Why do people underrate Tyson?

What a shitty, ignorant and misinformed thread. YDKSAB

 

Tyson is considered "overrated" because most people are not objective on the abilities he possessed in the ring. Emotions play a role in evaluating a fighter and Tyson is a polarizing personality. He did many things to make people justifiably dislike him. At his best Tyson was one of the best to ever enter the ring, however his prime was very short. He accomplished a lot in a brief time but he also self destructed by his own hand. (His prime likely would have been short regardless as a smallish swarmers must work to hard to win and usually burn out fast) In short he burned bright but he burned out just as fast.

 

It's not a shitty thread, but it's not really accurate either; Tyson seems to get a lot of praise on this site, frankly. I don't agree that he lost his greatest fights either....Michael Spinks was his biggest test in his prime, and he won with flying colors. And Spinks, to me, is very underrated, had beaten Holmes twice and demolished the giant Cooney. This is a great victory, to me.
If you read Mike's autobiography, he was a raging alcoholic and drug addict from a very young age, and I believe this is why he burnt out young. He could have been much greater if he stayed clean. But short, swarmers have trouble with longevity in general, though Mike was far more talented than most.
Plain and simple, he was a great fighter, but his personal troubles sidetracked his career significantly.

 

That's a good post my man.

 

The term "overrated" doesn't mean that he sucks or is a bum, just that he is rated higher than he merits by many. I have never heard anyone claim Tyson was a bum who wasn't speaking in jest.

Tyson wasn't in his prime when Cus D'mato was alive. When Cus died he was just a youngster with only about a half dozen pro fights building his experience and reputation off of stepping stones Jimmy Jacobs fed him. Overrating him would be saying he is the best ever, which he clearly was not.

The whole he was "past his prime" excuse to justify his losses is such a tired,cliche argument used by ignorant Tyson worshippers (not boxing fans) like yourself. How was he past his prime when as a 23 year old champion he got knocked out by Douglas? How was he past his prime when he got KO'd by Holyfield when he was the reigning WBA heavyweight champion coming off one of the most impressive performances of his career against Frank Bruno and a 25-1 favorite? Is your excuse of Tyson being "far from his prime" outweighed by the fact that Holyfield was 4 years older, had been in many wars and perceived to be shot?

You can't arbitrarily pick and choose which period of Mike's career matters and ignorantly discard the rest under that "past his prime" umbrella.

He wasn't on a top 50 p4p because p4p is a measurement of a fighters' prolonged dominance and accomplishments within their era and weigh class. After you factor in all of the great fighters from all of the eras in all of the weight classes, a sub 50 p4p rating for Tyson is justified.

 

Mr Southpaws...welcome..
On the subject of Tyson you are entering a lions den.
No fighter on here provokes such emotional debate IMO.
I await a post on this thread from our good friend and regular poster "Azzer "on this one...
Personally i dont like Tyson,but that's an emotive human view.
As a person i like to like people i like...if that makes sense ?
Irrespective of that ,Tyson (at his short peak) 87-89..was a fighter that i personally believe only one fighter(prime Ali) for sure,and maybe a couple of others would have coped with.
Even at his peak i found him difficult to admire for the way he went about things.In his fight with my friend Tyrell Biggs did Mike really need all those fouls,blatant butts and numerous elbows ?...also the way some fighters froze in front of him really annoyed me (Spinks...and later Seldon)..but that wasn't Tysons fault.Guys like Tucker and Biggs showed in small part that there was a way to deal with Tyson,which Buster D finally executed.(hence i believe Ali at his best would have been the best man for the job by some way...tall courageous,good jab,good mover,can take a shot and key..NOT INTIMIDATED)..Mike to his credit had built such an aura that many were beaten before the fight started.
Those of us that lived through his reign as young adults remember well that this guy seemed unbeatable and from another planet...he shredded some decent and good heavyweights,many who had never been handled that way in their careers until their date with Mike.
After giving the subject more consideration since being on here and listening to others opinions, i still think he is a little over rated (overall)...but
Where the "over rated" bit comes from with me in particular is the fact that he kept being hyped throughout the nineties and marketed as the 'baddest man on the planet'..when by which point he had clearly become what he was at that point,ie a small beatable fighter.
You can't blame him for that or the marketing and his lifestyle and personna dictated a continuing need for boxing.
Had he never fought post prison his legacy would be higher IMO...then again if he had never gone to prison he may have put the Buster D defeat behind him with some good wins.
He would however have walked into one of the toughest era's of HW boxing..Holyfield Lewis Bowe..etc had they all fought at their peaks what an era it would have been (sadly as with Lewis and Bowe though these things often don't happen).
It could be argued that Mike's early peak was good timing...he ran into a fairly ordinary champ (Berbick) and there was no prime Holyfields Bowe's or Lewis' at that stage (87-89).
In summary...a unique monster at his prime.Carl the truth Williams said that he became convinced Mike's relatively small height became a huge advantage to him...punching from under to up..he said Mike was so fast it was so hard to combat...
Where the over rated comes in for me personally was he was portrayed as some kind of monster well past the point where to me his greatness as a fighter had long gone.
I hope my post comes across as fair and balanced..in the past i have been very Anti Tyson...but have tried to be more objective here.

 

Tyson was not mediocre, and anyone who thinks he was just doesn't know **** about the fight game.

 

Azzer...where are you ?

 

Im bored of Tyson threads atsch

 

U cant be like that Azzer...
I tried to write my post in a more balanced way on Mikey having took many of your posts into account.
Cmon Azzer...come out to play....ho ho...

 

First things first, Tyson didnt lose his greatest fights, he KOd an unbeaten Spinks which was most likely his biggest win...

You say Tyson was unbeatable in his prime which is total BS, because Douglas knocked him cold, then he was slightly past his prime at 30 in 96, when Holyfield beat the hell out of him, who was 4 years older, and by the way had a lot more wear and tear on his.body, and previous heart problems to boot...

And i don't know who in their right mind would consider him the best ever, Lewis, and.Holyfield both Knocked him out, without much resistance, i can name at least 10 heavyweights off the top of my head that had better careers than he did, but that's a subject for another day...

 

Tell me about it:nut...