Is Mike Tyson one of the most overrated fighters ever?

[sleone60]

Heart cannot be taught. Tyson never had heart, he had bully's courage. Pre Cus, post Cus, before prison, after prison......ALL excuses. Tyson NEVER had heart, NEVER, There's a reason he didn't make the Olympic team. Give Tyson a fboxer who has already defeated himself and Tyson's your boy. Put him in with a confident "Fighter" and Tyson goes. Great puncher???? Really??? Had Ferguson been a real heavyweight he would have stopped Tyson. Green, Tillis, Tucker, Smith ALL survived Tyson's so called power. Douglas, Williams & McBride ALL lasted long enough to KO Tyson. Lennox Lewis KO'd by (2) non greats survived to KO Tyson & ditto for a battle worn Holyfield.

[Curtis Harper]

''Ever'' is a long time. He is incredibly overrated, though.

[sleone60]

You asked for it

1) Define 'overrated'!

2) Find one other boxer, who's accomplishment at the very least equals that of Mike Tyson in the modern heavyweight era against modern heavyweight boxers that was roughly the same size as Mike Tyson (in height, weight and reach) overall.

Mike Tyson was shorter than GGG and fought at heavyweight, beat more bigger than self opponents in size than practically any other heavyweight boxer in history. His KO percentage, relative to his own size in both weight and height is better than any other boxer's KO percentage relative to their own size at modern heavyweight boxing. Mike Tyson really didn't have to compete at heavyweight due to his absolutely RIDICULOUS small sized body compared to majority of his opponents. However, it was his courage, guts and bravery that prompted him to build the extra muscles required to compete at heavyweight. I don't at all believe that Mike Tyson was naturally as big as he was during his fights. It's more plausible he worked out and exercised to build the extra muscles required to become a heavyweight.

Maybe if Mike Tyson didn't compete at heavyweight and instead fought at light heavyweight or cruiserweight, people would probably appreciate him a little bit more. P4P and inch for inch, Mike Tyson is evidently the greatest modern heavyweight there ever was. However, in an absolute sense, there's no possible way for him to surpass the giant super sized skillful heavyweights like the Klitschkos and Lennox Lewis and there's no shame in that. The fact that Mike Tyson was the greatest heavyweight for someone his own size his enough of an accomplishment to tell me that he wasn't 'overrated'. Otherwise, why aren't there any other boxers that have the same height and reach of Mike Tyson just going to the heavyweight division and easily surpassing Mike Tyson's heavyweight accomplishments? I'd let you think about that for awhile.

Jimmy Young: Couldn't punch yet defeated Foreman, Lyle (twice), lost to Norton, Ali, Shavers (2nd fight) in razor close decisions. Any one of the aforementioned fighters was better than or equal to the best Tyson fought. Against Shavers, Lyle, Norton and Foremen he took bombs from real punchers and endured that alone puts him in a club Tyson will never be a member of.

[Curtis Harper]

Berbick, Smith, Thomas and Tucker........

!!!!!!

Is there a quality win vs a QUALITY OPPONENT in any of their resumes ?!?!?!?

[4truth]

Clearly underrated

[bluebeam]

Don't get me wrong, I love Tyson, he's the face of boxing right now for me, a charismatic person.

I appreciate that he's the fighter who made pro boxing popular among youth in Russia in 90's (this is where I'm from). People wouldn't care that much about the sport over here if it wasn't for him

Some dog owners name their pit bulls after Tyson. I had a friend and he's called Tyson because he loves ****ing people up. Tyson has that kind of fame that went over American borders. Even Pacquiao and Mayweather never had that kind of international fame when you think about it. When you ask a casual person about some boxers, Tyson is always the second name that gets mentioned after Ali. I don't know how it is in America, but that's how it is over here. Ali, Tyson, maybe Roy Jones and that's it, they barely know any other names

And I get that he was famous not because of his resume but because of the manner how he was winning fights. Definitely one of the most entertaining fighters of all time. But when you look at his resume you start thinking that all this hype isn't justified. Holyfield and Lewis were much better and they were coming from the same generation of heavyweights. I made this thread because I got tired arguing with casuals when I say that Tyson is not even top 5 heavyweight of all time

Man, you can even make an argument for Golovkin's resume being better and I'm not hating on Tyson, I have a lot of respect for him

He was 19 fighting the best grown men in the world.


Holyfield, Lewis, none of them would have become heavyweight champ that young.

That in itself keeps Mike from being overrated. He did something that will never be duplicated.

A 20 year old heavyweight champ? Just imagine a 19 year old that you know being the most feared man in boxing. That doesn't even seem realistic. But it happened and his name was iron Mike Tyson

[QueensburyRules]

Don't get me wrong, I love Tyson, he's the face of boxing right now for me, a charismatic person.

I appreciate that he's the fighter who made pro boxing popular among youth in Russia in 90's (this is where I'm from). People wouldn't care that much about the sport over here if it wasn't for him

Some dog owners name their pit bulls after Tyson. I had a friend and he's called Tyson because he loves ****ing people up. Tyson has that kind of fame that went over American borders. Even Pacquiao and Mayweather never had that kind of international fame when you think about it. When you ask a casual person about some boxers, Tyson is always the second name that gets mentioned after Ali. I don't know how it is in America, but that's how it is over here. Ali, Tyson, maybe Roy Jones and that's it, they barely know any other names

And I get that he was famous not because of his resume but because of the manner how he was winning fights. Definitely one of the most entertaining fighters of all time. But when you look at his resume you start thinking that all this hype isn't justified. Holyfield and Lewis were much better and they were coming from the same generation of heavyweights. I made this thread because I got tired arguing with casuals when I say that Tyson is not even top 5 heavyweight of all time

Man, you can even make an argument for Golovkin's resume being better and I'm not hating on Tyson, I have a lot of respect for him

--- What, no rating provided?

Is ye daft or just a noob?

[hugh grant]

There is more to judging someone other than resume. There has to be because resumed are subjective.
Common opponents with lennox Lewis will say Tyson was best.
Tyrell Biggs and Tony Tucker fought Lewis but will tell you Tyson was best they fought. Nobody beat a prime tyson. No, bustervdidnt, it wasn't Tyson that night.
During his time Tyson was the best there's ever been at doing what he did. He had the best combination punches ever, with that kind of combination of speed and power. There's things he did that no other did. It's up to you to decide what that was.
So he wasn't overated. If you have him no1 then he is overrated but nobody does

[CasperUK]

Here come all the psychology experts talking about "if someone stood up to Tyson, they beat him"

[Mr Objecitivity]

Jimmy Young: Couldn't punch yet defeated Foreman, Lyle (twice), lost to Norton, Ali, Shavers (2nd fight) in razor close decisions. Any one of the aforementioned fighters was better than or equal to the best Tyson fought. Against Shavers, Lyle, Norton and Foremen he took bombs from real punchers and endured that alone puts him in a club Tyson will never be a member of.

Jimmy Young is a guy with 19 losses out of 56 bouts. That's a 33% loss record.

Meanwhile, Mike Tyson has only 6 losses out of 58 bouts. That's a 10% loss record.

So no, Jimmy Young has too many losses to be considered above, or on par with Mike Tyson who has more fights and yet, far fewer losses in comparison.

Young also holds losses to bums like Ossie Ocasio, a guy with 13 losses out of 27 bouts, to Chuck Gardner, a guy with 12 losses out of 32 bouts, to Eddie Richardson, a guy with 21 losses and 15 wins (basically means this guy has more losses than wins).

So with that many losses, and with that many losses to such poor quality bums with double digit losses or losing records, how can Jimmy Young even be considered close to the level of Mike Tyson who only has 6 losses in comparison?

You haven't really made much of an argument to support your case here!

Mike Tyson's best wins are far better than any of those guys I've mentioned that Jimmy Young lost to. When you have 19 losses out of only 56 bouts, then you're just not that good. You cherry picking few fights doesn't prove anything.