Mike Tyson:Overhyped?

true, and many of those fighters just weren't very good

This is true. I don't believe the hype about Ali being "untouchable" either.

But he was harder to hit than Tyson, simply because of his style and his reach.
It would be ridiculous to expect Tyson to be as good defensively as some of these long-armed guys who boxed and fought more on the back foot.

 

i understand that too well.
That's why i don't see the need for all the elaborate explanations and excuse for the Buster Douglas defeat.

That's also why i don't see it as a bad mark against Tyson that he got hit more than some of his defenders are prepared to acknowledge.
For a 5'10 heavyweight he was exceptional.

 

...and Trevor Berbwick beat Muhammad Ali

 

agreed, but same could be said for pre-exile Ali's oppontents, excluding the mythical monster of Sonny Liston

agreed, Tyson spends most of a fight charging forward and Ali spends most of a fight dancing around and backwards so it would be literally impossible for prime Tyson to get hit less than prime Ali

 

You didn't get the irony obviously.

Check out Charles, Walcott, Louis and Moore, but the time Marciano got to them. atsch

 

Thank you!!!!

Guyfawkes - your a wee bit slow on the uptake aren't you!!

Wouldn't want you on my quiz team.

 

Marciano OFFICIALLY has the worst record (in terms of the win loss ratio of his opposition) of any of the so called GREAT Heavyweights in history.

Fact is Tyon's opposition wasn't great, but it stands up just about any of the greats except for the 60s and early 90s eras.

Now leave the debating to people who actually watch fights and don't just look at a list of names on Boxrec

 

Walcott was boxing beautifully before he was caught with a completely vicious blow. Moore would go on to fight Durelle and Pastrano, so he was still relevant back then. Charles gave Rocky a great fight the fist match.

Louis was still fighting decent opposition and still had his jab. He just lost his timing.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRsAbgV3tdk&feature=plcp&context=C31a368aUDOEgsToPDskI9afgZknDsH4tXGY5bG3f1[/ame]

Overall all of these guys had more then Muhammad Ali did against Berbick. That's a fact.

 

Again, disagreeing on the footwork, I don't they're out of place, because they are completely functional. Footwork for Tyson was a strength and never outside of Douglas/Holyfield/Lewis a weakness. Switching between stances is a strength too whether intentional or not, the skill to have the balance to pull it off is rare

 

As both a Tyson and Douglas fan I don't excuse that defeat, I think it was a 101 on how to negate Tyson, Douglas was brilliant imo. It's sad he didn't do more with himself, he really seemed to give up on life

 

Moore (a LHW) had had about 180 fights!!!
Charles (a LHW) had had about 100 fights and was already lost about 4 fights in the previous 2 years
Walcott was ancient had had about 70 fights and never fought again
Louis was shot to pieces and had absolutely nothing left, it was also his last fight and it was horrible to watch

 

:rofl :deal

 

Dempsey's opposition was not ****. He beat some decent fighters, he had some good wins.