Exactly how good was the '90's Tyson?

[TAC602]

Good enough to completely overshadow the current Pacquiao-Mayweather hogwash and have the heavyweight division front and center. As far as quality as a fighter: He was the description most of his detractors place on him for his 1980s run. An overrated, flash-in-the-pan. He found quick success because his power was still there and too many casuals bought into him being "back". The only time he was even half-way back were in his four post-Douglas fights before prison. Not from a skills perspective per se, but his vicious attitude and focus exhibited.

[TAC602]

The funny thing with Mike is, you can't talk about him without "hype" being brought up in the conversation.

I'd love to see you recreate it, baby. Why haven't they? For that matter, let's have the reincarnation of Marlon Brando and a hotter record than Thriller. A Godfather remake that tops the original.

[La_Vibora]

I really wish he could have linked up with Freddy Roach somehow back then or even better with Eddie Futch who was still alive then. I thought that Roach did an excellent job with him back when they got together, the problem is that Mike was too over the hill and drugged out to really capitalize on it.

[TAC602]

I really wish he could have linked up with Freddy Roach somehow back then or even better with Eddie Futch who was still alive then. I thought that Roach did an excellent job with him back when they got together, the problem is that Mike was too over the hill and drugged out to really capitalize on it.

Feelin' the Mt. Rushmore of Heavyweight Swarmers signature.

[CarlosG815]

I've always thought that Mike was very good in the 90's, but NOT what he was before. He was so phenomenal in the 80's that it's easy to say he sucked in the 90's. If people didn't know who he was in the 80's then they would think he was great in the 90's.

[Cloud]

Always sad to see 90's Mike. Sad because of what he had once been...

Despite everything he earned boxing wise in his career, i still class him as one of the greatest what ifs...

[TAC602]

Always sad to see 90's Mike. Sad because of what he had once been...

Despite everything he earned boxing wise in his career, i still class him as one of the greatest what ifs...

Amazing, isn't it?

While a few souls await word of heavyweight champion Mike Tyson's threatened retirement, a great many more, having seen a parade of champions renounce the ring only to hurry back, ponder other issues. For instance, should I lay out $40 to see this awesome man-child knock out some poor creature in 91 seconds or should I take the wife bowling? How exciting would the World Series be if the whole thing could end in the first inning of Game 1?

Listen to Kevin Rooney, Tyson's tough little trainer, and you would think that Tyson hardly exerted himself at all when he demolished Michael Spinks on June 27. Rooney says his fighter has been operating at only 50% of his potential. Fifty percent. "He does things in the gym nobody has seen in the ring yet," says Rooney. "Someday he's going to put it all together; then you'll really see something." Maybe we'll see the referee start counting during the national anthem.

Perhaps it just speaks to his talent and what he was able to accomplish at such a young age, because he could've been much more. Still, these days it goes from what he could've accomplished to he didn't accomplish very much. Hogwash. The way people talk these days, you'd think Tyson's title reign lasted as long as Buster Douglas' whopping 0 defenses. From every dated article circa 1989, people were becoming tired of Tyson's dominance. That isn't a flash in the pan. Douglas, Holyfield and Bowe wouldn't of attained the status of undisputed champion had Tyson not individually unified the titles, taking out undefeateds Tucker and Spinks for the 3rd belt and linear crown, respectively. It's easy to skew history, but Tyson had a more-than-legitimate argument as the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world from 1986-89. In fact, he was ranked as such in the inaugural Ring rankings in 1989. Everybody knows he was even better in the three years previous. Not too shabby for a fighter that has trouble cracking the top one hundred on some peoples lists.

[GRANDSLAM]

Prime Tyson wasn't an ATG. I base that on quality of opposition. His best win is Spinks and Spinks was scared to death. The rest of his career wins was against B Level fighters and an Old Larry Holmes. Anytime he was taken into deep water he folded.

[Sugarj]

Prime Tyson wasn't an ATG. I base that on quality of opposition. His best win is Spinks and Spinks was scared to death. The rest of his career wins was against B Level fighters and an Old Larry Holmes. Anytime he was taken into deep water he folded.

Something tells me that you'd venture that prime Lewis is an ATG? Did he ever beat an A grade fighter?

The closest to A grade opposition is Vitali Klitschko......who I fear would have gone on to win that fight were it not for the cut. Even cuts aside, it was a terribly sloppy performance from Lewis, I wasn't surprised that he didn't rematch Vitali.

Were Lewis's other key victories over opposition any better than those that Tyson faced?

Was 1999 Holyfield any better than 1988 Holmes (consider what Holmes did to prime Mercer years later.......and we know how well Mercer did against Lewis)?

Was 1993 Bruno any better than 1989 Bruno? Arguable!

Was 1992 Ruddock as good as he was when he fought Tyson a year previous?

Was the overweight David Tua as good as Tony Tucker?

Were McCall/Rahman any better than Berbick or Bonecrusher Smith?

So what that Spinks was scared of Tyson, Golota was scared of Lewis. Who was the better opponent?

Were Tyson's losses to Buster Douglas and Holyfield 1 any more embarrasing than Lewis's one punch KO losses to McCall and Rahman?

Tyson didn't fold every time he was taken into deep water, his display against Buster Douglas showed plenty of heart........and Tyson absorbed harder blows from Razor Ruddock (when winning) than Lewis did in his losses.

Food for thought!

I personally think that both Tyson and Lewis are ATGs with flaws apiece. But its important to be objective with your assertions.

[TAC602]

Something tells me that you'd venture that prime Lewis is an ATG? Did he ever beat an A grade fighter?

The closest to A grade opposition is Vitali Klitschko......who I fear would have gone on to win that fight were it not for the cut. Even cuts aside, it was a terribly sloppy performance from Lewis, I wasn't surprised that he didn't rematch Vitali.

Were Lewis's other key victories over opposition any better than those that Tyson faced?

Was 1999 Holyfield any better than 1988 Holmes (consider what Holmes did to prime Mercer years later.......and we know how well Mercer did against Lewis)?

Was 1993 Bruno any better than 1989 Bruno? Arguable!

Was 1992 Ruddock as good as he was when he fought Tyson a year previous?

Was the overweight David Tua as good as Tony Tucker?

Were McCall/Rahman any better than Berbick or Bonecrusher Smith?

So what that Spinks was scared of Tyson, Golota was scared of Lewis. Who was the better opponent?

Were Tyson's losses to Buster Douglas and Holyfield 1 any more embarrasing than Lewis's one punch KO losses to McCall and Rahman?

Tyson didn't fold every time he was taken into deep water, his display against Buster Douglas showed plenty of heart........and Tyson absorbed harder blows from Razor Ruddock (when winning) than Lewis did in his losses.

Food for thought!

I personally think that both Tyson and Lewis are ATGs with flaws apiece. But its important to be objective with your assertions.

Excellent post.

Are we really discrediting wins because the other guy was scared ****less? And yes, Ruddock was damaged goods after back-to-back bouts with Tyson; nobody did anything of the sort like that to Holmes prior to or after, and Thomas/Tucker had 1 combined loss in 64 bouts at the time he fought them