How could Mike Tyson be overrated when he was well under 6 feet tall?

[HitmanTommy]

How can you be overrated when you are under 6 feet tall in the heavyweight division?

Dude was at a severe height, reach and size disadvantage in the vast majority of his fights.

Dude was dropping fighters twice his size.

[GrandpaBernard]

In boxing size is measured by weight followed by height and reach

Weightclasses not heightclasses

[HitmanTommy]

In boxing size is measured by weight followed by height and reach

Weightclasses not heightclasses

Yes.... And he was at a severe disadvantage in height and reach.

[GrandpaBernard]

Yes.... And he was at a severe disadvantage in height and reach.

maybe we should start with underrating your fav Tommy Hearns because of his advantage in height and reach over many

Dude was even rangier than his good middleweight friend MMH

[johnbook]

Ya got a point.

Though I don't mind much as Mike was dirty as hell.
Forearms, elbows, hitting on break, and arm locks to dislocate shoulder.

[kushking]

How can you be overrated when you are under 6 feet tall in the heavyweight division?

Dude was at a severe height, reach and size disadvantage in the vast majority of his fights.

Dude was dropping fighters twice his size.

I actually agree completely but the problem with that is that he was always a natural heavyweight & was unable to fight at lower weights. If he had started at lower weights & moved up I think he would be remembered as an atg p4p,but the fact he was at such a size disadvantage meant he lost his biggest fights against much heavier, naturally bigger guys in several of them & as a result he wasn't as "accomplished" as he could've been had he fought at cw or even lhw coming up.

[boliodogs]

Heavyweights are rated by how good they are as heavyweights. It's a weight class not a height class. It makes no difference if you are 5 feet 10 inches or 7 feet tall. You are rated on how good you are. Tyson was a full big heavyweight who weighed a lean hard 220 pounds in his prime. That is heavier than a prime Foreman, Liston or Ali and much heavier than a prime Louis or Dempsey. Any heavyweight who could beat a prime Tyson is a better heavyweight than Tyson. Simple as that.

[kushking]

maybe we should start with underrating your fav Tommy Hearns because of his advantage in height and reach over many

Dude was even rangier than his good middleweight friend MMH

Hearns was very slim though coming up,he resembled Crawford or sweat pea in a larger height. And there was day before weigh ins for many Hearn fights contrary to misconceptions going around. And Hearns was usually always underweight compared to his opponents. Back then many fighters came in below the limit for both day of & next day weigh ins,Hearn is one of them.

Just goes to show that back then fighters might've been better because they were hungrier & didn't give a fck about anything besides being the baddest mutha fcka they can be.

They would throw bombs back then til they literally would collapse after the fight. Nowadays fighters are able to fight another few rds when the fights over(to protect them obviously) but thats the pt fighters of yesteryear warent worried about losses til the Hagler era basically is when fighters started caring about being undefeated so much. Hagler basically retired because he lost.

Leonard vs Hagler reminds me a tiny bit of nelo vs ggg.

The judges cards for those fights mirrored ggg v nelo 1 & they were both equally competitive to where a draw was just. And imho Nelo deserved the win for controlling the fight & making ggg fight his fight instead of his usual just as in Leonard vs Hagler. But both fights had their own valid pts in both those fights.

[boliodogs]

maybe we should start with underrating your fav Tommy Hearns because of his advantage in height and reach over many

Dude was even rangier than his good middleweight friend MMH

I don't think he would like that at all.