Mike Tyson, Society's Brute

Even more remarkable than Tyson's rant, though, was the outrage that his behavior evoked from commentators. It was as if boxing persisted in believing its own hype: persisted in clinging to that moth-eaten, Hemingway-era mythology according to which a sport defined by poor men hurting each other should be expected to express anything of gentlemanly nobility and poetic grace.

Wallace Matthews, the New York Post's normally sharp sports columnist, wrote that Tyson was "a real monster." British boxing commentator (and former champion) Barry McGuigan called Tyson "a devil." The New York Times' Ira Berkow figured Tyson as a sort of universal id?"one of our greatest fears is to open a closet in our minds and find Tyson hulking there"?and claimed that "this goes beyond sport."

Does it, though? Not if the sport in question is boxing, the goal of which is precisely this: to give the other guy a concussion. How odd that, given this reality?the reality that the "sweet science" so valorized by tabloid columnists and post-Hemingway men's-magazine estheticians devolves to an exercise little more "sporting" than a cockfight?Tyson's behavior is discussed as if it occurred in the context of an Episcopal church social.

What do these people think boxing is about? The idea of there being an "art" or "science" to boxing is mostly sentimental malarkey. The subtle strategies the Norman Mailers and Joyce Carol Oateses of the world have enthused over are in reality reducible to several commonsense and simple gestures. Cutting off the ring for an opponent hardly necessitates a tactical genius on par with Clausewitz's. The remainder of the sport reduces to conditioning, muscle memory, arm reach and a willingness to get punched in the mouth.

Then there's the question of hypocrisy that goes beyond the pieties of the tabloid and sports crowds. Had Tyson, motivated by a murderous rage, killed Savarese before the fight's final bell, pundits might have called for a ban on boxing. But they would have spared Tyson himself their anger. He would have entered boxing lore as one of the legendary fighters who's killed an opponent in the ring.

To this extent, then, Tyson is a victim of context. He's unable either to understand, or to much care, that the murderous gorilla act he's paid by society to perform will only go so far; and that, if he expects to keep being paid to thrill pay-per-viewers with his bloodlust, he must in the end mind certain dishonest proprieties. Tyson's been taught?and paid huge amounts of money?to speak. Is it completely his fault now if his teachers don't like what he's saying?