Mike Tyson is Underrated Historically

[DA1CATAS]

LOL! Much better language usage. I hate it when people put a phony "street" slant on their posts.

PS. I'm not an easy KO victim by any means. Whether you actually CAN or not who knows? I'm not normally in the habit of street brawling as such behavior usually leads to incarceration. As for the other guy, he wanted to sound tough so naturally I punked him out.

Poet

lol... white flag taken. No more quarrel with me.

guess I'll go to sleep...


P.S. helmet warrior avatar dude be serious... he was given key to the city after his **** convictions, YES AFTER, across seas at that. He is the most loved even with his ridiculous attitude. Don't be blatantly wrong like that. He's sorta like a child that ya care for even though they are bad. All races like him. Sorta like michael jackson.

his death would be mourned forever. people feel bad for him and in turn love him because of the way his life turned out. peace i gotta sleep.. had some good sparring today :

[S A M U R A I]

Crazy how Mike can cause such arguments!

Gotta hand it to him, he creates a reaction whether you love or hate him. He's been good for boxing.

Me personally, I like Mike a lot.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

[Brassangel]

First of all, it wasn't a "prime" Mike Tyson who lost to Buster Douglas. In fact, we only got to see a prime version of Tyson for about 2 fights. He was a kid when he first won a world championship. As a kid, he cleaned out the division. He was still very green, and Rooney had a long way to go with him.

The first time we saw Mike matured was in his fight with Spinks. He trained in preparation for that fight to go the full 12 rounds at that pace. Frightening. He was impossibly elusive, and his reflexes were faster than any seen in the division's history. Ringside folks with stopwatches said his "duck and spring" was faster than even Ali's reflexes. He would have decimated any heavyweight in history in 1988.

Consider what gave Ali trouble; slipping of punches, springy reflexes, and an ability to cut off the ring. Mike did all of those things better than Joe Frazier or Ken Norton, he hit harder, and he weighed 217 pounds with a 19.5 inch neck. Ali wouldn't have been able to push him down by resting on his head. Where Frazier couldn't finish Ali in the 11th when he had him out on his feet, Tyson would have ended the contest. Furthermore, he came out much faster than Joe.

Does that make him the greatest of all-time? Certainly not. Head-to-head matchups are entirely speculative, and can't be weighed in that argument. Reign, overall record, etc., have to be included. Strength of competition is relative. Just because the names were big in the 60's and 70's doesn't mean that those guys could beat anyone from any era. I'd be hard pressed to watch those 6'2" 205 pound guys from Ali's era taking on Lennox Lewis and coming out with all of their teeth.

Back on topic:

The Mike Tyson who lost to Douglas was no longer with Rooney, and it showed in the previous fights with Bruno and Williams. He was lazy, flat-footed, didn't use defense as an offense, and his mid-section was actually quite soft in his fight with Douglas. He was hung over, riding on 4 hours of sleep, and 6 pounds above his usual weight. Rooney was ringside, despite not being in his corner anymore and commented after the fight, "Tyson was fat... he looked fat... One look at Douglas told me Mike was in trouble..."

Douglas came in 12 pounds lighter than usual (and he put on 15 before fighting Holyfield), and was sharp as a laser. He could have given anyone fits that night, let alone a fighter who didn't train seriously for the contest.

I'm not trying to take away from what Buster did, because even a "best" Tyson would have been given trouble, but the Tyson that showed up in 1988 to the fight with Spinks would have ended it after 4-5 tough rounds. Then he would have demolished Holyfield, and reigned until the mid-90's.

Furthermore, the world gives Ali a pass for his decline in skill following a 3.5 year layoff, while they don't take Tyson's 4 year layoff into consideration. Ali fought 2 top tier contenders (Bonavena and Quarry) for 18 rounds before tackling Frazier. He was prepared. Tyson fought a whopping 9 rounds against tomato cans before fighting Holyfield. He wasn't ready for the headbutt of doom.

It was a mental thing for Tyson, not a skill thing. He deserves to be a top 10 all-time heavyweight simply for his skill at such a young age, and the way in which he cleared out the division. And let's face it, in the head-to-head match, he was a student enough of the sport, and so talented that I wouldn't give anybody favorable odds. His dominance is ultimately what lead to his loss of interest. Well, that and Don King.

[MatteoAlderson]

I totally agree with the last post, but you know what gets me, is Evander Holyfield. He gets so much credit and he is a legendary heavy, but after he beat Douglas, Tyson wanted the Holyfield fight and the Duvas said "No we are going to fight Formeman for 20 million first to milk the title." So Tyson went after Ruddock who was hot after almost killing Dokes and then the fight never happened because of the **** stuff. Maybe Evander's mental foritude, the thing that enabled him to beat Ricky Womack, another bully in the amateurs would have overcame Mike when he was significantly better, maybe not. I like Mike and won lots of money betting against Evander in first Bowe and first Moorer fights.

[KostyaTszyu44]

Tyson is overrated as hell...I honestly don't know how you can consider him under rated

[KostyaTszyu44]

"prime tyson's speed and power were incredible he would demolish anyone blah blah"

that seems to be the general argument from the tyson nuthuggers on why tyson was so great

tyson was a very good fighter with exceptional talent, but he lacked heart, discipline and of course a brain

he achieved a lot in a short span, but doesnt have any really great wins over great fighters on his resume (besides michael spinks maybe) and i dont think he would have beaten a prime holyfield, ali etc

the whole tyson cult also has a strong basis on fantasy matchups "prime mike vs prime anyone mike would **** him up etc" well the point is mike didnt fight ali or frazier etc and he probably would have lost anyway

tyson fans can speculate all they want about fantasy matchups etc but it doesnt change the fact that mike doesnt have too many great wins and he was knocked out james douglas when he was at his physical peak, and no "didnt train" excuses, the point is he lost

[Dave Rado]

First of all, it wasn't a "prime" Mike Tyson who lost to Buster Douglas. In fact, we only got to see a prime version of Tyson for about 2 fights. He was a kid when he first won a world championship. As a kid, he cleaned out the division. He was still very green, and Rooney had a long way to go with him.

The first time we saw Mike matured was in his fight with Spinks. He trained in preparation for that fight to go the full 12 rounds at that pace. Frightening. He was impossibly elusive, and his reflexes were faster than any seen in the division's history. Ringside folks with stopwatches said his "duck and spring" was faster than even Ali's reflexes. He would have decimated any heavyweight in history in 1988.

Consider what gave Ali trouble; slipping of punches, springy reflexes, and an ability to cut off the ring. Mike did all of those things better than Joe Frazier or Ken Norton, he hit harder, and he weighed 217 pounds with a 19.5 inch neck. Ali wouldn't have been able to push him down by resting on his head. Where Frazier couldn't finish Ali in the 11th when he had him out on his feet, Tyson would have ended the contest. Furthermore, he came out much faster than Joe.

Does that make him the greatest of all-time? Certainly not. Head-to-head matchups are entirely speculative, and can't be weighed in that argument. Reign, overall record, etc., have to be included. Strength of competition is relative. Just because the names were big in the 60's and 70's doesn't mean that those guys could beat anyone from any era. I'd be hard pressed to watch those 6'2" 205 pound guys from Ali's era taking on Lennox Lewis and coming out with all of their teeth.

Back on topic:

The Mike Tyson who lost to Douglas was no longer with Rooney, and it showed in the previous fights with Bruno and Williams. He was lazy, flat-footed, didn't use defense as an offense, and his mid-section was actually quite soft in his fight with Douglas. He was hung over, riding on 4 hours of sleep, and 6 pounds above his usual weight. Rooney was ringside, despite not being in his corner anymore and commented after the fight, "Tyson was fat... he looked fat... One look at Douglas told me Mike was in trouble..."

Douglas came in 12 pounds lighter than usual (and he put on 15 before fighting Holyfield), and was sharp as a laser. He could have given anyone fits that night, let alone a fighter who didn't train seriously for the contest.

I'm not trying to take away from what Buster did, because even a "best" Tyson would have been given trouble, but the Tyson that showed up in 1988 to the fight with Spinks would have ended it after 4-5 tough rounds. Then he would have demolished Holyfield, and reigned until the mid-90's.

Furthermore, the world gives Ali a pass for his decline in skill following a 3.5 year layoff, while they don't take Tyson's 4 year layoff into consideration. Ali fought 2 top tier contenders (Bonavena and Quarry) for 18 rounds before tackling Frazier. He was prepared. Tyson fought a whopping 9 rounds against tomato cans before fighting Holyfield. He wasn't ready for the headbutt of doom.

It was a mental thing for Tyson, not a skill thing. He deserves to be a top 10 all-time heavyweight simply for his skill at such a young age, and the way in which he cleared out the division. And let's face it, in the head-to-head match, he was a student enough of the sport, and so talented that I wouldn't give anybody favorable odds. His dominance is ultimately what lead to his loss of interest. Well, that and Don King.

Good post except that the things that you say gave Ali trouble only gave him trouble after his long lay-off, when he could no longer dance for fifteen rounds and his reactions had slowed. A peak Ali (around 1966) toys with a peak Tyson from the outside, IMO. I don't think he could have beaten a peak Louis or Foreman either, even at the time of the Spinks fight. But in general terms I agree with your analysis. It's terribly sad how much talent King wasted/destroyed.

[Pugilistic™]

I disagree.

In my opinion Tyson is one of the most overated fighters ever.

[leemoorcroft]

tyson a good fighter in peak but we seen much beter late 90s holyfeild lewis adn bowe cobe classes as beter tyson never won one proper show down his best was bruno hes said himself and bruno was a c clas fighter losein to douglas showed he aint the real deal he was champ when the divsion was poor like it is now he did revive it with that scary look of his but when the next crop came threw lewis and co he wernt up to scratch tyson in my eyes finishes a top 20 fighter out of top ten ali rocky marcharno joe louis lennox lewis joe fraizer jack dempsey holyfeild george foreman sonny liston holmes

[tommy boo boxer]

Man, i love mike!!!!

but...


TYSON = OVERRATED