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

[Eff Pandas]

Teddy is just bitter that Cus D’Amato chose Tyson over him.

The best parts of this interview is Atlas talking about his relationship with Cus & esp him digesting Cus picking Tyson over him.

Definitely worth a listen for anyone who hasn't heard the whole thing.

[Rikiishi]

I think the same as him, and what he said I apply to Julio Cesar Chavez. You can use jail as an excuse, the fact that he didn't train, drugs, women, etc. I love Tyson, but he is not among the greatest as they always want us to believe, legends know how to win and overcome everything against them. I say everything in the context of boxing, I find his personal life inspiring with his ups and downs. I used the translator in case my comment is not understood.

[unknowledgeablepugilist]

Holmes was lured out of retirement and Spinks being a LHW is important because he's known primarily and always will be for his work at LHW and he operated at his best there.

Those being his best or should say his premium wins says all you need to know.

You've just listed a litany of crackheads and I don't know why you mentioned the current day heavyweights no one is impressed with them, they're all mediocre apart from perhaps Usyk and he's still yet to prove it.

Holmes was lured at of retirement for a fight he believed he could win and went onto to compete at the highest level at heavyweight after the loss. Why are you disregarding the fact Holmes remained a credible fighter after losing to Tyson?

Furthermore, Spinks was a LHW but he was the man at heavyweight because he beat Holmes. Again why you disregarding important factors?

A litany of crackheads? Sure, Tucker had drug issues but wasn't he a credible champion at the time? I remember it being so. The only name I mentioned who at the time was suffering from severe drug issues was Pinklon Thomas.

Mike Tyson for all his flaws was an undisputed champion who beat any credible heavyweight available in the mid 80s, that's something very few heavyweights can claim. Was it a short peak? Yes but Frazier, Marciano, and Dempsey had short peaks themselves but there considered amongst the greatest themselves.

[unknowledgeablepugilist]

You don't have very good reading comprehension. He didn't make "everyone" look like a Volkswagen vs a Monster truck, he did that until he faced adversity, and then he failed every single time. He wasn't even competitive against Holyfield or Lewis for more than a couple of rounds. He was essentially a 4 round fighter other than a couple he went the distance and actually won in. Everything Atlas said is 100% true, he got his ass beat by anyone who wasn't defeated before entering the ring. He lost to Franz Botha and other bums because he was essentially Deontay Wilder after 1990, no skill, throwing bombs and trying to land one punch.

Was he a four round fighter or not because he won fair few decisions against Tony Tucker, Razor Ruddock, James Tillis, and Bonecrusher Smith. Plus he never lost to Botha and to say he lacked skill after 1990 is probably the most ludicrous statement I've ever read.

[ajamudc]

Did Teddy miss the Razor Ruddock fights? It sure looked like Tyson overcome a good fighter and puncher in those fights.

Yes, Tyson's prime was short for all the well known reasons, but he was absolutely the best of the late 80's and it wasn't even close.

[ruedboy]

I think Tyson was a bit of a frontrunner but Mike was "great" to watch and as a fan that's plenty for me.

[Boro]

Holmes was lured at of retirement for a fight he believed he could win and went onto to compete at the highest level at heavyweight after the loss. Why are you disregarding the fact Holmes remained a credible fighter after losing to Tyson?

Furthermore, Spinks was a LHW but he was the man at heavyweight because he beat Holmes. Again why you disregarding important factors?

A litany of crackheads? Sure, Tucker had drug issues but wasn't he a credible champion at the time? I remember it being so. The only name I mentioned who at the time was suffering from severe drug issues was Pinklon Thomas.

Mike Tyson for all his flaws was an undisputed champion who beat any credible heavyweight available in the mid 80s, that's something very few heavyweights can claim. Was it a short peak? Yes but Frazier, Marciano, and Dempsey had short peaks themselves but there considered amongst the greatest themselves.

Your being disingenuous about Spinks, beating Holmes might of made him the proverbial man but he packed it in as soon as he lost to Mike, it's not like he stayed and proved his mettle in the division...

As for Holmes all Holmes sticking about and getting title shots prove is the mediocrity throughout the division at the time, just like now it's top heavy and the rest are take it or leave it..

Who on earth considers Marciano, Dempsey or Frazier the greatest or amongst them? Frazier maybe the greatest left hook but that's about it.

[unknowledgeablepugilist]

Your being disingenuous about Spinks, beating Holmes might of made him the proverbial man but he packed it in as soon as he lost to Mike, it's not like he stayed and proved his mettle in the division...

As for Holmes all Holmes sticking about and getting title shots prove is the mediocrity throughout the division at the time, just like now it's top heavy and the rest are take it or leave it..

Who on earth considers Marciano, Dempsey or Frazier the greatest or amongst them? Frazier maybe the greatest left hook but that's about it.

Elaborate on how I'm being disingenuous? Because Spinks did beat at the time the best heavyweight twice, and was the lineal heavyweight champion. If you were around at the time, you would remember this fight was demanded to settle who was the best at heavyweight.

Holme's getting a title shot wasn't based off mediocrity but his ability to compete and beat a credible contender in Ray Mercer. I also disagree with the mindset of this era being top heavy.

I'd imagine many people consider Tyson, Dempsey, Frazier, and Marciano great even if there prime's were short. I'm curious how do you define greatness?

[paulf]

Love Teddy, but this is nothing but sour g****s.

Pre-prison Tyson fought all comers - he beat every guy in the below top ten except Witherspoon, because Witherspoon blasted out easily by Smith in one round, was upset by Douglas. Tyson became undisputed and wiped out the top ten in about a year and a half.

The Ring End-of-Year Heavyweight Rankings - 1986

1 - Michael Spinks, Champion KO 1 1988
2 - Mike Tyson
3 - James (Bonecrusher) Smith UD 12 1987
4 - Pinklon Thomas TKO 6 1987
5 - Tim Witherspoon
6 - Tony Tubbs KO 2 1988
7 - Trevor Berbick KO 2 1986
8 - James (Buster) Douglas
9 - Tony Tucker - UD 12 - 1987
10 - Frank Bruno KO 5 1989
11 - Tyrell Biggs KO 7 1987


Compare that to, say, Tyson Fury or Anthony Joshua - Look at a Ring year-end from their era, you'll see they've fought 2-3 guys on the list.

Mike was about as great as you can ****in' get.

[Boro]

Elaborate on how I'm being disingenuous? Because Spinks did beat at the time the best heavyweight twice, and was the lineal heavyweight champion. If you were around at the time, you would remember this fight was demanded to settle who was the best at heavyweight.

Holme's getting a title shot wasn't based off mediocrity but his ability to compete and beat a credible contender in Ray Mercer. I also disagree with the mindset of this era being top heavy.

I'd imagine many people consider Tyson, Dempsey, Frazier, and Marciano great even if there prime's were short. I'm curious how do you define greatness?

I didn't disagree about Spinks rematching holmes to prove it wasn't some "fluke" as people love to imply when a "dominate" heavyweight loses.

But that despite that fact, it doesn't change he (Spinks) didn't stick around to prove his mettle at heavyweight, he had an extremely short career (11 years 3 of which at heavy) and him retiring after the fight, you could argue devalues the win further.

As for Holmes being deserving of a title shot, he crushed some cans then got a fight with Mercer, who had done what exactly!? stopped the chinless boy wonder Tommy Morrison and had a competitive back and forth with the perpetual loser Bert Cooper, hardly an inspiring win for a shot at the belt...

I didn't say they weren't "great" but there is a big leap from "great" to "greatest", I don't know why you're struggling to comprehend that and why you feel i need to quantify greatness because your choice of words...