Could somebody defend Mike Tyson as an ATG for me? - Page 13

Glamour Puss

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Iron Man

There is a case for the first fight stoppage to have been a bit premature but Tyson was dominating that fight, Ruddock had already been down a few times and I am pretty sure Tyson would have finished him there and then if Steele didn't jump in. As for the 2nd fight Tyson won clearly and had a KD (maybe more than one). Many not legendary fighters can test greats its not out of the ordinary but Tyson won both fights clearly.

This whole relying on fear thing is not really true many fighters took it to Tyson and fail (pre and post Douglas). But many fighters did fear him and that should be seen as a positive for him not negative.

As for the Bruno I being a "bogus" stoppage, I really think you need to watch it again. Tyson pretty much took his head off with some savage uppercuts.

Now I'm not preaching him as the GOAT and its fair that his ATG status is not concrete for many but some things going about this thread are ridiculous.

I didn't think it was clear at all aside from the kd's so we'll agree to disagree, Ruddock had a suspect chin as you could see from his fight w/ Morrison as well.

For me Tyson is more lore than substance. He had a 3 or 4 year hot streak vs. some decent journeymen and then faded out. He never beat any top ATG level fighters, he always lost big when he stepped up. He is a convicted rapist and a cannibal.

I guess people feel sorry for the guy and make excuses for him but I got no regard for him.

Anthony342

Yeah plus nobody wanted to see a Tyson Douglas rematch after Douglas looked so horrible and out of shape against Holyfield. Holyfield was in line for the next title shot and that's why he got Douglas next. Fans seemed more interested in a Tyson-Holyfield fight at that point, which would've happened then without the early stoppage in the first Ruddock fight, leading to a rematch and Tyson's prison term.

SBleeder

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott9945

Yes. People here having been taking a lot of liberties with history lately. Tyson was always a better fighter than Ruddock and both of their fights indicated that.

Those were Tyson's best performances in his entire career IMO.

The Iron Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Ruby

I didn't think it was clear at all aside from the kd's so we'll agree to disagree, Ruddock had a suspect chin as you could see from his fight w/ Morrison as well.

For me Tyson is more lore than substance. He had a 3 or 4 year hot streak vs. some decent journeymen and then faded out. He never beat any top ATG level fighters, he always lost big when he stepped up. He is a convicted rapist and a cannibal.

I guess people feel sorry for the guy and make excuses for him but I got no regard for him.

I agree that he didn't beat any ATG's but this is true for many great fighters including great heavies. I also thinks its harsh to say in those 3/4 years he only beat journeymen. Being a convicted rapist makes you a worse person and not a worse boxer. You have some good points but it seems some of your judgement is clouded because you dislike the guy.

BennyST

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Ruby

I've seen them more than once, Ruddock was having his way. The first stoppage was bogus. The second fight was tooth and nail. Tyson was a frontrunner who relied on fear in his opponents, once his mystique was shattered in 1990, he was nothing but a typical powerpunching inside fighter w/ no heart.

His rape case basically prolonged his career, had he not gone in and built up more notoriety, he would've been knocked out again and again and we wouldn't even be talking about him right now.

That's all well and good, but there's many here who don't care for Tyson as an ATG or one of their childhood heroes. Whatever you think of him, very clear in your case, he was winning the first fight no problem.

It was a premature stoppage. No question, but in no way, and in no one else's world but yours, was Ruddock having his way. Tyson had won every round, bar maybe one. Even in that round, you'd only give it to him because he did better than other rounds. He still lost the first two minutes clearly though.

Anyway, don't be daft. You don't like him? Great. Lots don't. Don't let it make you look like a complete arse though by ignoring whats very clear in that fight. Bad stoppage yes, but he was easily winning the fight. Maybe Ruddock would have landed one of his smashes and finished it, but up until that point when Steele jumped in early, Tyson had dominated the fight.

WesleySnipes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Ruby

I didn't think it was clear at all aside from the kd's so we'll agree to disagree, Ruddock had a suspect chin as you could see from his fight w/ Morrison as well.

For me Tyson is more lore than substance. He had a 3 or 4 year hot streak vs. some decent journeymen and then faded out. He never beat any top ATG level fighters, he always lost big when he stepped up. He is a convicted rapist and a cannibal.

I guess people feel sorry for the guy and make excuses for him but I got no regard for him.

So? Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard & Ali for example are all known wifebeaters and still indisputable one of the greatest boxers ever...if not THE greatest...so whats your point with that? Why you got to mention that in a boxing discussion?

Also you stand alone with your opinion on the Ruddock fight(s)...i mean it was competitive but still Tyson won like every round pretty clear...you just see it subjectiv cause you are a Tyson hater and like to jump and talk bad about everything the man has done...its like the Pac haters who say that he clearly lost to Bradley...the same with you and the Ruddock fight...

poet682006

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBleeder

Those were Tyson's best performances in his entire career IMO.

I agree. I personally think those were his finest efforts

Poet

B-Bomber · 03:03 PM

Apart from the exact spot Tyson should occupy in an ATG list, which is always subjective, there is something else I'd like to comment.

I've read many people comparing what Wladimir K is doing at his age with Tyson at the same age.

Now, and it's the same in most sports, different athletes, with a different approach to the sport, enjoy very different carreers. Let's take football (soccer) as an example.

Paolo Maldini, one of the best defenders of the last 20 years, played till the age of 41. Even though he lost speed and reflexes, he could still rely on his positioning, experience and intelligence.

Ronaldo, one of the most dangerous forwards of modern times, was more or less shot by the age of 30-31. Without his speed he could no longer do the things he used to.

Same goes for Boxing, a conservative fighter like Wlad can still use his reach, his ring IQ and his experience, even though he's probably not prime (physically).
Similarly, JMM could still use his skills and intelligence to defeat Pac when almost 40.

A fighter like Tyson without speed and high work rate is nothing but, as somebody said, a dignified brawler.
I see something very similar happening to Pac if he sticks around for too long.

That doesn't make a category better than the other, is simply a matter of longevity, which in most cases is related to one's style.

That said.

Tyson is surely not the GOAT, but I don't find it blasphemous to have him in a top 10. I can also understand why some would rather have him between 10-20 or 15-20, but that his dimension, not the best, but among them.