count at 0 after making fighter go into a neutral corner.

Just watch it for yourself and start counting when douglas hits the canvas. he was down for more than 10 seconds bro.
 
Last edited:
im not saying the ref has to add any time to the count, im saying the ref has to pick up the count from the ringside officials count. if the ringside official is at a count of 3 thats where the refs count has to start. he cant start his count at 0 after making fighter go into a neutral corner.

Just watch it for yourself and start counting when douglas hits the canvas. he was down for more than 10 seconds bro.
So what? Referee is in charge in the ring, his count is what the fighter has to pay attention to. Nobody else’s.
 
So what? Referee is in charge in the ring, his count is what the fighter has to pay attention to. Nobody else’s.

no your wrong bro!! the ref is supposed to pick up the count from the ringside official who starts the count when fighter hits the canvas.

regardless to me..that was the end of tysons career. but just for shits and giggles rewatch tyson knocking douglas down and do an honest count from when buster hits the canvas. i get 13 seconds.
 
no your wrong bro!! the ref is supposed to pick up the count from the ringside official who starts the count when fighter hits the canvas.

regardless to me..that was the end of tysons career. but just for shits and giggles rewatch tyson knocking douglas down and do an honest count from when buster hits the canvas. i get 13 seconds.
Under the unified rules if the referee reaches 10 and you aren’t on your feet the fight is automatically over. Only the referee can stop the fight.

Other sanctioning bodies may use standing eight counts, 3 knockdowns, corner stoppage etc. But what I’ve said is the rule. You seem adamant on the length of the count and I’ve got no reason to doubt you.
 
Under the unified rules if the referee reaches 10 and you aren’t on your feet the fight is automatically over. Only the referee can stop the fight.

Other sanctioning bodies may use standing eight counts, 3 knockdowns, corner stoppage etc. But what I’ve said is the rule. You seem adamant on the length of the count and I’ve got no reason to doubt you.

well ya.. im still hurt over tyson losing to douglas. it was such an absolute heartbreaker for me.
 
well ya.. im still hurt over tyson losing to douglas. it was such an absolute heartbreaker for me.

Judging by your posts on this matter, i would be amazed if you are old enough to even remember it

Tyson was pretty much an arm puncher by the time he fought Douglas, he had virtually no lateral movement and his footwork was spent, i didnt see anything in other fights after that that suggested otherwise, if it hadnt of been Douglas, it was going to be someone very very soon
 
Judging by your posts on this matter, i would be amazed if you are old enough to even remember it

Tyson was pretty much an arm puncher by the time he fought Douglas, he had virtually no lateral movement and his footwork was spent, i didnt see anything in other fights after that that suggested otherwise, if it hadnt of been Douglas, it was going to be someone very very soon

i attribute that to the horrible decisions made to get rid of the people who got him there. he had childhood friends in his corner. ill NEVER forget that fight, it was back when you could put the channel on but would be scrambled. yes i remember it and the next day headlines like it was yesterday. i still remember where i was watching it. such a horrible day.
 
i attribute that to the horrible decisions made to get rid of the people who got him there. he had childhood friends in his corner. ill NEVER forget that fight, it was back when you could put the channel on but would be scrambled. yes i remember it and the next day headlines like it was yesterday. i still remember where i was watching it. such a horrible day.

where do you live?
 
Yeah I was 4 in 1990. I didn’t watch the fight.
 
and you had cable in 1990...fuck off

you are as poor as fuck

I guess you dont have the slightest clue about long island u asshole, long island has some of the most expensive zip codes in the world u dork! i cant believe im even arguing with you over watching tyson douglas.
 
That's not true, Fighters prime means their reflexes and timing being at their peek and no noticeable Brain trauma being detected, just losing focus and being lazy is not being out of Prime.


Mike Tyson was still in his Prime after Buster Douglas because Mike was still able to capture the Heavyweight Championship and the only reason why he lost it was because he happened to fight a better all around Boxer in Evander Holyfield and lost to him twice with Holyfield beating him easily and knocking Tyson out in their first fight and that's why Tyson lost, not because he was past his prime.

Being lazy and not mentally focused doesn't and has nothing to do with being past prime, but some Boxers even all time greats lose their skills and medal abilities even at a young age of their careers.

James toney being an example of a lazy fighter but not past prime and still went up to Heavyweight and won a title but after being stripped of that title and even beating Holyfield and after losing the title still fighting and beating top big Heavyweight contenders coming up from Middleweight.

James Toney"s mental focus and bad eating habits and laziness, having him lose important title fights have been discussed and no one ever says Toney was past prime after those loses.

So why does Mike Tyson get this excuse from certain fans?

Example of young world champions prime boxing years ended early at a young age, do to to much head trauma, or lose of reflexes, which we call in boxing being a shot fighter.

Mildrick Taylor, shot fighter after Chavez, prime years lost early in his career.

Riddick Bowe, shot fighter early in his career noticeable slurred speech after the Golota fights, having to retire due to much head trauma, even though he was lazy, you can't ignore the noticeable slurred speech and massive head shots in the wars with Holyfield and against Golota, just listen to his speech after the second Golota fight and everyone was saying he should retire, something isn't right, Lue Duva was screening this to HBO and the fans.

Adrian Broner a world champion is now a shot fighter at a very young age, not being able to pull the trigger and everyone notices this, just like Mildrick Taylor.

Muhammad Ali, lost his abilities at a young age losing his prime abilities early because of Parkinson"s disease and trainers noticing this during the Joe Frazier fights, it has been documented by quotes from trainers. Doctors even saying it could of started earlier in his life.

Some Boxers lose their Prime years earlier then others, but Mike Tyson wasn't a shot fighter at an early age, he just lost to a better fighter that night, then went to prison and did his time came back and won a championship, then lost to a better fighter again twice, then started losing his natural reflexes and timing due to age, losing again to Lennox Lewis and then was done as a fighter.

The problem is people don't want to admit that their favorite Boxer happened to get beat by a better fighter then himself and just make excuses that he was losing his Prime early due to losing mental focus, but that's not losing their Prime early, it's just being lazy and stupid and this isn't a valid excuse for anyone.

This is a huge post, I see where you are coming from, but I will try to just say this.

"Prime" requires some degree of judgment. The reason why I put the word "prime" in quotation marks is it means different things to different people.

On one extreme end of a spectrum, if it is merely about reflexes and physicality, you could take a fighter in his physical peak, and claim he is prime, despite it possibly be him making his pro debut, or having never had boxing lessons or any display of technique. I would struggle to say that such a fighter would be "in his prime" if he later developed skills.

On the other extreme, you could have a mental and technical boxing genius, with greatly eroded physical ability. Again, it's a struggle to say he's in his prime. This seems to be core to your definition.

My view is a fighter's prime is somewhat judgmental. When you can say a boxer was consistently worse after being consistently better, that's indicative when a fighter was in his prime (excluding black swan type great or poor individual fight performances). And usually it coincides with the tail end of their physical prime. So I think of it as if you did a scatter type graph, a fighter's prime is where there is a cluster of his most impressive performances. For fighters that depend on speed, naturally they tend to have bigger drop offs when their physical prime ends.

For someone like Tyson, it's not an excuse, it's an observation that his technique and discipline went down the toilet relatively early in his career. It's not an excuse, or saying it's not a factor when thinking of his place in boxing history. It's simply an obvious obvservation. Was he physically shot from the toll of all the wars he was in? Of course not, but the cluster of his most impressive performances were early in his career years wise, and it was wonderful success and exemplary technique.

Guys like Lennox Lewis or James Toney are a bit different. If you plot their performances, you don't get the same sort of cluster, you would get a more dispersed type graph. For Lewis, because his skills evolved as he was much rawer as a youngster, and Toney because his style is heavily tilted towards old-style skill and counter punching.
 
Regarding the count in Tyson-Douglas. Yes, it was a little long.

I do question though if you were to do a count for every knockdown you see, it probably varies more than one would think. I thought at the time it was a disgrace to try to challenge the result of that fight because of the long count. Absolutely ridiculous poor sportsmanship.
 
Back
Top