View Full Version : Tysons legacy


Da Iceman
03-22-2006, 08:07 AM
what will be his legacy when he dies?

leff
03-22-2006, 08:10 AM
a huge could have been, he will be remembered as one off historys most gifted hws.

but as the one who didnt have the dedication, heart and disiplin to be the legend he could have been.

Heckler
03-22-2006, 08:12 AM
a man with superb physical assets and skill, however lacking the psychological stability to facilitate these qualities. A man that was plagued by his rough upbringing and unfortunate circumstances.

Da Iceman
03-22-2006, 08:29 AM
he did have some mental problems. floyd patterson was brought up about as rought as him but never did the things tyson did.

Heckler
03-22-2006, 08:43 AM
Yeah ive read about floyd, and i dont think his circumstances were as bad as Tysons.

Da Iceman
03-22-2006, 08:57 AM
but very close

Yaman
03-22-2006, 09:29 AM
but very close
Not even close Buster.

You made this thread because you hate him. let that **** go.

K-DOGG
03-22-2006, 10:19 AM
Mike Tyson's reign was short, it's true; but it is unfair to expect a long reign from a compact aggressor. Dempsey was done by 31, Marciano retired at 31, Frazier was past his best when Foreman bounced him at 29. Mike was 41-1 when he went to prison at 24 and 28 when he got out. That means that we missed the rest of the best of Mike. He would have been on the skids by the time he was 30 with or without the prison stint.....it's akin to his style. The problem is with perception and memory. It's easy to remember the Douglas loss, the Holyfield losses, teh Lewis fight and after; but the fact of the matter is....That was Not the Mike Tyson that ruled the division, with the exception of the Douglas fight. He never got a chance to avenge that loss; do you think Douglas would have beat him a second time? After Douglas, Mike destroyed #4 conteneder Alex Stewart, who had given Holyfield hell for 8 rounds and dominated #2 contender Razor Ruddock. There is no evidence Mike was on the skids when he went into prison, just that he underestimated Douglas, as we all did, and didn't train properly. We never saw Mike and Evander fight in 1991...and we don't really know what would have happened. Evander and Mike were different fighters in 1991 than they were in 1996. The '91 Evander was dropped by Bert Cooper and struggled with two old men. The Evander that fought Tyson was considered shot, true; but Mike was past his best as well......ergo, we underestimated Holyfield and overestimated Tyson. That fight was the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manilla in where the fighters were in their careers in respect to their primes, ala Ali and Frazier in bount #3.

The Tyson that should be judged historically, is the one that unified all the paper belts and the ring or lineal title. The one that beat Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks, & Tubbs. That's not a bad list of fighters....Mike just made them look bad, and that says something about his dominane. Only Holmes was well past his prime, and still, the fact that Mike is the only man to knock him out while an even older Holmes took Holyfield the distance as well as McCall years later, speaks volumes of Holmes skill past his prime....and Mike's.

At his best, while Champion...Mike Tyson ranks with the All Time Greats...I've got him #6 on my Top Ten List.



1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Mike Tyson
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Rocky Marciano
9. George Foreman
10. Joe Frazier


Least, that's how I see things.

vandiar
03-22-2006, 12:24 PM
Mike Tyson's reign was short, it's true; but it is unfair to expect a long reign from a compact aggressor. Dempsey was done by 31, Marciano retired at 31, Frazier was past his best when Foreman bounced him at 29. Mike was 41-1 when he went to prison at 24 and 28 when he got out. That means that we missed the rest of the best of Mike. He would have been on the skids by the time he was 30 with or without the prison stint.....it's akin to his style. The problem is with perception and memory. It's easy to remember the Douglas loss, the Holyfield losses, teh Lewis fight and after; but the fact of the matter is....That was Not the Mike Tyson that ruled the division, with the exception of the Douglas fight. He never got a chance to avenge that loss; do you think Douglas would have beat him a second time? After Douglas, Mike destroyed #4 conteneder Alex Stewart, who had given Holyfield hell for 8 rounds and dominated #2 contender Razor Ruddock. There is no evidence Mike was on the skids when he went into prison, just that he underestimated Douglas, as we all did, and didn't train properly. We never saw Mike and Evander fight in 1991...and we don't really know what would have happened. Evander and Mike were different fighters in 1991 than they were in 1996. The '91 Evander was dropped by Bert Cooper and struggled with two old men. The Evander that fought Tyson was considered shot, true; but Mike was past his best as well......ergo, we underestimated Holyfield and overestimated Tyson. That fight was the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manilla in where the fighters were in their careers in respect to their primes, ala Ali and Frazier in bount #3.

The Tyson that should be judged historically, is the one that unified all the paper belts and the ring or lineal title. The one that beat Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks, & Tubbs. That's not a bad list of fighters....Mike just made them look bad, and that says something about his dominane. Only Holmes was well past his prime, and still, the fact that Mike is the only man to knock him out while an even older Holmes took Holyfield the distance as well as McCall years later, speaks volumes of Holmes skill past his prime....and Mike's.

At his best, while Champion...Mike Tyson ranks with the All Time Greats...I've got him #6 on my Top Ten List.



1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Mike Tyson
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Rocky Marciano
9. George Foreman
10. Joe Frazier


Least, that's how I see things.

good post, I think he will be remembered as one of the heavyweight greats who made a huge impact on boxing period.

Left2body
03-22-2006, 12:35 PM
Wow, a really good post. I'll give you some K for that. However I think he did more for the sport in terms of image and bringing back crowds and making PPV what it is today than actually being a great champ. Great talent, great fighter, but not a great champ in terms of the ranks of the other top names you mentioned. Also believe me I'm a HUGE Tyson fan.

K-DOGG
03-22-2006, 12:47 PM
Wow, a really good post. I'll give you some K for that. However I think he did more for the sport in terms of image and bringing back crowds and making PPV what it is today than actually being a great champ. Great talent, great fighter, but not a great champ in terms of the ranks of the other top names you mentioned. Also believe me I'm a HUGE Tyson fan.

Thanks for the K. While we obviously disagree with where Mike ranks as a "great", I couldn't agree more with you in terms of the popularity he brought back to the sport. Only Ali (and maybe Louis, Dempsey, & Sullivan in their eras)had a bigger impact on the public and the sport....that says something about Mike.

Southpaw16
03-23-2006, 04:30 AM
Mike Tyson's reign was short, it's true; but it is unfair to expect a long reign from a compact aggressor. Dempsey was done by 31, Marciano retired at 31, Frazier was past his best when Foreman bounced him at 29. Mike was 41-1 when he went to prison at 24 and 28 when he got out. That means that we missed the rest of the best of Mike. He would have been on the skids by the time he was 30 with or without the prison stint.....it's akin to his style. The problem is with perception and memory. It's easy to remember the Douglas loss, the Holyfield losses, teh Lewis fight and after; but the fact of the matter is....That was Not the Mike Tyson that ruled the division, with the exception of the Douglas fight. He never got a chance to avenge that loss; do you think Douglas would have beat him a second time? After Douglas, Mike destroyed #4 conteneder Alex Stewart, who had given Holyfield hell for 8 rounds and dominated #2 contender Razor Ruddock. There is no evidence Mike was on the skids when he went into prison, just that he underestimated Douglas, as we all did, and didn't train properly. We never saw Mike and Evander fight in 1991...and we don't really know what would have happened. Evander and Mike were different fighters in 1991 than they were in 1996. The '91 Evander was dropped by Bert Cooper and struggled with two old men. The Evander that fought Tyson was considered shot, true; but Mike was past his best as well......ergo, we underestimated Holyfield and overestimated Tyson. That fight was the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manilla in where the fighters were in their careers in respect to their primes, ala Ali and Frazier in bount #3.

The Tyson that should be judged historically, is the one that unified all the paper belts and the ring or lineal title. The one that beat Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks, & Tubbs. That's not a bad list of fighters....Mike just made them look bad, and that says something about his dominane. Only Holmes was well past his prime, and still, the fact that Mike is the only man to knock him out while an even older Holmes took Holyfield the distance as well as McCall years later, speaks volumes of Holmes skill past his prime....and Mike's.

At his best, while Champion...Mike Tyson ranks with the All Time Greats...I've got him #6 on my Top Ten List.



1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Mike Tyson
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Rocky Marciano
9. George Foreman
10. Joe Frazier


Least, that's how I see things.

That is a good post, props man. I don't have Tyson in my top ten, but you make some intelligent arguments for him being there. I just get tired of people and their ridiculous "he fired Kevin Rooney so none of his losses count" arguments.

mokele
03-23-2006, 05:16 AM
I've read so many posts about Tyson and dozens of different opinions. The simple truth is that he was 1 of the most naturally gifted fighters of all time, a lightning fast, hard-punching slugger with a good chin. He belongs on the list of all-time great heavyweights, somewhere between #5 and #15 depending on how you judge such matters. I rank him rather high, certainly well inside the top 10, for dominating the heavyweight division for a short while and also for the sheer number of excellent fighters that he beat over the course of his career. The fact that he lost in some of the most well-known fights should not take away from what he accomplished.

Once again the tendency to practice revisionist history seems to be in evidence in evaluating Tyson. A similar thing happened to Charles "Sonny" Liston for awhile, but Liston has survived the test of time and is now properly regarded as being an all-time great in spite of his embarrassment at the hands of Ali. I'm fairly certain that Tyson's legacy will be similar, that he will be properly seen as a great fighter who, of course, was far from perfect inside and outside the ring.

Verstyle
03-23-2006, 07:45 AM
what will be his legacy when he dies?


why r all the answers bad :confused: u seem pretty biased. i should do that to rocky also

Da Iceman
03-23-2006, 09:56 AM
all the answers arent bad, theres a choice for one of the greatest of all time(GOAT)

Da Iceman
03-23-2006, 09:58 AM
Not even close Buster.

You made this thread because you hate him. let that **** go.
i dont hate him i dislike him and i want to see everyones opinion, maybe you should stop being so paranoid about him. i think tyson was a good fighter late 80's early 90's until he stopped training like he used to. if he still had rooney and set his mind to it he could be the unified champ.

Mike Tyson77
03-24-2006, 06:52 PM
Mike Tyson's reign was short, it's true; but it is unfair to expect a long reign from a compact aggressor. Dempsey was done by 31, Marciano retired at 31, Frazier was past his best when Foreman bounced him at 29. Mike was 41-1 when he went to prison at 24 and 28 when he got out. That means that we missed the rest of the best of Mike. He would have been on the skids by the time he was 30 with or without the prison stint.....it's akin to his style. The problem is with perception and memory. It's easy to remember the Douglas loss, the Holyfield losses, teh Lewis fight and after; but the fact of the matter is....That was Not the Mike Tyson that ruled the division, with the exception of the Douglas fight. He never got a chance to avenge that loss; do you think Douglas would have beat him a second time? After Douglas, Mike destroyed #4 conteneder Alex Stewart, who had given Holyfield hell for 8 rounds and dominated #2 contender Razor Ruddock. There is no evidence Mike was on the skids when he went into prison, just that he underestimated Douglas, as we all did, and didn't train properly. We never saw Mike and Evander fight in 1991...and we don't really know what would have happened. Evander and Mike were different fighters in 1991 than they were in 1996. The '91 Evander was dropped by Bert Cooper and struggled with two old men. The Evander that fought Tyson was considered shot, true; but Mike was past his best as well......ergo, we underestimated Holyfield and overestimated Tyson. That fight was the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manilla in where the fighters were in their careers in respect to their primes, ala Ali and Frazier in bount #3.

The Tyson that should be judged historically, is the one that unified all the paper belts and the ring or lineal title. The one that beat Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks, & Tubbs. That's not a bad list of fighters....Mike just made them look bad, and that says something about his dominane. Only Holmes was well past his prime, and still, the fact that Mike is the only man to knock him out while an even older Holmes took Holyfield the distance as well as McCall years later, speaks volumes of Holmes skill past his prime....and Mike's.

At his best, while Champion...Mike Tyson ranks with the All Time Greats...I've got him #6 on my Top Ten List.



1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Larry Holmes
4. Jack Johnson
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Mike Tyson
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Rocky Marciano
9. George Foreman
10. Joe Frazier


Least, that's how I see things.


Great Post!

The Noose
03-24-2006, 07:01 PM
I watched Tyson - Ruddock 1 recently, and he was still a great fighter, but lazy and his defense was poor. But the punches he threw were still in a league of their own.
Tyson after prison was not even close to Tyson pre prison. Even at his worst.

Anyway, after his 'layoff' he didnt have wat it took to beat Holyfield or Lewis, which IMO were the only oppertunities he had to prove he deserved to be considered an all time great heavywieght.

At his best he was incredible, and could of beaten anyone, but a GREAT fighter overcomes the odds even wen no one expects them to.

Tyson never did that.

The Noose
03-24-2006, 07:04 PM
I think a fighters whole career, from beginning to end should be considered wen evaluating if they belong in the elite, all time great, list.