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

[robertzimmerman]

Made a thread on here a while ago stating Joshua has a better resume than TYSON did before he lost to Douglas.

People on here trying to convince me a washed up retired Larry Holmes was better win than wlad ��

Tyson fanboy’s are something else

That would make a good debate, looking at how good they were as fighters, and what they'd done prior to been beaten as well as what they went onto achieve afterwards etc.

I rate the Holmes win highly.

Sure, of course he was past his best. But years after, he gave a prime Evander a tough night and beat a guy like Mercer. He was still a top 10 HW into his 40's. Mike destroyed him and was the only person to do so in a 75 fight career. So it has to be classed as being credible.

[robertzimmerman]

If you give Lennox a credit for beating old Tyson, than you must also give Joshua and Tyson Fury a credit for beating old Klitschko, Holmes for beating old Ali and Mike Tyson for beating old Holmes.

Who really gives Lennox credit for beating Mike?

Does Danny Williams get a lot of credit?

[robertzimmerman]

Berbick, Tucker, Thomas and Tubs

Had Mike NOT collect all them belts, it would have been an embarrassment.

I can't think of a single HW those fake champs would have beaten today. Even Haye would have swept up those belts.

Mike was one fortunate fu ck and that's why his reign didn't last. A person has to eventually wake up from a dream.

Another ignorant post.

[robertzimmerman]

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.

Do you want an objective debate or not?

Who has said that Mike was unbeatable?

Not me.

I have said that IMHO, guys like Evander and Lennox could always have beaten any version of Mike. But if you don't believe that Mike's flaws as a person had a great affect on his career, then you are not in any way being objective.

James Douglas was not a clear step up in competition. And if you can't see the glaring differences between the versions of Mike who fought Spinks and Holmes, to the ones who fought Evander and Lennox, then you're completely lost.

[Curtis Harper]

Another ignorant post.

Followed by.......

Do you want an objective debate or not?

I think we can gather I'm the only one capable of being objective. Those 4 part time ''champs'' that I mentioned wouldn't be champs in any era. Tyson was not special by beating them at a young age.

[robertzimmerman]

Followed by.......





I think we can gather I'm the only one capable of being objective. Those 4 part time ''champs'' that I mentioned wouldn't be champs in any era. Tyson was not special by beating them at a young age.

No, you haven't in any way been objective you fool.

Get real.

Go and reread your silly posts.

Of course Mike was special.

If you can't see that you're ignorant.

You're also ignorant if you think that Douglas was a step up, and that Mike wasn't affected by his flaws as a person.

Either debate properly or move along and stop wasting my time.

[Ghosthammer]

Tyson beat the shi* out of everybody that would let him beat the shi* out of them. Power alone, as history tells us, means sod all against a more technically proficient fighter. History is littered with *monsters* who wouldn't make many peoples fabled top ten list. In his prime he was a handful, did he really live up to his potential? Probably not. Was he overated? That's subjectibe and can never be answered. Unless you beat every single opponent you face, without any accusations of ducking the best of your era/weight class, can you actually be called great? Cant be many fighters, If any, that fulfill that critera. Imo.

[robertzimmerman]

Tyson beat the shi* out of everybody that would let him beat the shi* out of them. Power alone, as history tells us, means sod all against a more technically proficient fighter. History is littered with *monsters* who wouldn't make many peoples fabled top ten list. In his prime he was a handful, did he really live up to his potential? Probably not. Was he overated? That's subjectibe and can never be answered. Unless you beat every single opponent you face, without any accusations of ducking the best of your era/weight class, can you actually be called great? Cant be many fighters, If any, that fulfill that critera. Imo.

You can't use criteria like that.

[Luisbot2000]

Followed by.......





I think we can gather I'm the only one capable of being objective. Those 4 part time ''champs'' that I mentioned wouldn't be champs in any era. Tyson was not special by beating them at a young age.

Dude, is your iq over 70? You sound ******ed rn. Go to bed.

[Curtis Harper]

No, you haven't in any way been objective you fool.

Get real.

Go and reread your silly posts.

Of course Mike was special.

If you can't see that you're ignorant.

You're also ignorant if you think that Douglas was a step up, and that Mike wasn't affected by his flaws as a person.

Either debate properly or move along and stop wasting my time.

Sheep said what ???