Why has Mike Tyson become so underrated?

You cannot just ignore that Spinks was a LHW. I mean it is what it is.

 

Yes, but he still had success as a heavyweight, including beating Holmes twice (I happen to think he actually lost the second Holmes fight, but it is what it is).

A lot of people were giving Spinks a chance in that fight and several high profile people actually picked him. I remember Lampley saying that the fight was going to be a lot closer than people thought. Ali picked Spinks. Bert Sugar picked him. So did the New York Times. And, even though most people thought Tyson would win, very few picked a total blowout. Tyson absolutely curb-stomping Spinks in 90 seconds after months and months of buildup was one of the most dramatic/shocking moments in modern heavyweight history.

I agree that Spinks was badly over-matched, but that fight was bordering on a cultural event at the time. It was a big deal. That destruction made people start to seriously talk about Tyson as a potential GOAT.

 

Yes, but we can't get caught up in the emotions and hoopla surrounding the event.

Compare it to Pacquiao-Mayweather. Yes it was a cultural event, but was Pacquiao anything more than a declined Featherweight?

Similar thing with Spinks. Although he was in his prime, LHW to HW is such a daunting step up. Size matters so much in boxing.

 

I agree with you, but it's not like Spinks was unaccomplished as a heavyweight. He had two huge victories over a heavy weight legend. We all realize he was over-matched after the fact. That to me, is a critical difference.

 

I see your point. To me retrospect is important when discussing boxing legacy. We can never really rate a boxer's wins and legacy until years after the fact. That's when we see what their opponents went on to accomplish or not accomplish after the fight.

 

Also, I think another huge factor for me is that we had never seen Spinks lose. For a guy who was undefeated to get so thoroughly embarrassed was just crazy. Again, after the fact, I agree. I think it's simply a matter of drawing different conclusions from the same information.

 

Shame on Larry Holmes for losing to Spinks, even at his age.
Losing to a man who had 0 wins over anyone above 175 pounds is a blight on Larry's record.
But styles make fights.
Spinks was a great fighter too, it has to be acknowledged.

 

I never set the criteria for these men necessarily having to be rated ABOVE Tyson.. You did.. ANd some of those guys ARE rated above Tyson depending on who you talk to.. And like I said, these are just a few that I came up with and only at heavyweight not p4p... Go back through 120 years of boxing history and the sport is loaded with men who bare the title "great" who loads of losses to lesser men.

 

I could definitely see this point of view. It's interesting because I think both perspectives are equally biased. I feel like the truth is probably represented by a balance of both view points.

 

I agree with all this.. For those who were around and paying attention from about 1986-1990, Tyson was by far the biggest sensation boxing had seen in ages, and the Spinks fight was the most widely talked about event since Ali vs Frazier I.

 

Anything above 200 is heavyweight.

How much did Spinks weigh come fight night?

 

He wasn't a natural HW.

 

That's not the question I asked.

I'll ask it again.

Anything above 200 is HEAVYWEIGHT, how much did Michael Spinks weigh?

 

Sorry, but I've read a ton about Tyson and it's common knowledge that he wasn't the same guy post prison. The one fight he supposedly trained really hard for was Holyfield 2. He was mostly it in for the money and because its all he ever knew.

And, make no mistake, I am not giving him a pass for anything. His own lack of maturity and emotional instability kept him from being the fighter he should have been. I just realize that Tyson was never the same after 4 years behind bars.

 

Neither was Evander Holyfield. That's a bad argument, IMO.