Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out [1987]

Boxing is raw, pure drama. Conflict at its barest. It’s just two guys beating the shit out of each other in a vacuum. Pretense is present, but minimal. It mainly takes the form of restrictions, which actually strip the action even barer, and are just enough say that you’ve regulated and sanitized the brutality. (MMA partially dispenses with even that.) This is not to say, though, that it is devoid of poetry and life. Quite the opposite. Within this cleaned arena, tiny details that might otherwise be overlooked are magnified and take on central importance for the spectator’s trained eyes — and each boxer, too, is a spectator of the other boxer. These gestures and twitches and decisions and stances unfold a split-second at a time, moments building on one another to compose a gripping, thrilling storyline of fortune and reversal and will and skill.

Spoonie Gee – Mighty Mike Tyson [1987]

The design triumph of Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out [1987] is how very well it captures this aspect of boxing. Reminiscent of the restrictions of acceptable movement for a boxer outlined by Queensbury rules, here we find a sharply limited menu of discrete options on the NES controller for legal punches and blocks and dodging maneuvers. Another game might, say, allow a boxer to walk around the ring, or allocate just one button for punching and one for dodging. Instead, Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out’s input system spotlights fine distinctions between a dodge to the left or the right, an uppercut or a gut punch, a slower left hook or a sharp jab to the right.

Moreover, the game ensures that all of these fine distinctions are not just necessary but essential, by presenting the player with challenges and opportunities hand-crafted to either rebuff or invite particular inputs, to increasingly particular specification. Early on, any punch might do for any opening, whereas later a particular punch in response to a particular cue is required. In particular, timing gets tight; the acceptable and ideal windows in which to perform a given action get narrower and narrower. Through this refinement, the successful player is entrained into the kind of attentive eye that’s extremely sensitive to the subtle differences and affordances of particular motions, both of their opponents’ and their own.

Genyo Takeda’s earliest idea for how Punch-Out [1984] would control was some kind of half-baked glove peripheral. Shigeru Miyamoto counseled the traditional use of a joystick and two buttons, specifically on the grounds that the input would be both more precise and easily understood. This reasoning is revealing of Miyamoto’s inclinations towards a style that may be highly artificial and lack verisimilitude, but which is focused on surfacing all things in ways that will be most instantly legible to a player, such that it aspires to a kind of invisibility, so effective is its suture. Decades later, it’s an extremely common-sensical approach, but fairly cutting-edge for 1984.

This is also the logic of a caricature. Drawings in this game are ridiculously, but judiciously, exaggerated, mainly in scale. The player character is very small, under half the size of his enemies, which not only accentuates his underdog status but also gets him out of the way. You don’t much need to watch your puppet; you can feel what your hands are doing. You do need to watch the other guy, who’s drawn very large. That makes tiny details become gigantic, and more-significant tiny details are proportionally even larger yet so they’re highlighted. “Tells” — those cues embodied in tiny, momentary twitches and gestures — are also generally made big and obvious (though some amount to, like, two pixels off in a corner blinking for a frame.)

This visibility nevertheless doesn’t make the game easy. You may see the tells, but half the challenge is learning to READ the tells. The cues request unknown replies, and it’s up to the player to figure out which input to send, through trial and memorization, or hearsay, or occasionally even a logical or intuitive thought process. It’s not all handed to you and made obvious, there’s still obscurity and ambiguity to be overcome. I’ve seen people who are in a nose-tweaking kind of mood say that Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out is a puzzle game, but it’s not contemplative nor mentally taxing like Tetris [1984]. I’ve also seen “action puzzler,” which cuts a little closer yet, because it identifies that a primary challenge (as in higher-level Tetris play) in Punch-Out is actually sheer reflex, your fraying ability to execute the actions you’ve figured out to the precision requested by the game.

But the best nose-tweaking genre descriptor, I think, is when people call Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out a “rhythm game,” just one that has no music or even tempo. It’s a dance. Despite appearances, you’re not actually competing with your opponents like you would in real boxing. You’re collaborating. Like a good partner, they lead you into a fluid live performance that makes you look and feel good. By about the time you get to, oh, Don Flamenco, it feels like Don actually knows and is exploiting the mechanics of the game he is in as much as you are.

I haven’t really addressed the topic of video game “bosses” in this blog thus far, though I have run across a couple prototypical exemplars: Bowser in Super Mario Bros [1985], Murphy’s Ghost in Wizardry [1981], et cetera. Punch-Out functionally games consist entirely of “boss battles” in our fully elaborate latter-day conceptualization, one-on-one duels with intimidating foes who have elaborate, novel, hand-crafted behavior and attack patterns unique to them and who typically seem to outclass the player despite still being conquerable. Mike Tyson is our final boss, our bosses to end all bosses, and he’s a doozy. Not only does he attack nigh-constantly, leaving little opportunity to get your own one-two in, he also does just enough to set a groove that he can then hesitate a half-moment and catch you off, wielding rhythm against you. He is legendarily hard to defeat, as he was in real life. This game is not really intended to be won at all, but to be lost a million times. The storyline of Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out perhaps leads one to appreciate and respect the incredible talent of those boxers who worked their way up a long road to the level where Tyson would beat them down on a national stage.

We’re now seeing a third NES (or rather, Famicom) title on this blog that uses the technique of the real-world celebrity tie-in, after Taito’s Takeshi’s Challenge [1986] and Square’s Nakayama Miho No Tokimeki High [1987]. Mike Tyson is here deployed more like Nakayama Miho, but he did not exist in such a regimented and controlled star system, and his volatile biography basically demonstrates how badly this style of licensing arrangement could backfire. It is fairly to safe to say, though, that the well-timed celebrity tie-in contributed heavily to the game’s popularity. No Tyson-free Punch-Out has ever been as successful or well-remembered. Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out for the NES was re-released (in a batch with other bestselling games as The Legend Of Zelda [1986] or Metroid [1986]) as Punch-Out Featuring Mr. Dream [1990], which despite having Nintendo’s seal of quality comes off as an uncanny bootleg even though it’s now the only legal one. In the future, Nintendo would have more control over their celebrity licenses by manufacturing them entirely in-house — either creators like Miyamoto, or even better, entirely virtual figures like Mario, who makes a cameo appearance in this game.

I feel acutely aware, as I step into console games of the late 80s and early 90s, that I am stepping into gaming’s hallowed grounds and must tread carefully. Sure, people have nostalgia for say Jet Set Willy [1984] or Zork [1980], but that is absolutely nothing like the nostalgia out there for the NES, not in size nor kind. I was born in 1995 and logged on very very young, which meant that when I was growing up, the internet was populated by big brother types with a snarky streak and a preoccupation with the pop culture detritus of their late 80s and early 90s childhoods. Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out is or was a quintessential object of nostalgic Americana for this Nintendo Power [1988-2012] cohort. Unlike other major NES bestsellers, there’s not a lot of follow-up to this title, so it stays frozen in 1987 forever and can therefore be emblematic of that era. There are two, maybe three, reasons why.

There’s a documented internal sense among Nintendo’s designers that the Punch-Out franchise is actually just… complete, or even perfected by the 1984 and 1987 takes, and therefore intimidating to expand on. All of the possibilities emerging from its design tenets are staked out, and then fully exhausted. The 2009 Wii version is justified by the novelty of its control scheme, harkening back to Takeda’s original concept, but sticks closely to rehashing every beat of the NES game. The couple of Super Punch-Outs feel they have to break the fundamental design restrictions from which arise the brilliance of non-Super Punch-Outs.

More obviously, the Mike Tyson brand got a lot more thorny (especially after 1990) primarily due to his horrible, loathsome treatment of women and erratic, aggressive behavior — certainly toxic to any company pitching itself as kid-friendly. Additionally, I suspect the infamous publicist Don King who became Tyson’s manager in 1988 may have been less amenable to this particular licensing deal if it hit his desk, though that’s a guess and I could be straight up wrong. The Mike Tyson depicted in Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out is therefore also a frozen-in-amber specimen of 1987 vintage, the Tyson that just became the undisputed heavyweight champ, at his absolute peak not just as an athlete but in esteem.

---

Readers who are familiar with other games studies texts might have immediately recognized the first paragraph of this article as a typical half-assed restaging of the “Magic Circle” hypothesis that winds its way through the grapevine. Catch is, though, that if a boxing match really did take place in a kind of cultural clean-room environment, people wouldn’t care and indeed largely don’t care. Instead, every boxing match with cultural impact is looked to as the climactic culmination of some larger narrative. Though the spectacle is staged in an empty, clinical, precise void, it thrives on and is symbiotic with context from outside the ring. One principal source of this is the celebrity persona of the boxer. The audience develops either affection or hatred for the athlete, mainly not even through the fights themselves but various paratexts, and becomes therefore emotionally invested in their success or failure. Mike Tyson got paid much more per fight to be a tabloid trainwreck who was widely loathed by polite society than he had gotten paid per fight to be the world champion. He made his money from scandal, and he knew it, too. Meanwhile, nobody gives a shit about Mr. Dream.

More potent yet than mere personal affinities are when the fights are staged to tap into existing culture-wide anxieties, building off of boxers’ public personas, so that we can watch our disagreements and controversy come to blows. When staged correctly on these lines, boxing matches could historically assert a grandiose importance and centrality — just think of The Fight Of The Century [1971] playing out the debate on the war in Vietnam via Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier. Punch-Out, though developed by a Japanese company, was aimed squarely at the American market to the nigh-exclusion of Nintendo’s domestic market. The Famicom version wasn’t even initially planned to be sold in Japan at all, only given away as a prize to a winner of a golf tournament. Boxing has simply never been as big a deal in Japan as, say, women’s wrestling. As such, it tells us what these Japanese developers thought about American culture, about what captures our imagination, about what we love.

It thinks we love racism. Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out is an extremely, flagrantly racist game. It’s so obvious I don’t even feel the typical need to hedge my claims here, my mind in fact reels at how rarely this stone-cold fact about this game is openly observed, or even less so dwelled upon. Its entire fictional cast is a procession of broad, basic, comical ethnic stereotypes — even of the Japanese! Even referee Mario fits in this category! The absolute best thing you can say is that some of them are less egregious and offensive than others.

The game’s whole plotline is a fantasy of how a anonymous scrawny whitebread nobody can beat everyone else, of every ethnic group in the melting pot, even Mike Tyson. Little Mac’s race is defined by negation and absence: he’s not Irish, not French, not Russian, not anything somehow, just white. Boxing culture gave us the term “The Great White Hope” to describe exactly a dream of Little Macs: any white guy who could plausibly take down the mighty Jack Johnson, like in The Fight Of The Century [1910], a dress rehearsal for immediately proceeding race riots. The “Great White Hope” nickname was still getting used in the 1980s and the 1990s. Historically, ethnic tensions and identification have been one of the most potent and profitable cultural anxieties for American boxing to draw upon, so this too is a way Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out accurately diagnoses and replicates the sport.

It is worth considering how this reflects on Mike Tyson, and to properly contextualize his appearance in this game within the network of his other media representations up to 1987, his undefeatable “Kid Dynamite” years. He has been placed at the end of a long line of cartoonish racial stereotypes as if he is one of them and not a real person. This is sadly not far at all from how he was regarded by the media and public at the time, and not just because like all celebrities he was part-fiction. He was regarded, like many black American men before and since, as something of a wild beast of violent id, a typical creature produced by the ghetto, despite his being a somewhat unusual and unique person (the lisp, the pigeons, etc) when he actually lived in the ghetto. When he emerged as a public figure a year after the original Punch-Out came out, he was defined in the media not just by his unstoppable awe-inspiring power in the ring, but also a narrative about how his white mentor and managers were able to harness and channel his natural youthful gifts into productive directions through discipline — to keep the animal in check. It was the restraint and refinement of savagery and impulse by civilization, by Queensbury rules, the heart of boxing personified and racialized. His aforementioned change of management in 1988 was precisely to change to an all-black organization and pro-black rhetoric, because Tyson had grown increasingly conscious of and irritated with his patronizing role in this racial pantomime. If anything, though, he only became more monstrous as the years went by, now playing the heel and living down to his cratering reputation in full view of the public. Mike Tyson is one of the most quintessentially American tragic figures, up there with Nixon.

When I started to write this article, I thought my hypothesis might be that the very process of training the audience’s focus on the microscopic and momentary gestures within the “magic circle” was as a magician’s misdirect, leading us to fixate on trees with an intensity that blinds us to the forest. But I fear that this game is not wrong in its own stereotype of (white) Americans as generally huge fans of racism, that that might be a reason for its success and endurance equal to its star power. Its finely-crafted form, which exists independently of its offensive content, may operate a mere pretext to lie to even your own self if need be about its taboo appeal. Just look at this old “parody” of the game still up online from a site I used to browse as a kid, giddily extending its approach to stereotyping as comedy with barely a veil of satire. I believe the first time I was ever made conscious of Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out, sometime in the mid-2000s, it was an internet troll slinging the N bomb at Little Mac’s mentor, Doc Louis.

---

All information and really perspective on Mike Tyson from Tyson: Nurture Of The Beast [2005]. Information on development of all Punch-Out games from Iwata Asks.