Now i'm not biggest Tyson fan but I've seen may people say Tyson had no heart. In the 2nd fight with Ruddock he showed a lot of heart. The punches he took were incredible. One uppercut knocked Tyson's mouthpiece out. These were great fights where Tyson had to dig very deep especially in the 2nd fight to pull out the win. He was badly hurt in some rounds and had to dig deep to win. Tyson who fought Ruddock in first fight would of beat Douglas. His body shots were ****ing amazing the sound of them were incredible it actually made me cringe. Also against Lewis, Tyson was taking a beating and was badly hurt but stayed in with Lewis for eight rounds. Against Douglas Tyson was taking a beating and almost came back to win. He floored Douglas with a brutal uppercut. Douglas stated when he looked into Tyson's eyes he saw determination despite all of Tyson's problems at this time. People always say when people stood up to Tyson or weren't scared of him, he folded. Tyson must've lost Opponents like Tucker, Holmes, Tillis, Thomas. Since he lost every time someone stood up to him or who showed no fear of him. I'm not even that big of a Tyson fan, but the hating he gets now a days is ridiculous. Tyson is a very confusing fighter to discuss because he's both overrated and underrated. Overrated by people who don't follow boxing and think he's the best ever. He's underrated by the boxing experts who view him as a bully with no heart. When people think of Tyson now a days., they think of his prison conviction, the ear bite, and a bully. Few people know that he was actually the youngest heavyweight champion. "Mike Tyson is underrated primarily as a backlash against his hardcore fan base. Due to Tysons crossover appeal a large number of fans who were uneducated in boxing began watching the sport and immediately declared him the baddest man on the planet. Hardcore boxing fans and historians grimaced and countered with the idea that Tyson was fortunate to come up when the heavyweight opposition was weak or that he was one dimensional. However, it cant be ignored that he was the youngest heavyweight ever, possessed exceptional had speed for a heavyweight, and that he was one of the rare unified champions in modern times. He may not have been the best ever but he is absolutely a top twenty heavyweight of all time and a hall of fame fighter." Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ers-who-were-both-over-and-under-rated/page/7 Tyson was the closest thing to a perfect fighter. In his prime, he had it all. Speed, Power, Chin, Stamina, etc. It is in my opinion that if Tyson stayed on track and the path D'Amato set him on, he could've been the greatest heavyweight of all time. Tyson was one of a kind. Their was never anyone like him. Their'll never be anyone like him again.
I pretty much agree with everything you have stated up till this point. Tyson did have exceptional speed, power, balance and chin but there is one thing that keeps getting overlooked, a factor which Holyfield recently spoke about as the most obvious flaw in Tyson's game. He was a tiny heavyweight. He was just way too small to last long at the top in the modern heavy division. Holyfield himself had to overcome the perception (and reality) that he was a small fighter in a division of giants and he was 6-2 with a 78" reach. The whole story line when he fought Bowe was a good little man versus a good big man Meanwhile Tyson was around 5-10 with a 72" reach walking a tight rope of getting into range without getting pounded in order to unleash his attack. He pulled it off for what really is an exceptional period of time.
So basically two fights knocked all of the fight out of Tyson and one of them was when he was victor, his heart and courage was light years behind the likes of Joe Frazier, saying that he did fight valiantly against Holyfield in their first bout yet at the end he was curring out by turning away.
Mike wasn't a tiny HW by any means. Paul Williams was 6-2 with a 78 reach. Holyfield wasn't as broad and stocky as Tyson and had a smaller frame despite being bigger. Guys like Fury and Vitali are the expection at HW , not men like Tyson.
If Tyson started losing a fight, he stayed losing. People like to bring up the Ruddock fights as an example of a time when he showed heart in a close fight but he was winning those fights big.
Ok I also agree with most of this ..only this statement here ..i would like to edit and say Tyson's physique was perfect for his style , the broad size of the man , the powerful legs , the short trunk like arms , enhanced the D'Amato PeekaBoo style . He was training at one stage to purposely slip shots ,hence the bobbing from side to side ..whilst coming in low . This against tall rangy slower fighters was tantamount to there dismissal. In Fact the taller you were the more chance you stood of being KO'd
I'm just repeating the insights of Holyfield. I will search for the interview. Tyson created his range with his feet and upperbody movement. That is a style that is very difficult to maintain over the long run.
Perception, not reality. http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=241945 There was never some abundance of highly skilled giants (then or now). Lewis and K2 and to a lesser extent Bowe aren't the rule but exceptions. That said, yes, Tyson was as small as you can get away with being and still become a great heavyweight.
The preponderant (and perhaps somewhat lazy) narrative was Holy was the good small man and Bowe the good big man. Bowe's size was a factor but certainly not the only factor in his two victories. There are more and more good superheavies these days than in the past but they are still something of a rarity (but all good heavyweights are a rarity). Furthermore consider that someone like Stiverne at 6-2, 80" and 240 would be considered a giant in most eras. The bar has been raised in that regard. And no, Stiverne is not an obese middleweight.
:good The real story, putting aside the mythical narrative that prevailed, is that Holyfield was a great normal-sized heavyweight and Bowe was a pretty good abnormally large heavyweight. Agreed. Stiverne and Holyfield are roughly the same, dimensionally (no difference in height, 2" in reach) - and while not obese, Stiverne has far more body fat than Holyfield and the much less cut-up physique. If he were to hit the gym and get himself as lean and cut as Holyfield, even acknowledging that muscle is denser than fat, he would be a Cruiser. Holyfield is bigger than Stiverne.
Never met Stiverne in person. He seems pretty damn stout. Holy was fairly manufactured in the size department. He bulked up not cut down as far as I can remember. I don't think Stiverne would ever have a prayer of getting under 200. He's pretty effective at 240.
He did have heart and a good chin. The left-handed smash he takes frrom Ruddock in the 10th round of their 2nd fight is just incredible.