The Myth Of Mike Tyson

[StarshipTrooper]

Let me guess, you have "Two Ton" Tony Galento above Lewis.

Let me guess, you have Alex Stewart above Jack Johnson Galento was tough and hit hard which made him a difficult opponent for anyone; but he was little more than a low skill brawler so he doesn't make ANY list.

Poet

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Tyson was a monster in his prime. I agree that he was overrated but I think he was just a victim of his ******ity more than anything else.

He had the best people around him early on but once that core of people were no longer there, he fell apart. He could have been an all time great and will definitly go down as one of the hardest hitters of all time but he doesn't crack my top ten.

[Mike Tyson77]

Let me guess, you have Alex Stewart above Jack Johnson Galento was tough and hit hard which made him a difficult opponent for anyone; but he was little more than a low skill brawler so he doesn't make ANY list.

Poet

Jack Johnson is one of my favorites sonny. He's no lower than say maby 7 or 8 on the P4P list.

[Feint]

There are too many factors that are different between comparing fighters from two different eras. Style, weight, etc. So the only real way to compare the two is how much did they dominate in the ear in which they fought in?

Using this criteria I think it would be disingenuous to say that Tyson was not one of the top heavyweight boxers in history. (Though where he ranks on that mythical list of the “top 20” is certainly up for debate.)

[BetterthanSugar]

tyson is a geat

it's nuts to say tyson wasn't one of the 20 best heavyweights. he is not only a top 20 heavyweight he's a top 20 pound for pound. in his prime he destroyed everyone in his way. he only started losing once his father figure cus damato had passed and the 2nd in command kevin rooney had been pushed out by don king. let us not forget he was the youngest champ in history and he then defended that title 9 times. when his head was on right he was the 2nd best fighter i've ever seen. aswell you must be out of your mind if you think spinks and holmes( a little past his prime but still not bad) don't match up with the bonavana's and knortens of the world. it's not his fault there where no real contenders for his titlle the same way hopkins had to try and find good oppents during his middleweight rein. he let it all go and fell off but lets not forget why we all thought tyson would end up being the greatest fighter of all time. he didn't reach those expectations but in his prome he was as fun to watch as any fighter ever.

[StarshipTrooper]

it's nuts to say tyson wasn't one of the 20 best heavyweights. he is not only a top 20 heavyweight he's a top 20 pound for pound. in his prime he destroyed everyone in his way. he only started losing once his father figure cus damato had passed and the 2nd in command kevin rooney had been pushed out by don king. let us not forget he was the youngest champ in history and he then defended that title 9 times. when his head was on right he was the 2nd best fighter i've ever seen. aswell you must be out of your mind if you think spinks and holmes( a little past his prime but still not bad) don't match up with the bonavana's and knortens of the world. it's not his fault there where no real contenders for his titlle the same way hopkins had to try and find good oppents during his middleweight rein. he let it all go and fell off but lets not forget why we all thought tyson would end up being the greatest fighter of all time. he didn't reach those expectations but in his prome he was as fun to watch as any fighter ever.

Certainly fun to watch, and I never said he wasn't a top 20: In fact I rank him around 11 or 12. I would dispute that Holmes was only a "little" past his prime though. Larry had been in a noticable decline since the Witherspoon fight and had not fought in two years when he faced Tyson. Spinks was a puffed up Light-Heavyweight and was NOT going to beat an in-prime Heavyweight champion that was paying mind to business. And who brought up Bonevena? Larry never fought Bonevena, Ali and Frazier did. I normally don't bring up strength of competition unless someone's trying to inflate a fighter's actual accomplishments: You can only fight who's available like you said. But the counter-point is don't point to a fighters record unless you can show a string of ATGs on it, other wise someone WILL punch holes in that record.

I actually NEVER thought Tyson would be the greatest ever. I don't make the mistake of over-rating fighters who generate a lot of offense as many people do. I DID think he would be the next Joe Frazier which, to my mind at least, is no small compliment. Entertainment is one thing, I may have enjoyed watching Mike's spectacular KOs but I don't include entertainment on my list of traits that make a fighter great.

Poet

[tyson]

Tyson can not be considered the best ever.

He was fast and strong, a great combination puncher and a fantastic short-distance puncher.
He had fast side-to-side movement with both his head and feet, he possessed incredible slickness for a heavyweight in his prime.

In fact, his overall vision and concentration in his prime can arguably be considered as one of the best in the heaveweight history.
This is because he slipped punches in bunches on the inside, moving forward and always in position to counter. Which he nearly always did.

But...

He needed to be the baddest to prevail. He struggled with tough fighters who refused to back down.
He wasn't the hardest fighter in the world to frustrate.

Tyson was also open for uppercuts, a punch that the very best fighters most definiately knows how to use (Lewis, Foreman, Holmes.. Ali didn't really use it so much).

And you just cannot argue the fact that Tyson was a small heavy.
No matter what people say, he would always have struggled with the Lewis' of the world.

He proved that he could not rise when he had fallen, and thus in my eyes failed to do the thing that defines great people.
I'm not talking about a knockdown, I'm talking about set-backs in life.

Tyson would of course be a serious threat to every living being in a fantasy match-up, but that does not change the fact that he failed to carve himself a place in the hall of greatness.

Someone compared him with Hopkins, saying that it wasn't Tyson's fault that he had no great opponents in his prime.
Well, Hopkins showed consistency and character over the course of a long career. Tyson failed to do so, thus making Hopkins' career more impressive in my eyes.

Talent-wise, Tyson ranks higher than his actual accomplishments.

And to those who thinks about saying anything about my avatar and nickname; **** off!

[StarshipTrooper]

Tyson can not be considered the best ever.

He was fast and strong, a great combination puncher and a fantastic short-distance puncher.
He had fast side-to-side movement with both his head and feet, he possessed incredible slickness for a heavyweight in his prime.

In fact, his overall vision and concentration in his prime can arguably be considered as one of the best in the heaveweight history.
This is because he slipped punches in bunches on the inside, moving forward and always in position to counter. Which he nearly always did.

But...

He needed to be the baddest to prevail. He struggled with tough fighters who refused to back down.
He wasn't the hardest fighter in the world to frustrate.

Tyson was also open for uppercuts, a punch that the very best fighters most definiately knows how to use (Lewis, Foreman, Holmes.. Ali didn't really use it so much).

And you just cannot argue the fact that Tyson was a small heavy.
No matter what people say, he would always have struggled with the Lewis' of the world.

He proved that he could not rise when he had fallen, and thus in my eyes failed to do the thing that defines great people.
I'm not talking about a knockdown, I'm talking about set-backs in life.

Tyson would of course be a serious threat to every living being in a fantasy match-up, but that does not change the fact that he failed to carve himself a place in the hall of greatness.

Someone compared him with Hopkins, saying that it wasn't Tyson's fault that he had no great opponents in his prime.
Well, Hopkins showed consistency and character over the course of a long career. Tyson failed to do so, thus making Hopkins' career more impressive in my eyes.

Talent-wise, Tyson ranks higher than his actual accomplishments.

And to those who thinks about saying anything about my avatar and nickname; **** off!

I certainly won't smack you for the name an avatar: A number of my friends on this forum use Tyson names and avatars (see Yaman, Iron Man, ect.). As for the rest of your post: I certainly can't fault your analysis in any way.

Ps. Just because someone is a Tyson fan does NOT make him a Tyson nuthugger. Only the blind, rabid fans that think Mike walks on water get that label.

Poet

[Mike Tyson77]

I certainly won't smack you for the name an avatar: A number of my friends on this forum use Tyson names and avatars (see Yaman, Iron Man, ect.). As for the rest of your post: I certainly can't fault your analysis in any way.

Ps. Just because someone is a Tyson fan does NOT make him a Tyson nuthugger. Only the blind, rabid fans that think Mike walks on water get that label.

Poet

He aint Jesus.

[BKM-]

LOL @ Mike Tyson walks on water

Some people do go that far though, and I get very annoyed by that as well.