Mike Tyson

IMO Tyson's one of the biggest waste of talent we've had in this sport. He went to prison at a time when we were really gonna see what he was made of.

 

I don't agree that Tyson in 1996 is Holyfield's best win.
I was agreeing with the notion that Holyfield beat several opponents who had seen better days too.

I'd say Holyfield's win over Tyson is probably his second-best win, for argument's sake.

I don't think ANY TWO of Tyson's wins combined match up with Holyfield's wins over Bowe and Tyson.

Also, if it's a case of comparing Tyson and Holyfield, Tyson got dominated and KO'd by Douglas and Holyfield. I don't think Holyfield suffered such a one-sided and brutal loss until he was about 40 years old.

Anyway, my original point : whatever excuses and alibis you want to give Tyson for losing to Douglas and Holyfiel, the same excuses and alibis can be applied to A LOT of the men Tyson beat. So why spend so much time making alibis and excuses for Tyson ?


And, yes, a short prime it's not as good as outstanding longevity.
As for Duran, he probably gets far too many excuses made for him too.

 

Because the very same points can be applied to most. What is Holyfields greatest win? If its Bowe, the second fight was razor close, the first and third were not.

 

Most of what you say above is TRUE, factual.
But several of the all-time great fighters went through similar periods and the best of them pulled through without getting whipped by a Buster Douglas-type contender.
You don't think Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis believed their own hype and went around ****ing women instead of training ?? Marciano robbed blind by his own promoter. Trainers dying, wives divorcing. Most of the great fighters have similar issues, in training, in life, and outside the ring.

I don't have any agenda other than to disspell the myth that Tyson's circumstances were so unusual that we can just write off a defeat to a Buster Douglas.

The greatest fighters pull through, or at least come back.

1- No, Dempsey lost a 4-round decision to Willie Meehan in his prime. He had Meehan almost out in one of the rounds, and Meehan never had him hurt. According to reports.
Dempsey's KO loss to Jim Flynn happened when he was still learning. It wouldn't have happened in his prime. In fact, Dempsey won by 1st round KO against Flynn a year later.

2 - Tyson was champion of the world, at 23 years old. He got fat, that's his own fault. As a champion professional he should know how to overcome that. He was actually reported to have been getting beat up or decked in sparring before some of his biggest wins, so the Page thing could have been a wake up call. He should have overcome. He had the wrong trainers in his corner. He should have overcome. He was up against a fairly ordinary challenger, and he didn't just struggle, he took a hiding. Maybe that's because he wasn't anywhere near as great as the top ATGs.

 

Tyson was dispatching guys with ease. Holyfield wasnt much greater than many of the other fighters Tyson dominated. He was greater, but not by some long field that Unforgiven is using as a way to judge Tyson. Its fact, and thats why so much is made of the Douglas upset and Tyson's lack of preparation, and also why Tyson is considered Holyfields biggest win, by 99.999% of everyone except Unforgiven.

Yes Tyson did fall victum to many of the pitfalls of big time boxing, and yes, he didnt make the proper corrections that were so blatantly obvious but based on what he accomplished in that short period of time, there is little that separates him from the likes of Holyfield and most ATG heavies.

 

Not sure what any of this has to do with my original point. Tyson gets too many excuses made for him.
Holyfield's rating suffers because Bowe was his master, head-to-head, and no need for excuses. Tyson's should suffer because he got his ass kicked by Douglas and later on by Holyfield, no need for excuses.

If we start making excuses for prime and near-prime losses for guys like Holyfield and Tyson, we need to realise guys with lesser reputations might have alibis too.

We can see by some of the posts on this thread that Tyson has a whole canon of excuses that have gone down as some sort of holy scripture.

 

went the distance???:huh

 

Is that how you sum up his whole career?

Well I'd say its on par with getting KO'd in one round by Jim Flynn and losing to Willie Meehan, not long before capturing the title.. Not to mention getting decked though the ropes by Luis Firpo.. How about sitting on the throne for 3 years defenseless, or only 6 title bouts in 7 years? I think these things do Dempsey just as much if not more injustice as Tyson's sole loss to Douglas during his prime - which "prime" is even debatable depending on who you talk to....

I agree that 7 or 8 is fair.... But to even suggest that someone might be dense enough to rate him anywhere near 25 or lower is just ludicrous.

 

I think Holyfield's BEST win, the best opponent he beat, was Riddick Bowe in 1993.
The win over Tyson might be "the biggest win" (ie. Most famous, most career-defining) but Bowe was a better scalp at the respective times.

I doubt 99.9999% of everyone would disagree with me.

When you say "Holyfield wasn't much greater than many of the other fighters Tyson dominated", I'm sure most would disagree with that.

You tend to get very sensitive when valid criticisms of Tyson's record are made.
Tyson's loss to Douglas IS worse than any truly prime or near-prime loss that the best ATG
heavyweights suffered. His best wins were over men who were NOT nearly as great as Holyfield. And his "invincible prime" was unsatisfactory SHORT (18 months ?).
And when he lost he lost BADLY.
These are the things you hate to hear about, but you know are 100% true.

 

I agree with this.. Tyson may have had the far bigger name and prestige, but Bowe was the reigning heavyweight champ in the peak of his prime, and not returning from a four year layoff... In fact BOTH holy and Tyson were past it at the time of their meetings... Tyson's name on Holy's record may do more for him in some aspects than Bowe's, but Riddick to me has more value.. Especially since he was a avenging a loss - something he never had to do against tyson.

 

I agree with that rating.

 

No.
But it's a serious blot that greats like Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Marciano have either nothing like it, or came back from any such mishaps to go on and do lots of great things.

I disagree.
The loss to Jim Flynn was clearly not a prime Dempsey, by any means. In fact, Dempsey was not even yet considered a serious contender at the time.
The loss to Meehan WAS a prime Dempsey, but it's not a seriously bad defeat at all. It was a routine 4-round filler fight. It hurt Dempsey's rep a bit, but it wasn't like getting beaten up badly in a championship fight. Dempsey even had Meehan down and in all sorts of trouble.

You mention Luis Firpo. Well, Dempsey came back in 1923 from a long layoff and BEAT Gibbons and Firpo. That's what the great ones did, they overcame the years of inactivity and partying and had bad nights and still WON. And when Dempsey lost the title it was to a high-calibre challenger not an ordinary one.

I would probably have Tyson at around 13 - 18 among all-time heavyweights, but I possibly don't have enough knowledge of the early eras and may be overlooking some great ones.

 

Going by this Tyson was in his prime for a few seconds/minutes in just a few rounds in just a few fights in his whole career. He was in his prime, him not doing what he could do is just his own fault and if anything should count against and not for him.

 

Sure but as pointed out, alone in the hw division are many examples of champs going through similar or even worse stuff - Jack Johnson!!! - and not bottling it like Tyson did. That´s the diffeence between the men and the boys. emember I still rank Mike at 7.