How do you rate 90s Mike Tyson?

[The Old LefHook]

The gift of hindsight allows us to reappraise lisping Mike. The fact is he beat no great fighters near peak. Period. All his victories were against lesser pugs, albeit with some pretty decent fighters sprinkled among them. He made them look like scrubs. But whenever he shared the ring with a great, he got mault. Then people point to Spinks, an old light heavyweight absolutely made for him.

Dummies cry excuses for him all day long, just because he may have been the greatest combination puncher ever for a few years. He was an extremely dirty fighter, employing illegal arm locks, headbutts and elbow follow-through. His instinct was to hit every man again that he put on the canvas, unless he was too far away or the ref intervened.

Back in the 80's I didn't know all these things, or that he was shy on heart, and I was as excited as any other fan over this new marvelous phenomenon. At the time I didn't even notice he had no inside game. He didn't appear to need it. But you always need more tools for the right opponent.

He was a great heavyweight, and an even more exciting one, but not of the very top batch. He gets credit for what he did, not for what we think he may have been able to achieve under a more favorable set of circumstances.

[JAB5239]

He actually doesn't realize that it only took 3 belts to unify any championship and become undisputed champ back then? Holy Geez.

Kickball has never been the brightest bulb on the proverbial Christmas tree. But I do believe he is trying to cover his bases after claiming Tyson needed to "unify four belts" to get the Spinks fight. Sad thing is, he's still wrong..... again!!

[Dr. Z]

- -Like I say, the timeline is your friend.

So is history.

Time to study up...

What did I write that was historically wrong?

[Tatabanya]

Substance abuse and a long prison stint would diminish any heavyweight whose functionality depends on unusual speed and accurate power punching.

[thebrownbomber_]

The gift of hindsight allows us to reappraise lisping Mike. The fact is he beat no great fighters near peak. Period. All his victories were against lesser pugs, albeit with some pretty decent fighters sprinkled among them. He made them look like scrubs. But whenever he shared the ring with a great, he got mault. Then people point to Spinks, an old light heavyweight absolutely made for him.

Dummies cry excuses for him all day long, just because he may have been the greatest combination puncher ever for a few years. He was an extremely dirty fighter, employing illegal arm locks, headbutts and elbow follow-through. His instinct was to hit every man again that he put on the canvas, unless he was too far away or the ref intervened.

Back in the 80's I didn't know all these things, or that he was shy on heart, and I was as excited as any other fan over this new marvelous phenomenon. At the time I didn't even notice he had no inside game. He didn't appear to need it. But you always need more tools for the right opponent.

He was a great heavyweight, and an even more exciting one, but not of the very top batch. He gets credit for what he did, not for what we think he may have been able to achieve under a more favorable set of circumstances.

Yet you will include Lennox Lewis in your "very top batch" and count dudes like David Tua and shot versions of Tyson and Holyfield but give Tyson no credit for Holmes nor Spinks.

[ShoulderRoll]

The gift of hindsight allows us to reappraise lisping Mike. The fact is he beat no great fighters near peak. Period. All his victories were against lesser pugs, albeit with some pretty decent fighters sprinkled among them. He made them look like scrubs. But whenever he shared the ring with a great, he got mault. Then people point to Spinks, an old light heavyweight absolutely made for him.

Dummies cry excuses for him all day long, just because he may have been the greatest combination puncher ever for a few years. He was an extremely dirty fighter, employing illegal arm locks, headbutts and elbow follow-through. His instinct was to hit every man again that he put on the canvas, unless he was too far away or the ref intervened.

Back in the 80's I didn't know all these things, or that he was shy on heart, and I was as excited as any other fan over this new marvelous phenomenon. At the time I didn't even notice he had no inside game. He didn't appear to need it. But you always need more tools for the right opponent.

He was a great heavyweight, and an even more exciting one, but not of the very top batch. He gets credit for what he did, not for what we think he may have been able to achieve under a more favorable set of circumstances.

Spinks was an old light heavyweight? He was 31 at the time of the fight. But I bet you're one of those people that praise Marciano for beating 39-year-old Archie Moore.

Tyson had no inside game? What do you think the peekaboo is, an outside boxing style?

You really are a dunce aren't you? No wonder you have so few points.

[Tatabanya]

Spinks was an old light heavyweight? He was 31 at the time of the fight.

Many posters here are younger than one may think. Those who lived the pre-Tyson vs Spinks period surely remember that there were several experts who picked Spinks to win, such was the consideration he enjoyed after beating Larry Holmes twice (as debatable as those win were).

The problem with Tyson 1986-88 was that he made mincemeat of former champions, hasbeens and neverwases with identical ease. So, in the minds of the superficial observers, they were ALL tomato cans.

[The Old LefHook]

Spinks was an old light heavyweight? He was 31 at the time of the fight. But I bet you're one of those people that praise Marciano for beating 39-year-old Archie Moore.

Tyson had no inside game? What do you think the peekaboo is, an outside boxing style?

You really are a dunce aren't you? No wonder you have so few points.

Look, pal, thanks for exposing yourself as a registered, thoroughbred halfwit and making my job easier.

Yes, son, Tyson had a poor inside game, he was a lousy inside fighter. What do I think the peekaboo is? What do you think it is? Floyd Patterson must have been an inside fighter, too. You're a dense churl.

Now get out of here and go study up. All Tyson knew how to do inside is let himself be clinched up, and he had no idea how to actually fight out of a clinch.Tyson needed to fight at mid range. I am tired of explaining easy facts to dense churl wipes!

[ShoulderRoll]

Many posters here are younger than one may think. Those who lived the pre-Tyson vs Spinks period surely remember that there were several experts who picked Spinks to win, such was the consideration he enjoyed after beating Larry Holmes twice (as debatable as those win were).

The problem with Tyson 1986-88 was that he made mincemeat of former champions, hasbeens and neverwases with identical ease. So, in the minds of the superficial observers, they were ALL tomato cans.

Yeah, and Spinks was undefeated at the time as well as being the only reigning light heavyweight in history to become heavyweight champion.

LefHook doesn't know what he's talking about half the time.

[Tatabanya]

Yeah, and Spinks was undefeated at the time as well as being the only reigning light heavyweight in history to become heavyweight champion.

LefHook doesn't know what he's talking about half the time.

Well, you have disagreements with him on a couple of issues, and that can happen in a discussion.

But at least he does try a degree of analysis, whereas there are people over here who just want to attack whatever Tyson expert, or Tyson himself, for no apparent reason besides some childhood trauma of theirs...