POJO_Risin
06-12-2005, 01:58 PM
Good article...
and one we'll all probably agree with...
Tyson is a better quitter than hitter
Story Tools: Print Email
Frank Lotierzo / BoxingScene.com
Posted: 41 minutes ago
Mike Tyson (50-6) quit on his stool last night in his fight against Kevin McBride (33-4-1). Tyson's surrender against the unranked McBride marks the fourth loss in a row that he has said "No Mas."
Funny, last week when asked about what he thought of McBride, Tyson said "He doesn't look like he punches hard," after previously referring to him as a "tomato can." What does that say about Tyson throwing in the towel and sitting on his stool to end his fight against him? It says exactly what Tyson has always been, a front-running bully who backed down every time he was challenged and met with resistance.
This will change nothing among those who will continue to ignore the truth and accept excuses as to why he lost. In reality, Tyson adds another piece of evidence showing why it was a pipe dream to ever mention him as one of the all-time great heavyweight champs. But most boxing fans who began following the sport with Tyson will continue to try and build his case for greatness around his victory against Michael Spinks. Today, Tyson is more known for his losses than his wins. Name one other great that can be said about.
Tyson had two things working for him that blurred who he really was as a fighter, starting with the fact that he was the most brilliantly managed fighter in boxing history. On his way up, he was promoted and hyped to be such a devastating puncher that no fighter could withstand his punch. Yet he lost in his prime by knockout to a fighter who never beat a top heavyweight before or after he knocked Tyson out.
The promotion of Tyson was so overwhelming that when Buster Douglas' mother passed away three weeks before their fight, it was viewed as a positive for Buster and helped him defeat Tyson. After the fight, of course. Prior to the fight, it wasn't thought of as being a positive until Tyson was crawling around on the canvas looking for his mouthpiece.
This was due to the fact that novice fight observers needed an excuse to fathom Tyson not just losing, but getting counted out. Tyson made the job easier for the marketing brain trust who crafted the Tyson myth, because he could punch hard with both hands and acted fearless coming into the ring. However, knockouts against second-tier journeymen conned a lot of boxing fans, writers, historians and television executives. This is mainly due to the fact that those watching boxing from afar are scared and fearful of hard punchers.
To those who don't know, a big puncher is very intimidating and most can't see beyond that, missing the puncher's obvious flaw. They also miss that more times than not, big punchers don't always have the best chin or the biggest hearts. They just can't get past the power. Tyson, coming off a spectacular early-round knockout, was perceived as unbeatable.
As hard as this may be for some to accept, Tyson's lack of toughness is what identifies him most as a fighter. Yes, that's his defining characteristic, more than his power and hand speed. History lesson: No fighter knocks out every opponent, and if you're dependent on your punch, you better have something to fall back on when confronted by that opponent you can't knock out. Tyson didn't have that Saturday night ... just like he never had it on any other night he needed it.
If you asked the first 100 people leaving the MCI Center Saturday night, "Who would you rather have to take the title from, Mike Tyson at the top of his game or Evander Holyfield at the top of his?" I'd bet anything that over 90 percent would rather have to fight Holyfield. With their reason and logic being, Tyson hits too hard and Holyfield isn't a great puncher. However, the object is to win and it takes more to beat Holyfield than it does Tyson.
Personally, I'd rather fight Tyson in a second. Sure, he's capable of beating his opponent worse than Holyfield, but don't you want to win? That's why Holyfield is scarier. A fighter who has dynamite in both hands, but has the heart of the Cowardly Lion is more beatable. How often has it been said that if a fighter gets past the first couple rounds with Tyson, he had a better chance of winning?
When has that ever been said about Holyfield? How about never. To beat Holyfield when he was on top of his game, a fighter had to just about beat him to death. See the 10th round of his first fight with Bowe. Can any objective boxing observer with a morsel of a clue imagine Tyson surviving a fight like that? Hell no. He would've quit long before the fight got to that point. He always has.
How about Tyson having the type of toughness that Ali and Frazier showed in Manila? The pounding George Foreman took from Holyfield at age 42? Or Willard from Dempsey or Marciano from Walcott in their first fight? Here's one, Joe Frazier got up six times against George Foreman before the fight was stopped. How many times does Tyson get up? That's if he even shows up for the fight at all. Remember, he backed out of fighting the same Foreman whom Holyfield defended his title against.
Tyson quit against Holyfield, a blown-up crusierweight. He quit against Danny Williams, a fighter known for having panic attacks before a fight, which is what made him the perfect Tyson opponent. And he quit Saturday night against Kevin McBride when he realized he couldn't win by intimidation and showing up. McBride was knocked out by a fighter who lost 17 of his last 18 fights. Luckily for him he fought McBride, or it would've been 0-18. Yet McBride could make Tyson quit. Can't wait to hear how great McBride becomes off of beating Tyson.
After knocking Tyson out, Williams, like Buster Douglas, was suddenly a title contender. In his next fight against Vitali Klitschko, we saw how well he contended, losing all eight rounds of the bout. In the next few days, every excuse will be made for Tyson. His age, inactivity, no Kevin Rooney, doing time in prison, getting divorced, lack of motivation and maybe we'll even hear that his boxing shoes were too tight, keeping him from throwing combinations. Wrong.
Tyson showed the toughness of the Church Lady his entire career. That is why he never was an all-time heavyweight great for even one day of his career. His hand speed and two-handed power couldn't compensate for his lack of character. He never once won or pulled out a tough fight. Hats off to Freddie Roach, who was fired by Tyson for suggesting that he thought Tyson could have gotten up against Williams, instead of sitting there being counted out.
Let the excuses begin.
and one we'll all probably agree with...
Tyson is a better quitter than hitter
Story Tools: Print Email
Frank Lotierzo / BoxingScene.com
Posted: 41 minutes ago
Mike Tyson (50-6) quit on his stool last night in his fight against Kevin McBride (33-4-1). Tyson's surrender against the unranked McBride marks the fourth loss in a row that he has said "No Mas."
Funny, last week when asked about what he thought of McBride, Tyson said "He doesn't look like he punches hard," after previously referring to him as a "tomato can." What does that say about Tyson throwing in the towel and sitting on his stool to end his fight against him? It says exactly what Tyson has always been, a front-running bully who backed down every time he was challenged and met with resistance.
This will change nothing among those who will continue to ignore the truth and accept excuses as to why he lost. In reality, Tyson adds another piece of evidence showing why it was a pipe dream to ever mention him as one of the all-time great heavyweight champs. But most boxing fans who began following the sport with Tyson will continue to try and build his case for greatness around his victory against Michael Spinks. Today, Tyson is more known for his losses than his wins. Name one other great that can be said about.
Tyson had two things working for him that blurred who he really was as a fighter, starting with the fact that he was the most brilliantly managed fighter in boxing history. On his way up, he was promoted and hyped to be such a devastating puncher that no fighter could withstand his punch. Yet he lost in his prime by knockout to a fighter who never beat a top heavyweight before or after he knocked Tyson out.
The promotion of Tyson was so overwhelming that when Buster Douglas' mother passed away three weeks before their fight, it was viewed as a positive for Buster and helped him defeat Tyson. After the fight, of course. Prior to the fight, it wasn't thought of as being a positive until Tyson was crawling around on the canvas looking for his mouthpiece.
This was due to the fact that novice fight observers needed an excuse to fathom Tyson not just losing, but getting counted out. Tyson made the job easier for the marketing brain trust who crafted the Tyson myth, because he could punch hard with both hands and acted fearless coming into the ring. However, knockouts against second-tier journeymen conned a lot of boxing fans, writers, historians and television executives. This is mainly due to the fact that those watching boxing from afar are scared and fearful of hard punchers.
To those who don't know, a big puncher is very intimidating and most can't see beyond that, missing the puncher's obvious flaw. They also miss that more times than not, big punchers don't always have the best chin or the biggest hearts. They just can't get past the power. Tyson, coming off a spectacular early-round knockout, was perceived as unbeatable.
As hard as this may be for some to accept, Tyson's lack of toughness is what identifies him most as a fighter. Yes, that's his defining characteristic, more than his power and hand speed. History lesson: No fighter knocks out every opponent, and if you're dependent on your punch, you better have something to fall back on when confronted by that opponent you can't knock out. Tyson didn't have that Saturday night ... just like he never had it on any other night he needed it.
If you asked the first 100 people leaving the MCI Center Saturday night, "Who would you rather have to take the title from, Mike Tyson at the top of his game or Evander Holyfield at the top of his?" I'd bet anything that over 90 percent would rather have to fight Holyfield. With their reason and logic being, Tyson hits too hard and Holyfield isn't a great puncher. However, the object is to win and it takes more to beat Holyfield than it does Tyson.
Personally, I'd rather fight Tyson in a second. Sure, he's capable of beating his opponent worse than Holyfield, but don't you want to win? That's why Holyfield is scarier. A fighter who has dynamite in both hands, but has the heart of the Cowardly Lion is more beatable. How often has it been said that if a fighter gets past the first couple rounds with Tyson, he had a better chance of winning?
When has that ever been said about Holyfield? How about never. To beat Holyfield when he was on top of his game, a fighter had to just about beat him to death. See the 10th round of his first fight with Bowe. Can any objective boxing observer with a morsel of a clue imagine Tyson surviving a fight like that? Hell no. He would've quit long before the fight got to that point. He always has.
How about Tyson having the type of toughness that Ali and Frazier showed in Manila? The pounding George Foreman took from Holyfield at age 42? Or Willard from Dempsey or Marciano from Walcott in their first fight? Here's one, Joe Frazier got up six times against George Foreman before the fight was stopped. How many times does Tyson get up? That's if he even shows up for the fight at all. Remember, he backed out of fighting the same Foreman whom Holyfield defended his title against.
Tyson quit against Holyfield, a blown-up crusierweight. He quit against Danny Williams, a fighter known for having panic attacks before a fight, which is what made him the perfect Tyson opponent. And he quit Saturday night against Kevin McBride when he realized he couldn't win by intimidation and showing up. McBride was knocked out by a fighter who lost 17 of his last 18 fights. Luckily for him he fought McBride, or it would've been 0-18. Yet McBride could make Tyson quit. Can't wait to hear how great McBride becomes off of beating Tyson.
After knocking Tyson out, Williams, like Buster Douglas, was suddenly a title contender. In his next fight against Vitali Klitschko, we saw how well he contended, losing all eight rounds of the bout. In the next few days, every excuse will be made for Tyson. His age, inactivity, no Kevin Rooney, doing time in prison, getting divorced, lack of motivation and maybe we'll even hear that his boxing shoes were too tight, keeping him from throwing combinations. Wrong.
Tyson showed the toughness of the Church Lady his entire career. That is why he never was an all-time heavyweight great for even one day of his career. His hand speed and two-handed power couldn't compensate for his lack of character. He never once won or pulled out a tough fight. Hats off to Freddie Roach, who was fired by Tyson for suggesting that he thought Tyson could have gotten up against Williams, instead of sitting there being counted out.
Let the excuses begin.