Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Myth Of Mike Tyson

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SABBATH View Post
    How Good Was/Is Mike Tyson?

    By Frank Scoblete
    30 January 2000


    Now that Mike Tyson's career is almost over, it might be of interest to take a cold hard look at just how good he was at his best to get some idea of where he stands in the rankings of the great heavyweight champions.

    It is not a stretch to say that much of the fearsome Tyson persona of a decade or more ago was media hype and was little related to what he actually accomplished in the ring or against whom he accomplished it.

    We can make a case that Tyson fought "never-wases" and "nothing-lefters" in his early career culminating with his knockout over an intimidated former light-heavyweight champion Michael Spinks, whose only real claim to fame was "winning" two controversial decisions against an aging and distracted Larry Holmes.

    Other than the light-hitting, terrified Spinks and the out-of-shape, intimidated, comebacking, former great Larry Holmes, who did Tyson actually fight in his pre-prison days who was truly any good in absolute terms? If we measure competition based on who Ali faced, then who of all Tyson's pre-prison opponents was as good as Jerry Quarry, Oscar Bonavena, Ken Norton, Ron Lyle, Ernie Shavers, Joe Bugner, Mac Foster, Floyd Patterson, Zora Foley, Cleveland Williams, Jimmy Ellis, Bob Foster or Ernie Terrell, not to mention the awesome likes of all-time greats Sonny Liston, George Foreman or Smokin' Joe Frazier? Would you classify Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick or Frank Bruno with any those other fighters? Only if you never saw them fight!

    The only real fight the pre-prison Tyson ever had was against the only decent heavyweight fighter he fought, a determined, well-conditioned Buster Douglas -- and Tyson was roundly beaten, battered and knocked out! That was Tyson in his prime, against a fighter who went on to "extinguish" himself by being knocked out in three rounds by Evander Holyfield.

    If the pre-prison Tyson's boxing worth must be looked at with some skepticism, then the post-prison Tyson must be looked upon with scorn. Often in boxing, the true greatness of a fighter is not actually known when he is in his prime as he defeats opponent after opponent rather convincingly. It is only after he ages, slows down, and gets himself into wars are we aware of just how good the fighter is -- and was!

    Certainly that was true of Ali. Before he made his comeback from an almost four-year forced layoff, there were all sorts of questions about his ability. Could he take a punch? Had he been beating up washed-up fighters? Did he have courage? Would he dog it if he were ever in a real fight? The layoff slowed Ali down, made him more vulnerable. What's more, great fighters appeared in that time, fighters better than any he had previously fought!

    So a somewhat diminished Ali met each and every challenger -- starting with a comeback fight against highly ranked Jerry Quarry and then a second fight against vicious number-one contender Oscar Bonavena. His first career loss to Joe Frazier in his third comeback fight proved he could take a punch and that he had mountains of courage. That fight was the first of several "wars" Ali would fight in this second part of his career.

    His next loss was to Ken Norton. Fighting 11 rounds with a broken jaw, Ali merely proved again that he was as courageous as any fighter who ever lived. His great victories against these very same fighters and his upset win over the god-like Foreman, showed what a great fighter he was -- and how much greater he had been before his layoff!

    Not so with Tyson. His "layoff" was heralded with a return to the ring against a rank amateur, Peter McNeeley, whom Tyson "destroyed" with a wild flurry in round one. This same McNeeley was later knocked out by the bloated Butterbean in one round and has since lost just about every real fight he's had! And what of Buster Mathis, Jr., Bruce "I was knocked out by a gust of air" Seldon, Francois Botha, or Julian Francis? Are they credible opponents? Only if elephants can fly.

    The only real fight the post-prison Tyson had of any significance was against Evander Holyfield, who was selected because he appeared to be a shot fighter, having lost two out of three to the disappointing Rid**** Bowe. Had Tyson known that Holyfield was not a shot fighter, but actually the only great heavyweight of the 1990s, I'm sure he would have selected a different fighter to beat, perhaps a third go-round with the overrated Razor Ruddock who proved himself a worthy Tyson contender by being knocked out in one round by the otherwise cautious Lennox Lewis.

    So here we have a very simple yardstick for measuring the greatness of Mike Tyson. He fought two hard fights, one pre-prison and one post-prison -- both of which he lost (subsequently, he ate his way to a third loss and fouled himself into a no-decision). The rest of his victories, pre-prison and post-prison, were over fighters who couldn't make the "C" list during Ali's tenure. So where does that put him on the list of all-time greats?

    It doesn't. He doesn't belong. He's not even in the top 20!

    If you think of the very few good heavyweight fighters who have plied their trade in the late 1980s and 1990s, it is a short list: Evander Holyfield, George Foreman (oh, yes, the Big George who fought Holyfield would have rocked Iron Mike just as he did Smokin' Joe), Rid**** Bowe, and maybe Lennox Lewis and Michael Moorer. Tyson only fought one of them, and lost. The others he avoided.

    I do not, as some writers do, lament the fact that Mike Tyson never lived up to his potential. In fact, I believe he did live up to it, fully, completely. His potential just wasn't all that great and that's what he became -- not all that great.
    All that ****in **** arround you ....you will change in the end,..and cmon,..twenty years old ,..never had ****,..suddenly you have millions,...you'll do crazy things,..and tyour mind will **** with you...whatever,..tyson is a great fighter wha made some mistakes!

    Comment


    • It's certainly true that Tyson didn't fight many great fighters during his career, he happened to fight during a slump in the heavyweight division. Funny though that people don't hold this against Lennox Lewis. Lewis' greatest wins were against long past prime Tyson and a shot Holyfield. The fact that these two men were past their prime was not Lewis' fault though. Now you certainly can't put Tyson in the same rankings as fighters who happened to have the opportunity to accomplish great things but I think it is something we should keep in mind, and something we should have a single standard about.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by res View Post
        It's certainly true that Tyson didn't fight many great fighters during his career, he happened to fight during a slump in the heavyweight division. Funny though that people don't hold this against Lennox Lewis. Lewis' greatest wins were against long past prime Tyson and a shot Holyfield. The fact that these two men were past their prime was not Lewis' fault though. Now you certainly can't put Tyson in the same rankings as fighters who happened to have the opportunity to accomplish great things but I think it is something we should keep in mind, and something we should have a single standard about.
        To some extent that's true but Lennox was also fighting during a particularly strong period in Heavyweight history with a number of good fighters in the division all at the same time. You can't discount his wins over Tua, Ruddock, Bruno, and Grant; and yes, Grant WAS a good fighter.....until Lewis destroyed both him and his confidence.

        Poet

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SABBATH View Post
          How Good Was/Is Mike Tyson?

          By Frank Scoblete
          30 January 2000


          Now that Mike Tyson's career is almost over, it might be of interest to take a cold hard look at just how good he was at his best to get some idea of where he stands in the rankings of the great heavyweight champions.

          It is not a stretch to say that much of the fearsome Tyson persona of a decade or more ago was media hype and was little related to what he actually accomplished in the ring or against whom he accomplished it.

          We can make a case that Tyson fought "never-wases" and "nothing-lefters" in his early career culminating with his knockout over an intimidated former light-heavyweight champion Michael Spinks, whose only real claim to fame was "winning" two controversial decisions against an aging and distracted Larry Holmes.

          Other than the light-hitting, terrified Spinks and the out-of-shape, intimidated, comebacking, former great Larry Holmes, who did Tyson actually fight in his pre-prison days who was truly any good in absolute terms? If we measure competition based on who Ali faced, then who of all Tyson's pre-prison opponents was as good as Jerry Quarry, Oscar Bonavena, Ken Norton, Ron Lyle, Ernie Shavers, Joe Bugner, Mac Foster, Floyd Patterson, Zora Foley, Cleveland Williams, Jimmy Ellis, Bob Foster or Ernie Terrell, not to mention the awesome likes of all-time greats Sonny Liston, George Foreman or Smokin' Joe Frazier? Would you classify Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick or Frank Bruno with any those other fighters? Only if you never saw them fight!

          The only real fight the pre-prison Tyson ever had was against the only decent heavyweight fighter he fought, a determined, well-conditioned Buster Douglas -- and Tyson was roundly beaten, battered and knocked out! That was Tyson in his prime, against a fighter who went on to "extinguish" himself by being knocked out in three rounds by Evander Holyfield.

          If the pre-prison Tyson's boxing worth must be looked at with some skepticism, then the post-prison Tyson must be looked upon with scorn. Often in boxing, the true greatness of a fighter is not actually known when he is in his prime as he defeats opponent after opponent rather convincingly. It is only after he ages, slows down, and gets himself into wars are we aware of just how good the fighter is -- and was!

          Certainly that was true of Ali. Before he made his comeback from an almost four-year forced layoff, there were all sorts of questions about his ability. Could he take a punch? Had he been beating up washed-up fighters? Did he have courage? Would he dog it if he were ever in a real fight? The layoff slowed Ali down, made him more vulnerable. What's more, great fighters appeared in that time, fighters better than any he had previously fought!

          So a somewhat diminished Ali met each and every challenger -- starting with a comeback fight against highly ranked Jerry Quarry and then a second fight against vicious number-one contender Oscar Bonavena. His first career loss to Joe Frazier in his third comeback fight proved he could take a punch and that he had mountains of courage. That fight was the first of several "wars" Ali would fight in this second part of his career.

          His next loss was to Ken Norton. Fighting 11 rounds with a broken jaw, Ali merely proved again that he was as courageous as any fighter who ever lived. His great victories against these very same fighters and his upset win over the god-like Foreman, showed what a great fighter he was -- and how much greater he had been before his layoff!

          Not so with Tyson. His "layoff" was heralded with a return to the ring against a rank amateur, Peter McNeeley, whom Tyson "destroyed" with a wild flurry in round one. This same McNeeley was later knocked out by the bloated Butterbean in one round and has since lost just about every real fight he's had! And what of Buster Mathis, Jr., Bruce "I was knocked out by a gust of air" Seldon, Francois Botha, or Julian Francis? Are they credible opponents? Only if elephants can fly.

          The only real fight the post-prison Tyson had of any significance was against Evander Holyfield, who was selected because he appeared to be a shot fighter, having lost two out of three to the disappointing Rid**** Bowe. Had Tyson known that Holyfield was not a shot fighter, but actually the only great heavyweight of the 1990s, I'm sure he would have selected a different fighter to beat, perhaps a third go-round with the overrated Razor Ruddock who proved himself a worthy Tyson contender by being knocked out in one round by the otherwise cautious Lennox Lewis.

          So here we have a very simple yardstick for measuring the greatness of Mike Tyson. He fought two hard fights, one pre-prison and one post-prison -- both of which he lost (subsequently, he ate his way to a third loss and fouled himself into a no-decision). The rest of his victories, pre-prison and post-prison, were over fighters who couldn't make the "C" list during Ali's tenure. So where does that put him on the list of all-time greats?

          It doesn't. He doesn't belong. He's not even in the top 20!

          If you think of the very few good heavyweight fighters who have plied their trade in the late 1980s and 1990s, it is a short list: Evander Holyfield, George Foreman (oh, yes, the Big George who fought Holyfield would have rocked Iron Mike just as he did Smokin' Joe), Rid**** Bowe, and maybe Lennox Lewis and Michael Moorer. Tyson only fought one of them, and lost. The others he avoided.

          I do not, as some writers do, lament the fact that Mike Tyson never lived up to his potential. In fact, I believe he did live up to it, fully, completely. His potential just wasn't all that great and that's what he became -- not all that great.
          There's so much BS in this thread that I had to quit reading because of how disgusted I had become. One thing a lot of you guys fail to realize is "how" he knocked out those first 20 bums he fought. Who ever in the history of boxing looked that good coming up, and at that age? No one did. Tyson wasn't over hyped at all coming up. He truly was amazing and very exciting to watch.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RossCA View Post
            There's so much BS in this thread that I had to quit reading because of how disgusted I had become. One thing a lot of you guys fail to realize is "how" he knocked out those first 20 bums he fought. Who ever in the history of boxing looked that good coming up, and at that age? No one did. Tyson wasn't over hyped at all coming up. He truly was amazing and very exciting to watch.
            How good a fighter looks knocking out tomato cans is immaterial: The fighter is still a tomato can. "How" he got knocked is irrelivant. Who cares "how" good a fighter looks coming up? It matters not at all to how good a fighter will be when the final books are tallied. As for how exciting he was: A fighter's greatness has absolutely nothing to do with how entertaining or exciting he is. It has everyting to do with his overall abilities in the ring and his actual accomplishments. Pernell Whitaker was an absolute snooze as a fighter but he is most certainly an ATG at Lightweight. Bob Satterfield was quite a possibly the most exciting fighter that ever lived; suggest he was an ATG to a group of boxing historians and be prepared to get laughed at. You need to stop confusing what gets your kicks kicks with greatness. Entertainment value, paired with a couple of bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks and not much more. This is boxing not pro wrestling: Wrestling is "entertainment", boxing is a sport. Learn the difference or go post on a WWE forum.

            Poet

            Comment


            • Originally posted by poet682006 View Post
              To some extent that's true but Lennox was also fighting during a particularly strong period in Heavyweight history with a number of good fighters in the division all at the same time. You can't discount his wins over Tua, Ruddock, Bruno, and Grant; and yes, Grant WAS a good fighter.....until Lewis destroyed both him and his confidence.

              Poet
              People go on and on about mike tysons opposition, but he fought better fighters than : Larry Holmes, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson and Rocky Marciano. And not to different to Lewis and Holyfield. And of those wins u mention from lewis tyson beat two of those guys bruno once in his prime (better than lewis) and once out his prime (better than lewis). Ruddock he fought comming more into his dimise, but that type of fighter would always be difficult for his style.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Iron Man View Post
                People go on and on about mike tysons opposition, but he fought better fighters than : Larry Holmes, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson and Rocky Marciano. And not to different to Lewis and Holyfield. And of those wins u mention from lewis tyson beat two of those guys bruno once in his prime (better than lewis) and once out his prime (better than lewis). Ruddock he fought comming more into his dimise, but that type of fighter would always be difficult for his style.
                I think your spot on about Dempsey's and Marciano's competition. Holmes and Johnson had better opponents than most people seem to think. Johnson, for example, fought all the great black fighters from the turn of the century. The problem is only boxing historians seem to know anything about them. Joe Jeanette is by all accounts a forgotten great and Johnson fought him multiple times. How many outside the boxing historian community even know who he is? Holmes is a bit easier to relate because most people have at least name recognition with his opponents. Holmes fought Earnie Shavers twice and he was a better fighter than anyone on "prime" Tyson's resume. In addition to Shavers, Holmes also fought Mike Weaver, Gerry Cooney, Ken Norton, and a young Tim Witherspoon. The only fighters of that calibre "prime" Tyson fought where Tony Tucker and Razor Ruddock. The rest of there competition I think is comparable. Not surprising since Tyson was coming up as Holmes was going out.

                Poet

                Comment


                • Originally posted by poet682006 View Post
                  How good a fighter looks knocking out tomato cans is immaterial: The fighter is still a tomato can. "How" he got knocked is irrelivant. Who cares "how" good a fighter looks coming up? It matters not at all to how good a fighter will be when the final books are tallied. As for how exciting he was: A fighter's greatness has absolutely nothing to do with how entertaining or exciting he is. It has everyting to do with his overall abilities in the ring and his actual accomplishments. Pernell Whitaker was an absolute snooze as a fighter but he is most certainly an ATG at Lightweight. Bob Satterfield was quite a possibly the most exciting fighter that ever lived; suggest he was an ATG to a group of boxing historians and be prepared to get laughed at. You need to stop confusing what gets your kicks kicks with greatness. Entertainment value, paired with a couple of bucks, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks and not much more. This is boxing not pro wrestling: Wrestling is "entertainment", boxing is a sport. Learn the difference or go post on a WWE forum.

                  Poet
                  Listen here, dumbass! When you read a statement by another person, don't allow your mind to fill in the blanks with BS! Where did I say Tyson was great because of how he looked coming up? And for you to think it doesn't matter how good a fighter looks against a tomato can, just goes to show your bias against Tyson. Yeah, a real Tyson hater. Probably because you weren't around when he was first coming up. If what he looked like coming up doesn't matter, then show me another heavyweight that looked just as good as Tyson, but never became anything. There isn't. I can't stand when someone thinks they're making a point, but are missing it entirely. I've noticed this forum is full of those types.
                  Last edited by ROSS CALIFORNIA; 03-23-2008, 09:49 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by poet682006 View Post
                    I think your spot on about Dempsey's and Marciano's competition. Holmes and Johnson had better opponents than most people seem to think. Johnson, for example, fought all the great black fighters from the turn of the century. The problem is only boxing historians seem to know anything about them. Joe Jeanette is by all accounts a forgotten great and Johnson fought him multiple times. How many outside the boxing historian community even know who he is? Holmes is a bit easier to relate because most people have at least name recognition with his opponents. Holmes fought Earnie Shavers twice and he was a better fighter than anyone on "prime" Tyson's resume. In addition to Shavers, Holmes also fought Mike Weaver, Gerry Cooney, Ken Norton, and a young Tim Witherspoon. The only fighters of that calibre "prime" Tyson fought where Tony Tucker and Razor Ruddock. The rest of there competition I think is comparable. Not surprising since Tyson was coming up as Holmes was going out.

                    Poet
                    I think tyson fought a better set of fighters than Holmes. I think Bruno and Shavers are alike, but with bruno having a better chin And shavers having a better punch. Thomas, Holmes, Bruno, Ruddock, Biggs, tucker and Spinks (who holmes lost to twice) were all good fighters. As for Johnson, i am still un decided on whether he fought a better set of opponents.

                    RossCA, have some respect man. Lets try and have a decent debate. And as for poet not seeing tyson come up, he is probably older than you and have all of tysons fights (i know cose his sending them to me). As for him hating tyson...i agree :P

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RossCA View Post
                      Listen here, dumbass! When you read a statement by another person, don't allow your mind to fill in the blanks with BS! Where did I say Tyson was great because of how he looked coming up? And for you to think it doesn't matter how good a fighter looks against a tomato can, just goes to show your bias against Tyson. Yeah, a real Tyson hater. Probably because you weren't around when he was first coming up. If what he looked like coming up doesn't matter, then show me another heavyweight that looked just as good as Tyson, but never became anything. There isn't. I can't stand when someone thinks they're making a point, but are missing it entirely. I've noticed this forum is full of those types.
                      Listen up Douche Bag. I'm most likely older than you are. To put it in perspective I was around for the Ali - Frazier - Foreman fights; so yeah, obviously I was around for Tyson. A tomato can is just that: A no-hoper any fighter with an ounce of talent is SUPPOSED to beat and look good doing it. Looking sensational only counts when you do it against the best fighters out there. The problem you Tyson nut huggers have is you don't think with anything more than your half-rotted gonads. You get your jollies over quick KOs against nothing fighters. As for missing a point, you HAVE no point beyond being a fan-boy for your hero: The only points being made were made by me. I have no use at all for blind fandom, and Tyson testicle tuggers are the worst offenders out there (although the Mayweather crowd is getting close). You may have been entertained by Tyson: Fair enough. But do NOT confuse entertainment value with greatness: There's no relation between the two. So carry your little nuthugging fan-boy bootie somewhere else where someone of your intellect might feel more at home: A Seseme Street forum should be just right. Please leave these forums to people who are thinkers first, fans second.

                      Toodles Fan-Boy!

                      Poet

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP