Comments Thread For: Teddy Atlas on Mike Tyson: I Don't Know If He Was Ever Great

[JT$615]

He was great. He had to dig deep to beat a prime Razor Ruddock who hit him with some brutal shots.

[juggernaut666]

Every fighter has different peaks at their absolute best this goes far more for fighters who rely on timing and speed and those if have to out out more energy in their style . Most short heavy weights are going to wear down more ,in Mikes case he basically used his best years up prior to his prison sentence he was never going to be the perfect offensive fighter anymore. He was no where near getting beat outside a fumbling of the Douglas fight but Atlas own assessment of him kills his own view of Tyson bc it’s the very definition of why a fighter is great .

Anyone can use a straw man argument and then add in his Second half career of his as detractors but that doesn’t erase the first one .

[CubanGuyNYC]

I agree with Teddy but I also will say something most people don’t about some fighters. Tyson was the type of man that PHYSICALLY was a man at a very young age. He had man like power, speed & athleticism at 15. He also peaked early because of it.
I also remember the Tyson loss to Douglass. I remember he had a lot of problems. I remember talk of his mental stability. I remember watching him do his ring walk and saying. “He looked sedated”. He didn’t have that Mike Tyson pacing tiger looking at dinner look. I remember that clearly.

I still say he was he was the most explosive, powerful (both hands), fastest footed heavy weight I’ve ever seen.
Greatest heavyweight? I don’t know. He peaked at 23 in my mind.
I think all great heavyweights have holes. He had the least in my mind.
Greatest fighters in my mind are 122-147.
and to be honest. Men under 122 are far faster.

I’ve said many times that an absolute peak Mike Tyson might’ve beaten any boxer that ever lived. But greatness isn’t just about one night, one shot; it’s about sustainability, and delivering under trying circumstances. Tyson looked breathtaking versus inferior opposition, but he came up short every time he faced a real test. You can make excuses, but there’s no denying it. And trust me, I’m a fan of his. There’s just no sense in pretending.

[archiemoore1]

As soon as i read this, I frowned, then i forgave Teddy almost immediately. Because i realized he drinks a lot of whiskey and vodka so he could be hung over from last night, or drunk right this second. And Whiskey and ******* go together too. So there could be more layers to this than meets the eye. So please don't judge Teddy for talking ******. He needs help. Get Teddy some coke, I mean, some help right away. Teddy needs a program, not judgement. By Teddy's criteria, there are almost no great fighters. Tyson was tested everytime he stepped in the ring. He's a heavyweight, he was a kid fighting big strong grown men and he was destroying them all in devastating fashion. He came into the pro game with grown man punching power and blazing speed and combinations. His head movement, his timing, his IQ was all impeccable. Mike was a bundle of dynamite. He could weave like Dempsey and square up or turn southpaw and throw the right to the body and head just like Sam Langford did. When he was 1st starting to be televised, I'd tell anyone who would listen u gotta see this Iron Mike Tyson. I used to get goose bumps on my arms and cry tears watching this man fight. Only a few fighters have ever had that effect on me. Cus created a fu..king monster, and Teddy can say what he wants. When Mike was around and at his best, everybody in the world knew who the champ was. Mike Tyson was one of the greatest fighters who ever lived

[Apollo7]

He has made up his own definition of great there so it's hard to argue with him. It's all subjective and he's entitled to his opinion.

[HeadShots]

he has a point in that Mike never came back in a fight. down on the scorecards in the 10th and had to win the next 2 rounds. Knocked down then come back to win. etc

He's never shown greatness in that sense.

[BetoMag]

It's difficult for me to analyze Tyson. I feel like the media made him better than he actually was. I'm Brazilian and the other day I watched Tyson vs Hollyfield I, with the Brazilian narration at the time, and it was ridiculous to hear the commentators saying things like "Tyson is much better technically than he was before prison". What fight were these guys watching? And of course... today YouTube is full of videos praising victories he had over ridiculous competition like McNeeley, Seldon and Mitch Green. Obviously he has good wins that overshadow mediocre performances. I'm talking about the way he ran over Spinks, but struggled against James Tillis. Anyway... every fight has its context. And I think the personality and the extra ring gossip contributed enormously to that. Just watch any video of Tyson doing something silly like throwing a punch in the air and it will be full of comments like "He hits like a 20 year old. Look at that godlike speed! He would be champion today."

[HeadShots]

He was great. He had to dig deep to beat a prime Razor Ruddock who hit him with some brutal shots.

he was up on the scorecards the whole time tho.


that is a huge psychological hurdle that he didn't have to overcome. when Tyson is down on the cards or knows he's losing, he did what he did in the 2nd Holyfield fight.

[SteveM]

People don't get the small percentages. They may be small but they make a huge difference. This is what leads to performance variance, one fight good and next fight bad.

People come up with all kind of crap to explain that - stuff like he fights down to his opponents level. No! That's a variance that plays into it. Namely, the variance is that that particular fighter lacks the ability to self motivate for lesser opponents.

Mike Tyson had so many issues that the variance swings in his career were huge. We can say that the best version of Tyson beats anyone, that the version that lost to Douglas and Holyfield wasn't the best version. But all the variances - physical; weight issues, injuries - mental; lack of motivation, lack of discipline, substance abuse etc emotional; depression; anger; and outside of ring; trainers dying, relatives messing up, promotional issues, car accidents, visa issues, - all of them lead to variance in performance.

Fans and the media refer to the best version of a fighter. Well there was a best version of Tyson but because of all the variance , much amplified in his case, we never saw the best version vs Holyfield but we can guess how that might have worked out.

[juanpablo]

Atlas, doubts his greatness and then proceeds to outline all the things that made him great haha. He made everyone look like Volkswagen and he was always the monster truck, always.

He was so great that his prime ended in 1989 but his aura and reputation earned him millions more for like 15 years (minus the years he was in prison) and he's still earning.

Everyone knew who Mike Tyson was in one way or another. I remember when he lost to Douglas that all the kids in the neighborhood where out on the street saying "Tyson lost, Tyson lost!" and another kid came out saying "Wait, Tyson is real? I thought he was just a video game character" lol.

Greatness is not linear, Ali wasn't great just because of his ring accolades, MJ wasn't great just because of his ability to play basketball. Tyson is a story of resiliency, ups and downs, boxing successes and failures, and contributing to the globalization of the sport in ways that not too many have done.