Let’s be honest - Mike Tyson was overrated as fu.ck

[SweetPbfAli]

I only dislike how people want to act like Tyson's prime was a 3 year window from the age of 18 to 21.

Has to literally be the shortest prime in any career ever for any sport as an elite athlete. That didnt result in retirement, career ending injury or death.

You can argue that Bowe had an even shorter prime than Tyson.

[robertzimmerman]

I only dislike how people want to act like Tyson's prime was a 3 year window from the age of 18 to 21.

Has to literally be the shortest prime in any career ever for any sport as an elite athlete. That didnt result in retirement, career ending injury or death.

It was a very short window.

It's the truth though.

1985-1989.

4 years where he was at his absolute best, training and fighting to his full capabilities.

The wheels came off from the first Bruno fight.

James Douglas had a lot of ability and he was an underachiever. But he wasn't a step up in competition.

Mike had taken his eye off the ball and his erratic lifestyle and lack of focus caused his downfall.

He could still fight in his 30's, but his peak ended at just 24. Sad but true.

I'm British. I don't know if you're familiar with football players - George Best and Paul (Gazza) Gascoigne, but they too were finished at a similar age.

They still carried on into their 30's showing flashes of greatness, but they were never as good as what they'd been before they were 24/25.

[robertzimmerman]

It's just an excuse to try and make it seem like Tyson was magically inferior by 1990. He was still in his prime when he fought Ruddock.

People just have this misconception because Tyson stopped 1 round knocking people out.

The competition just improved. Ruddock, Holyfield, Lennox aren't sunday service shuttle drivers.

It's not an excuse.

The signs were there in the first Bruno fight.

You can't just claim he was in his prime due to his age.

James Douglas was not a step up in competition.

Ruddock was not a step up in competition.

Those guys weren't on another level to Tucker, Bruno, Spinks and Holmes etc.

Of course Evander and Lennox both were.

[robertzimmerman]

As to your first comment, one of the reasons why Tyson is difficult for some to properly assess is because he was not consistent WRT his mental strength/focus/dedication. While some boxers may be consistently mentally strong (Ex: Marciano or Hagler) or mentally weak (Ex: Victor Ortiz or Kermit Cintrón), Tyson was both--depending on the phase of his career and the circumstances. The reason for this is that Tyson was never in love with boxing per se; rather, boxing was a means by which Tyson could win the approval and love of those near and dear to him--first and foremost his mentor and adoptive father Cus D'Amato, but also his very close friend Jimmy Jacobs, his wife Robin Givens, and Kevin Rooney and Steve Lott. Tyson WAS supremely motivated to please these people, and would go to great lengths to do so. However, fate dealt Tyson a rather difficult set of cards, with the death of D'Amato in 1985, the death of Jacobs in 1988, the loss of Givens also in 1988, etc.

Once Cus and Jimmy had died and Robin had left him, Don King persuaded Tyson to fire both Rooney and Lott. When all of these five were out of the picture, boxing no longer offered Tyson an avenue by which to win the strokes he so desperately needed. To compound the problem, Don King's primary tactic for exerting control over Tyson was to convince Mike that he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, that his **** didn't stink, that he could do no wrong, etc. In other words, where Tyson's sincere allies used both "carrots" and "sticks" to motivate him, and demanded very high standards in training, dedication, etc. in order to "win" praise, King used the "love bomb" approach of cults to seduce Tyson and never insisted that DO anything to remain in his good graces--as, of course, King was a narcissist who didn't give a flying f&$k about Tyson's long-term success.

As to your second comment, while Tyson had some tremendous physical attributes as a boxer--a unique combination of speed and power, a fantastic chin and excellent reflexes, he was never gifted with the kind of innate hand-eye coordination or kinesthetic skills that characterize athletes such as Roger Federer, Floyd Mayweather, Larry Bird, etc. As a consequence, for Tyson to be capable of using the D'Amato technique of consistently moving his head, slipping punches and landing bunches of fast, pinpoint punches in return over the course of a long fight he needed to constantly drill the techniques D'Amato and Rooney taught him; he was incapable of achieving greatness while "half-assing it". One sees this immediately with his bout vs. Frank Bruno in 1989, where Tyson was probably hit with more clean punches in 5 rounds than he had been in his entire career up to that point.

Great post mate. But don't expect that clown to appreciate it.

[robertzimmerman]

As to your first comment, one of the reasons why Tyson is difficult for some to properly assess is because he was not consistent WRT his mental strength/focus/dedication. While some boxers may be consistently mentally strong (Ex: Marciano or Hagler) or mentally weak (Ex: Victor Ortiz or Kermit Cintrón), Tyson was both--depending on the phase of his career and the circumstances. The reason for this is that Tyson was never in love with boxing per se; rather, boxing was a means by which Tyson could win the approval and love of those near and dear to him--first and foremost his mentor and adoptive father Cus D'Amato, but also his very close friend Jimmy Jacobs, his wife Robin Givens, and Kevin Rooney and Steve Lott. Tyson WAS supremely motivated to please these people, and would go to great lengths to do so. However, fate dealt Tyson a rather difficult set of cards, with the death of D'Amato in 1985, the death of Jacobs in 1988, the loss of Givens also in 1988, etc.

Once Cus and Jimmy had died and Robin had left him, Don King persuaded Tyson to fire both Rooney and Lott. When all of these five were out of the picture, boxing no longer offered Tyson an avenue by which to win the strokes he so desperately needed. To compound the problem, Don King's primary tactic for exerting control over Tyson was to convince Mike that he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, that his **** didn't stink, that he could do no wrong, etc. In other words, where Tyson's sincere allies used both "carrots" and "sticks" to motivate him, and demanded very high standards in training, dedication, etc. in order to "win" praise, King used the "love bomb" approach of cults to seduce Tyson and never insisted that DO anything to remain in his good graces--as, of course, King was a narcissist who didn't give a flying f&$k about Tyson's long-term success.

As to your second comment, while Tyson had some tremendous physical attributes as a boxer--a unique combination of speed and power, a fantastic chin and excellent reflexes, he was never gifted with the kind of innate hand-eye coordination or kinesthetic skills that characterize athletes such as Roger Federer, Floyd Mayweather, Larry Bird, etc. As a consequence, for Tyson to be capable of using the D'Amato technique of consistently moving his head, slipping punches and landing bunches of fast, pinpoint punches in return over the course of a long fight he needed to constantly drill the techniques D'Amato and Rooney taught him; he was incapable of achieving greatness while "half-assing it". One sees this immediately with his bout vs. Frank Bruno in 1989, where Tyson was probably hit with more clean punches in 5 rounds than he had been in his entire career up to that point.

Great post mate. But don't expect that clown to appreciate it.

[robertzimmerman]

Tysons persona is what confuses people.

They quickly (conveniently) forget how awful he was when matched with a real opponent. Had Tyson fought real threats sooner, he would be a better version of Jimmy Thunder.

It happens when promoters keep their cash cow safe in bubbles.

Mike fought good fighters.

He didn't just lose because he stepped up his competition.

Unless you're going to factor in is obvious flaws as a person which affected his downfall, you're not being objective.

[Curtis Harper]

Mike fought good fighters.

He didn't just lose because he stepped up his competition.

Unless you're going to factor in is obvious flaws as a person which affected his downfall, you're not being objective.

When Tyson was winning, he was the shlt. Unbeatable.
When he stepped up and got owned, time to roll out the excuses.

Everyone looks unbeatable when they fight stiffs. Just ask Broner.

[robertzimmerman]

Of course he was. His best win is old Holmes. And even prime Tyson lost against Douglas.

People complain Joshua lost against Ruiz. Tyson at age of 24 ( his prime) lost against Douglas. the same Douglas was knocked out in his next fight against Holyfield.

So people should stop acting like Mike Tyson was some special fighter.

Of course Mike was a special fighter.

Get real.

Look at his size and his style.

Look at how he beat guys.

Is he overrated by some guys? Sure. But most fighters are both overrated and underrated.

If you look objectively, Mike was one of the top 20 greatest HW's of all time.

What lets him down is his longevity due to his flaws as a person.

You can't just claim that he was prime when he lost to Douglas due to his age. He clearly wasn't his best at that point. Is that just an opinion? No, it's a fact. It's a fact that he'd lost focus and looked like a different fighter even before he fought Douglas. It's a fact that he didn't train properly and was getting bashed up by Greg Page in sparring. We have the footage available as well as candid accounts from people who was around him at the time.

Douglas was not a step up in competition, and he did not fight the focused versions of Mike who'd fought guys like Spinks and Holmes.

And no, Evander didn't fight the SAME version of Douglas who fought Evander.

Stop being ignorant.

[robertzimmerman]

I am not big fan of Wilder, but Wilder does exactly what Tyson did. he stops all mediocre opposition. If Wilder beats Joshua, Ruiz and Fury, he will be remembered as better than Mike Tyson, for sure.

Wilder is nowhere near as skilled as Mike and he has struggled with C class guys before his power has bailed him out.

If Wilder were to beat those guys, that would be very impressive. But we'd have objectively rate the wins, looking at all of the relevant factors.

[robertzimmerman]

He couldn't even batter Douglas in his prime and Douglas wouldn't last 5 rds in the ring with AJ.

Each post you make, the more we all cringe.