The Sweet (Mad) Scientist
Can someone be a train wreck and a sage at the same time? Is it possible to be a broken-down, beat-up, emotional, nerve-ending of humanity, yet still talk poetry about this life?
If so, Mike Tyson is your man.
Let’s be honest, here. Who thought he’d be a free man, let alone still alive, at this point in the millennium? But he is. And whenever he appears on television or in print, we can only marvel at the pure pain – the raw, undisguised conflict – that so clearly grips and threatens to strangle him. If you listen to Tyson speak, or read his new interview in Details, I promise, you will be mesmerized.
There’s actually much to love. Certainly, there is much to vex you and much to be concerned about. But this man is also wise, especially about his own failings. I won’t get into the guy’s skills as a boxer and intimidator; I'll leave that to him:
Details: Because every fighter has to have that same will, that same need, that same drive . . . to impose their will on another man.
Mike Tyson: Every fighter in the history of fighting. But none like me. And, believe me, I'm not being immodest. None like me. I studied every fighter in history, at my manager's house up in Catskill, 'cause he had all the greatest fights on film, he had every last one of them, and I watched them all, every night. They were all so vicious, man. Jake LaMotta, Henry Armstrong, Carmen Basilio. Sugar Ray—God, he was vicious. But Jack Dempsey more than anyone. All these guys let you know they wanted to murder you, and they'd take shots from you, over and over and over, get beat senseless, just so they could get theirs in. Sugar Ray maybe most of all. But Jack Dempsey? He wanted to maim you. He didn't want you dead. He wanted you to suffer. He wanted to shatter your eye socket, destroy your cheeks, your chinbone. That's what I learned from Mr. Dempsey, and I believe I learned it well.
I’d like to include his awesome take on Mohammed Ali, but the language is a tad salty for us here at family-friendly Ricochet.
Tyson has survived, and undoubtedly still lives, a very, very dark life. He fully admits this. Yet there’s an organic brilliance that shines through. He might just be the most fascinating, albeit troubled, person in the world of sports.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: The Sweet (Mad) Scientist
Tyson strikes me as a case study in what happens when you take someone whose main interest is fighting - with all the violence that entails - and pummel him about the head for decades.
For such a strange, theatrical character, you do sort of have to appreciate the occasional depth of his self-awareness!
Re: The Sweet (Mad) Scientist
Agreed, Ursula. I haven't followed boxing for a long time, but watched a lot of Tyson: he stepped right out of Burgess Meredith's description of Clubber Lang in "Rocky II": he's a wreckin' machine. But he was shaped by a great trainer, and given a sense of his own place in boxing (as the interview excerpt attests.) After one bout he was interviewed about the match, and unlike many fighters who only recall the outlines of the plot, Tyson broke it down in great detail, concluding "I devastated him with pin-point accuracy." It was almost amusing. Unless you'd been the other guy in the ring.
There's almost nothing a civilized man should like about a boxing match, but at its finest, it can be a remarkable, primal, harrowing contest. As long as they're not kicking too. Now there I draw the line.
Jul '10
Re: The Sweet (Mad) Scientist
"As long as they're not kicking too."
Or biting ears.
Re: The Sweet (Mad) Scientist
If you want a clip on him talking about the biting ears stuff, it is in here (and also a classic clip for many reasons):
):
Jul '10
Re: The Sweet (Mad) Scientist
Just curious, what sparked the post about "Iron" Mike?
Re: The Sweet (Mad) Scientist
I'm so glad you see the inner brilliance of Tyson, Ursula. It's always been there, even if often obscured by all the bad stuff.
Mike reminds me of Springsteen. Watch Bruce in an interview about politics and he stumbles and stammers, but switch to music and he's such a poet.
Same for Tyson. I have videos hosted by him. It's almost never pointed out that he is probably the greatest living boxing historian alive today (save Bert Sugar). He studied the sport and its notable fighters for years. He's deeply analytical when talking about it.
Another lost point: Shortest heavyweight champion of our lifetimes (listed the same as Frazier, but I think MIke's shorter).. All that intimidation he did really did make big men look small, but he was smallest in the ring.
I showed my teenage sons a collection of Tyson fights recently. They were astounded at his skill. So am I to this day.
I'm not sure Cus did Tyson the favors Mike thinks. He locked the kid away and convinced him he was God and nothing mattered but boxing. That's got to do some psych damage to a kid.
Re: The Sweet (Mad) Scientist
Two words for you, James: Anderson Silva.
Re: The Sweet (Mad) Scientist
Hi Jimmy, There's a new interview out in Details, which I link to in the post. It's pretty great! Check it out.
Jul '10
Re: The Sweet (Mad) Scientist
Tyson's career also illustrates another great lesson: in order to defeat a monster, you need only not be afraid of him. According to Buster Douglas, that was the single thing he had in mind when he beat Iron Mike.