Before you guys are going crazy, I´d like to start with two quotes of Niels Bohr. Set music to "on": " This content is protected " To extract most of a certain subject, I am (at least try to be) open to almost everything (except Rocky beating Foreman, thats a double no). Might we need to think outside of a "Tyson Utopia", not just the resume, but his peak H2H abilities also? Is it possible that Mike Tyson is severely overrated compared to when we look at other ATGs? I´d like to debate some different details and check if MT might be in fact more Myth (Definition: A widely held but false belief or idea) than what we thought. Our famous long-therm user @young griffo brought up some interesting points: " This content is protected "
I think Tyson's flaws are obvious but he still is an ATG, albeit a lower tier one. People forget that the heavyweights that Tyson beat were pretty good. The likes of Tucker, Thomas, Bruno, even Berbick etc. were good enough to be top contenders today. In fact, I could see someone like Tucker or Thomas holding a belt today. Tyson made these good heavyweights look average. It is true that Tyson never beat an all time great in his prime. The only two he faced were Holyfield and Lewis. He is 0-3 against them. However, it must be mentioned: - as a short heavyweight, Tyson was heavily reliant on speed. While he showed flashes of speed post prison, he was not as fast as he had been pre prison. Even a 10% decline in speed is a huge Holyfield may have had his number anyway. IMO Tyson was never designed to dominate in his 30's even if he was fully dedicated and had a great corner. He could still have been highly competitive in his 30's due to his power and chin but he would struggle to beat someone like Lewis in his 30's due to his declining speed. (I strongly believe prime Tyson beats Lewis though) If Tyson didn't have a turbulent personal life, I believe he would have dominated until 1995-96. I don't think a fully motivated Tyson loses to Dogulas but Douglas would give him a very hard fight nonetheless. I think Tyson had enough to beat anyone in the 90's until maybe 95-96 when he would have naturally slowed down anyway and lost to some of the elites. Bottom line, yes Tyson never beat an ATG, never got off the floor to win, but he did unify the titles, beat a lot of decent/good heavyweights. He just wasn't designed for a long career as a short fast heavyweight. He did massively underachieve though. Not a myth. No sane person is going to rank him in the top 5 all time. However, given his immense physical gifts and domination for 4 years, a spot in the bottom half of the top 10 may be justified.
He is in the select club of heavyweights who dominated a definable era. John L Sullivan James Jeffries Jack Johnson Jack Dempsey Joe Louis Rocky Marciano Muhammad Ali Larry Holmes Mike Tyson Lennox Lewis Wladamir Klitschko That is something very tangible, even if you place him at the very bottom of the group.
My opinion about Tyson would be in the middle, not the mythical monster h2h king but i actually think that h2h he would beat greater hws than himself( in legacy terms)
Ali in his peak was the most versatile guy to beat any style,or course he would have more problems with certain style but still i think that he would beat all them, lewis is the most difficult fight for Ali because he combined size,reach,big power,strength, skill,intelligence and good stamina. Uf a top 10h2h is very hard to make because your number 5 could easily beat your number 2 on the list, simply the 2 could beat more guys in the top. So it is very hard to judge
There's a few drooling fanboys and morons that massively overrate him, but if anything I think he's often underrated by boxing fans at this point.
This is a great response man! I would just add that most all of the objections from the OP center around what he did not achieve later in his career. While this definitely should effect his ATG ranking-he was more like th opposite of Ali after their respective exiles... The question turns on how good he was in his prime. So when you ask if Tyson was a "myth" his limitations do not effect whether he was great, or how formidable he was head to head in his prime. There are so many ways to analyze this. But the faced pretty darn good competition for a HW in the '80's, especially looking at their records then. And while his prime was fairly short in time, he had a lot of fights. Given his unique combination of speed, power, ferocity, defense finishing ability &...skilled combinations, he would rank bery high head to head. A bit less so against SHWs who are allowed to clinch too much, lol!
Saw this thread? https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/muhammad-ali-vs-lennox-lewis.556875/page-4#post-20433225 Isn´t the the definition of a mythical H2H monster par excellence? It reads like Ali is fighting Terell here again.
You had a truth and many other truths. Tyson is def over rated h2h but he’s def a top ten guy when at his best. His stamina, mind, and heart were always his biggest issues. He def should have avenged the Douglas loss...
Mike Tyson was the youngest HW champ at 20. He was a world wide phenom back then and that 86-90 run, unifying the belts and becoming undisputed in the process, was pretty solid for a young man imo, Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno and Williams. He did dominate the division for a while. He lost to Douglas. It's true he lost in his own prime years to a fringe contender who had a great night. Those two bouts with the dangerous Ruddock in '91 were noteworthy. Post-prison, he couldn't be expected to be the same destroyer. It's true that Tyson didn't avenge any of his losses. He lost to the prime ATG's he met like Holyfield and Lewis, but beat a Holmes in it for the payday and a former great light heavyweight in Spinks. Mike lost to Holyfield post prison, but maybe Evander could always have beaten him. It's true that Mike didn't handle adversity in the ring the best with his fouling and infractions. Tyson himself was still dangerous well into his 30's in world class, just below world title level, but was past his prime when he lost to Lewis in 2002 and certainly he was against Williams and McBride. Most people seem to have a more realistic picture of Tyson now, I think. I don't think he's a top 5 ATG, but imo, Mike is a top 10 HW all the same. H2H, I'd say he's dangerous in his prime for anyone ever.
Excellent points - I might add: Even his management was gearing him for a brief career; IIRC, Bill Cayton said the career path they had mapped out was to have him retire at 30 as the richest heavyweight in history. Have a fight, back in the gym, another fight, back in the gym ... it sounds mechanical and draconian, but it played to Tyson's mental attitude (easily bored, prone to getting into trouble) and the fact his style was based on speed and reflexes. No matter who you are, those start to decay in time. And I think Holyfield had his number regardless of a loss in speed - Evander would not be intimidated by Tyson, and that was half the battle. Add in an effective counterpunching game, and liberal use of his noggin (literal and figurative) ... all he needed.
This thread isn’t turning out how you planned is it GOAT? Tyson= Good but flawed, not unbeatable and vastly overrated by a coterie of hopeless cheerleaders. Maybe you should have limited the responders to yourself,Sangria and that other pleb who’s name escapes me to get the responses you’re fishing for hey fangirl?
Not sure if I got that. You´re saying that most views of Tysons are mostly located at both ends of the spectrum, while a few absolute overrate him, but the majority even underrates him plus a missing gap in between? Didn´t you just like the post of BitplayerVesti saying "but if anything I think he's often underrated by boxing fans at this point." ? By the way, I balanced this thread pretty neutral as a whole new thread, excluding a certain terminology of yours, in order to not produce another Tyson thread of vicious gossiping (like SwagEel did for example). You´re smart enough to see that?