Mike Tyson: Was he good or bad for the sport?

[Rockin']

Tyson has been better for the sport rather than bad, much better for the sport............Rockin'

[Scopedog]

Pretty good video, I think the guy makes his points well and I do somewhat agree. The only thing I disagree with is his assessment that boxing is more about fine technique than raw violence. This is an argument that's been staged ad infinitum in the boxing community, and both perspectives have merit (realistically it's a mix of both) but with or without Tyson, you can't argue against the following:

1: Knockouts are the highlight of the sport and the source of the biggest rush. For instance, what would the average viewer derive more satisfaction from, the typical Guillermo Rigondeaux fight or Povetkin splattering Whyte, for instance? Even amongst the most hardcore technical boxing afficionados who might really enjoy the former, there aren't probably that many who'd go wild for it the way most people did for the latter.

2. While many boxers might fashion themselves as technicians and try and elevate themselves according to their skills, more will try and distinguish themselves through violence and aggression. If you take a look at the ring names most fighters have picked for themselves across boxing's history, sure, many will try and evoke sublime skill, eg. "The will-o-the-wisp", "Sweet Pea," "Hi-Tech" etc, others will be colloquial nicknames that don't have much to do with their in-ring performance, eg. "Bud", "Winky" etc, and some will suggest them just being a superior boxer in general without leaning to one side or another eg. "The Real Deal", "Marvellous", "The Golden Boy", but most will evoke images of violence, power and ferocity. "Hitman," "The Brown Bomber," "Hands of Stone," "The Manassa Mauler", "Lights Out", "The Executioner" and so on and so forth. Obviously it's better to be skilled than to not be skilled in this sport but it's probably easier to get by without sublime skill and inspired strategy so long as you have brute caveman talents like power and physical and mental endurance than it is to try and get by without such qualities, no matter how skilled or smart you might be.

Ultimately his analogy of a lemonade stall selling ******* doesn't hold up because both before and after Tyson violence has still been fundamental to the sport's identity. You can argue that Mike Tyson fights were a version of boxing matches where the violence was overemphasised to an unhealthy degree, but it's not like you're selling something that you wouldn't normally expect to get, like someone going to a lemonade stall to get hard drugs. A more apt comparison might be buying McDonalds vs. buying a quadruple bypass burger from the Heart Attack Grill in Las Vegas - one's excessive and unhealthy to an extreme degree but they're both burgers. Even then though, I'm still not sure if I even buy into that analogy because as the guy acknowledges himself, Tyson had fine skill. He claims that he just fought his way through using more hard punching and less technique later in his career, but that's probably more a consequence of him getting older vs. him abandoning technique as he seems to imply. Yes, Tyson hit hard, but there've been no shortage of heavyweights that hit hard. The difference between Tyson and most of those guys is that he was fast, accurate and well-drilled. That's why he had such wild success as a guy who was only 5' 10" in the heaviest weight class where most of the best fighters are 6'+, even as he got older and his natural physical abilities slowly degraded.

[JakeTheBoxer]

He made boxing more popular, that is always good.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Mike under the aegis of Cus and Jimmy Jacobs brought back the science of the Dempsey style and cleaned out the stink of the deadbeat Holmes era as if it was a walk in the park. He was the quintessential prison rags to redemption and riches American sucess story, something like double the career purses of Ali by age 23 with most locked in a retirement trust. Every biz wanted him in their commercials because he was so well spoken thanks to the 3 HOFers who managed him.

But Cus passed and then Jacobs, so King and Givens tag teamed him resulting in a manic/depressive drug dependency on dangerous experimental psychotropic sedatives in near 4 yrs in Prison. When he got out, he found out he was dead broke and now forced to box without respected trainers. He reverted back to delinquent thuggery that gave the expanding rap thug crowd their hero, and he didn't disappoint.

What else you need to know?

[BoloShot]

I'm a big fan of Dr. Grande's videos myself. He has a natural opposition to aggression in people due to his line of work. His series on serial killers displays his in depth knowledge of human aggression too so it's not like it's coming from a place of ignorance. I think that's why he came to his conclusion, and it'd honestly fair enough as Mike did embody too many negative traits for the public eye to perceive boxing well.

[Tatabanya]

He was as good or bad for boxing as anybody's perception of him.

Translation: pointless debate, everyone going home with the same opinions as before.

[Ca$ual Fan]

How the hell would Tyson’s fighting style be bad for the sport? It’s actually quite the opposite. He brings excitement. He’s what attracts the fans to the sport and make them watch

[hugh grant]

Wish he didn't self destruct and go to prison..Don't like missing chunks of great boxers career

[Marchegiano]

I reckon Punch-Out alone did more for boxing than the entire Mayweather career.

[champion4ever]

He was great for the sport. Boxing is not for the feint of heart. In terms of popularity; Boxing perhaps had reached its zenith during Mike Tyson's career.

He was a phenom. We've never seen anyone like him before with that type of speed and explosive power.

All it took was just one punch and he would have dropped you on your ass.