Is Mike Tyson a myth?

I’d say he’s rated about right. Bottom half of the top 10 or just outside. He deserves some credit for cleaning out some obese slobs, previously exposed journeymen, scared Lt Heavies and drug addicted has beens that featured prominently in the 80’s.

He warrants marking down for getting smashed by James Douglas (lol), whupped by a thought to be shot Holyfield and destroyed by his generations greatest HW Lennox Lewis. The quit jobs against plodder Danny Williams and total scrub Kevin McBride are further black marks on his legacy. He deserves to be ranked comfortably below both of Holyfield and Lewis along with a few greats of the previous eras and a couple more who followed on.

Maybe top 15 on second thoughts.

 

Tyson has done great things for boxing.
(G. Foreman - April 2020)

 

He’s probably the most overrated fighter in history but also gets underrated in certain hardcore circles.

He’s a great fighter but the idea of “prime Tyson” has became so redundant and played out that I don’t think even think people that parrot it believe it but like the idea of going along with it. The marketing around Tyson has always been great. From running up a string of KO’s over no-hopers in quick succession to him being the youngest title holder so when he got destroyed by Douglas and locked up so then terms like “prime Tyson” were used (as though he’s not prime at 23/24 and if he wasn’t then nor where ANY of the fighters he ever beat). The marketing and idea behind that “prime Tyson” has worked and it still works today hence whenever you see mainstream stuff it’s like it’s him or Ali and that he’s one of the greatest who ever lived. Madness. He’s clearly nowhere Lewis or Holyfield and is even venture to say a “prime Bowe” though even shorter than his, was better. Tyson had too many flaws.

Great fighter, yes, just about. Invincible and GOAT category? No way. I don’t think he’s a top 10 at heavyweight or a top 125 pound for pound.

 

I liked his reference to drooling fanboys and morons overrating him which is spot on.

I adressed the underrating comment in another post. He’s rated about right.

I’m bored with this guy anyway. For the record I rate Tyson as one of the most exciting and dangerous early rounds fighters in heavyweight history. He had great attacking skills, killer instinct, excellent power and precision punching at his best. I also think he was flawed, mentally weak (not his fault we all have our issues and his upbringing was awful which probably contributed to this), one dimensional, had poor recovery and was eminently beatable. The elite of the division would beat him (but he’s top dozen or so though which says more about the lack of top flight heavies for one of the lesser divisions talent wise historically).

That’s as much as an olive branch I’ll extend on this topic and I honestly can’t be bothered talking about him anymore. That’s my honest view outside of the verbal jousting. Take from it what you will and turn it into whatever you like. That’s it.

 

GOAT this is a smarter guy than me articulating my opinion on Tyson better than I ever could.

Cheers Chris!

 

Cheers. And don’t get me wrong. I like Tyson as a fighter and a person I just find his fanboys and the hype around “prime Tyson” far too much.

 

too bad we cannot get that Tyson of 1988 who fought Spinks and fight him against the greats of the past. Then we would see how great he was. That was his peak I think, regardless of Don King and Robin Givens distracting him that year where he had to take a break. They are the ones who diminished Mike's concentration. But he was a shorter guy with a 71 inch reach and the amount of energy and speed he needed to be effective against bigger guys could not last long. Take this into consideration, Hearns had a 78 1/2 inch reach.

 

At 5'10 and with short arms, a 71 inch reach, (which necessitates a one-directional (forward) style) ...... plus the fact that he never beat any GREAT heavyweight opponent anywhere within sight of their prime ..... and got quite a whupping in his prime from a non-ATG ..... it is remarkable that he'd be held up as the pinnacle of "head to head" heavyweights.

His record, his style and his physical dimensions all point towards him being very beatable at the top of the ATG level.
Short arms and an inability to box off the backfoot at heavyweight are severe limitations, sooner or later, at a certain level. Aren't they ?

 

Oh, I almost forgot ..... Hello Sangria

 

Tyson in his prime would be a nightmare for most heavys in history excluding prime G.Foreman.
Film unlike fans don't lie, or see what it wants to see, film doesn't exaggerate the beauty of a
rose or hide it's thorns, if it's not manipulated (Like highlights, which I believe a lot of posters
use exclusively,opposed to watching the fights in their entirety )
His entire prime is on film, unlike most of the heavyweights from the 20's and earlier.
He was a devastating mix of skills, speed, and power in his prime, he was so good
he routinely out jabbed fighters that were much taller, and with much longer reach
than he had. And I'm not talking about Joe Blow from the pub, but well schooled
pro heavys.
Tyson in his prime had the ability to be considered the G.O.A.T. But, like Emmanuel
Steward said his style, based on speed and frenetic movement, would began to decline
relatively early , and his prime would be short. Steward was right of course. Tyson's cracks
began showing as early as 1988. He was getting hit more, the head movement began to
slow, he began to become a puncher, opposed to the combination puncher of his prime.
When Tyson slowed, we began to see who he actually was inside.

This is the period we discovered he didn't quite measure up too ATG'S with the most
important attribute every great fighter most have, that's mental toughness. We learned
how mentally fragile he actually was. It lead to intentionally fouling out of some fights,
quitting in others. These issues, or facts rightfully dropped him down the ATG list.
It left the "What if " question open. Like "What if" Frazier got by the 1st 5 rds
against prime Tyson, How would Tyson handle it? We know Prime Frazier wouldn't quit,
but Tyson may have. Who Tyson was on the inside was always there, he didn't meet a fighter who could've
put the type of pressure on him to break him him.
"What if" It's big George Foreman or Sonny Liston is in the opposite corner, the type
of fighters he would need more than intimidation and reputation to defeat. Fighters
that may have intimidated him. How would he deal with it? Judging by what he showed
the latter parts of his career, not well.
Tyson had the skills to have been the greatest heavy in history in his prime. If he's a
myth, so was Dempsey, or Johnson who we know very little about other than "Hearsay"
information, and old grainy film, that doesn't flatter them,or the opposition they faced.
Tyson in his prime WASN'T a myth, he had all the physical ability in the world to dominate.
He did. His lack of mental toughness drops him down the ATG list, between 8 -15 , in
my opinion.

 

"Film doesn't lie." Well, it kind of does if you exclude the footage that doesn't support your argument.

Tyson's loss to Douglas was sandwiched between three first round KO's, two of them against more or less world class opposition. I doubt that anyone would have anything bad to say about Tyson's run post Spinks pre prison if not for the Douglas loss.

In fairness to Tyson, Douglas on that night showed a combination of size, footwork, hand speed and technique that I haven't seen before or after. He put in a unique performance for such a big man imo. I think that's where we should look concerning that result.

I personally don't like hypothetical h2h's, but if I had to put money on a tournament with my top 10-15 HWs, Mike would be among the favourites. He was that good. Just not unbeatable.

 

Ali, Foreman Lewis, Holyfield, Frazier, Liston, Louis,Wlad, Bowe, Vitali, Fury, all beat him h2h most by stoppage too. I wouldn’t be surprised if a Motivated Witherspoon did a number on him too (I mean Buster f’ing Douglas could) and throw in a hard nut like Quarry or Mercer to test that brittle heart. And who knows how he’d deal with a modern giant like AJ as well?

Legacy wise throw in Marciano, Dempsey and Jeffries but I doubt they beat him h2h .

So outside the top 10 for Tinkerbell h2h. Hence the h2h monster myth being laid to waste. All of the fighters listed have qualities that Tyson never once displayed and none have the **** stains on their career your boy had.

Care to rebut or are you going to dodge the pertinent questions about the prime KO losses to fringe contenders, getting smashed by the ATG’s he met and the quit jobs? Or more obfuscation from a Tyson apologist/Douglas denier?

 

i If I wrote some posters" don't watch a fight in it's entirety"
What does that mean to you? I also noted Tyson "Started showing cracks around 1988" Which is the 3 fights prior to Douglas.
I also noted " Tyson would be a nightmare for most heavy's in history" So what are you going on about, you basically repeated
what I already noted.

 

You can pick any champion ever, look at their faults, add in your own biases, and make a list like this.

For example. Right out of the gate.

A. Buster Douglas wasn't a fringe contender. He had been a top 10 contender for YEARS (is top 10 fringe?). It was his second title shot. He'd beaten Greg Page, Trevor Berbick, Oliver McCall, Tex Cobb and Mike Williams and lost to Tony Tucker.

That question should be how many heavyweight champions lost in their primes to fighters who had been top 10 contender for years? The answer is nearly all do.

That list of questions makes no sense.

C.) Lennox Lewis never got off the floor to win in any fight, either. Does he suck?

E.) Tyson unifed three belts. Were none of the champs elite? (They were at the time. They were at the very top of every org.) Was Pinklon Thomas (former champ and #1 contender) not elite? Was Frank Bruno elite? Tyson beat him when Bruno was the #1 contender and he beat him again when Bruno was the champ. Was Michael Spinks not elite? He was the undefeated WORLD light heavyweight champion and the undefeated WORLD heavyweight champion when Tyson beat him? How is an undefeated two-division WORLD champion not elite?

How many champions who lost in their primes avenged that loss? Did Vitali avenge any of his losses? Did Frazier avenge any of his losses? Did Holmes avenge any of his lossses?

D) Fouled out? You mean Jack Sharkey?

You can make up nonsense lists like that about anyone.

Pick a fighter. Anthony Joshua. How many elite prime heavyweight champs have lost their titles to a 269-pound, unranked late sub? How many former heavyweight champs won a vacant title from a 40-year-old former champ who hadn't won a fight in two years? Just Joshua. He sucks. See, not difficult.

I think YoungGriffo needs to get his head out of his ass. (LOL)