Why was amateur Mike Tyson not as ferocious and powerful?

spacetime

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
11,863
Reaction score
320
If you look at some of his amateur bouts, like the one against Henry Tillman, he is clearly not as powerful puncher and dominant as he would be as a pro.

What prompted this change? Did Tyson bulk up to punch harder? Late bloomer?

I don't think it's the same fighter.
 
Maybe because he was a teenager?
 
If you're fishing for a PED accusation, fuck off.

I'm not. I just don't get how such a radical change could occur in a very short timespan. He went from a beatable amateur to "the man to beat", "Iron Mike" etc.
 
He was 17. When you get to that age you’ll probably feel stronger than you do now, and by the time you’re 21, well, who knows.
 
He was 17. When you get to that age you’ll probably feel stronger than you do now, and by the time you’re 21, well, who knows.

So? Tyson went pro just a year later and cleaned out divisions.
 
If you look at some of his amateur bouts, like the one against Henry Tillman, he is clearly not as powerful puncher and dominant as he would be as a pro.

What prompted this change? Did Tyson bulk up to punch harder? Late bloomer?

Because your mother dumped him.
 
I'm the only one reflecting on how someones in a year goes from a beatable amateur to a 30+ winning streak??
 
LOOK at Hearns! No pop as an ammie, a fucking missile after Steward got ahold of him.
 
LOOK at Hearns! No pop as an ammie, a fucking missile after Steward got ahold of him.

True. But Tyson lost his mentor. Maybe that motivated him. Something happened. Something focused the mind and raised his level tremendously. His true potential came out.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,082
Messages
55,466,473
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby
Back
Top