Mike Ruler: "Mike Tyson is overrated"

[Karlos81]

Disagree. Ali would dance the whole night. You remember he did that against Smokin' Joe II and III. And by the 10th round Tyson would be frustrated because he wouldn't be able to land. You said Larry Holmes fought in a bad era, but Mike didn't? Oh, I forgot the great Michael Spinks, who sticks his chin out further than Quagmire...

I was implying both Holmes and Tyson fought in poor eras.

[Scott9945]

I was implying both Holmes and Tyson fought in poor eras.

Holmes fought in the better time period for heavyweights. But on the other hand he never fought too many of them (Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Thomas, etc.)

[Thread Stealer]

Disagree. Ali would dance the whole night. You remember he did that against Smokin' Joe II and III. And by the 10th round Tyson would be frustrated because he wouldn't be able to land. You said Larry Holmes fought in a bad era, but Mike didn't? Oh, I forgot the great Michael Spinks, who sticks his chin out further than Quagmire...

what are you talking about? The 70s Ali didn't dance much, especially the Ali of the third Frazier fight. He didn't have the legs to that much, but he countered off the ropes very effectively and had a lot of intangibles and toughness to fall back on when his physical skills weren't what they once were. Most guys would have crumbled under the wiltering body attack that Joe laid on Ali in Manila, but Ali had an insane ability to take punishment to the body (and an excellent chin).

There are many arguments if you choose to do so to claim that Tyson was overrated (In reality, he is both overrated and underrated as every fighter is since it all depends on doing the rating), but you argument is based on a simple 'who did he beat?' when you can say that about many heavyweight champs (and HOFers for that matter of any weight class).

I suggest you watch more videos and learn more about the history of boxing.

You've already claimed that Ali danced in Manila, that Carmen Basilio was the 2nd greatest MW ever, and left Monzon and Greb out of the top 5 at 160.

[Thread Stealer]

Holmes fought in the better time period for heavyweights. But on the other hand he never fought too many of them (Dokes, Coetzee, Page, Thomas, etc.)

If the internet was around and real popular in the early 80s like it is today, Larry Holmes would have been crucified the way someone like Floyd Mayweather is today.

Never unifying with a WBA titleholder, not giving rematches to those who gave him such tough bouts (Weaver, Spoon, Norton), consecutively fighting guys whom had less than 15 pro fights, getting stripped of the WBC title for not fighting Greg Page.

That being said, I can't blame Larry for not fighting Gerrie Coetzee, whom I believe had the WBA belt when they were supposed to fight. Holmes had signed to fight, but the fight fell thru when the promoter went bankrupt and was caught doing some shady dealings.

[Dynamite76]

mitch "blood" green hahaha

In all honesty, Mitch probably threw that fight to some degree.Not to say Tyson wouldn't have won, but Mitch would've given better effort if not for outside interference.

[uncle pauly]

Tyson had a real unfortunate career in my opinion. In his absolute prime(1987 and 1988) he would have been competitive with any HW champ in history. I believe that. His first loss against Douglas did expose Tyson as a bit one dimensional. I don't believe he was properly prepared for that fight. BUT HE DID LOSE. A really great champ figures out a way to win when he is down in a fight or at least comes back in a rematch and settles the score. Tyson did not do this.

As for the rest of his losses: Holyfield, Lewis and the 2 journeymen.

Come on!!!! Does any hard core boxing fan who really follows the sport think that the Tyson that lost to any of these guys was even 70% of his prime.

Let's break this down:

Holyfield- This would have been a real good fight even if Tyson was 22. The question would be this. Does prime Tyson beat a 34 year old Holyfield or a 25 year old Holfield. In my opinion the older Holyfield would have been the competitive one. The young Holyfield(205lbs) would have been kayoed early by Tyson. The older Holyfield would have employed the same 1996 tactics against Tyson. I think Tyson still would have kayoed the older Holyfield but in the LATER rounds.

Lennox Lewis- Lewis would have been kayoed against prime Tyson. Regardless of whether it was young Lewis or older Lewis. Tyson's speed, power, angles, and great head movement would have been overwhelming to Lennox. I will say this. Lewis might have kayoed Tyson coming in with that killer right upper cut or right hand down the pipe. Lewis would have been dangerous no matter what.

The journeymen: These last 2 losses of Tyson's wouldn't have even been sparring partners for Prime Tyson.


These are just my thoughts. I have been watching boxing religously since 1985.

[Jim Jeffries]

Tyson had a real unfortunate career in my opinion. In his absolute prime(1987 and 1988) he would have been competitive with any HW champ in history. I believe that. His first loss against Douglas did expose Tyson as a bit one dimensional. I don't believe he was properly prepared for that fight. BUT HE DID LOSE. A really great champ figures out a way to win when he is down in a fight or at least comes back in a rematch and settles the score. Tyson did not do this.

As for the rest of his losses: Holyfield, Lewis and the 2 journeymen.

Come on!!!! Does any hard core boxing fan who really follows the sport think that the Tyson that lost to any of these guys was even 70% of his prime.

Let's break this down:

Holyfield- This would have been a real good fight even if Tyson was 22. The question would be this. Does prime Tyson beat a 34 year old Holyfield or a 25 year old Holfield. In my opinion the older Holyfield would have been the competitive one. The young Holyfield(205lbs) would have been kayoed early by Tyson. The older Holyfield would have employed the same 1996 tactics against Tyson. I think Tyson still would have kayoed the older Holyfield but in the LATER rounds.

Lennox Lewis- Lewis would have been kayoed against prime Tyson. Regardless of whether it was young Lewis or older Lewis. Tyson's speed, power, angles, and great head movement would have been overwhelming to Lennox. I will say this. Lewis might have kayoed Tyson coming in with that killer right upper cut or right hand down the pipe. Lewis would have been dangerous no matter what.

The journeymen: These last 2 losses of Tyson's wouldn't have even been sparring partners for Prime Tyson.


These are just my thoughts. I have been watching boxing religously since 1985.

Is there anyone in boxing history that you think a prime Tyson couldn't beat? Just curious.

[JL FightFan]

Well put Uncle Pauly.

[MELLY-MEL...]

Tyson was great, and greater for the sport. He is not the best heavy as some claim, but he is a serious threat in his prime to anyone, and is a legend!

[TheGreatA]

I concentrate on this Tyson but even Mike IN HIS PRIME was prone to getting clinched and was often hit by big uppercuts.

This is why I believe Holyfield and Lewis could beat him even if Tyson was in his prime.

Tyson has a greater chance to beat them in his prime of course because he kept his composure during fights, fought smarter and didn't just swing for the fences.