Is Mike Tyson a myth?

Mike Tyson was no myth, a performer in the 80s who kept his '0' no matter who they put in front of him.


Just take a second to really look at his record.


https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/22474

 

And now, to finally get to the topic of this thread, how well will he do H2H in mythical matchups. Here are the top 20 greatest HW's of all time according to the International Boxing Research Organization: Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Larry Holmes, George Foreman, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, Lennox Lewis, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, James Jeffries, Gene Tunney, Sam Langford, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, Wladimir Klitschko, Vitaly Klitschko, Riddick Bowe.

There are some that might give him huge trouble and might even beat him and some that clearly stand no chance, either due to the stylistic matchup or due to the lack of qualities needed to beat him. So I've divided them into 3 categories:

1. Boxers that stand no chance whatsoever of beating him: Johnson, Demsey, Jeffries, Tunney, Langford, Charles and Walcott. This should be quite clear to anyone. Tyson KO's all of them.

2. Boxers that might beat him, but most likely will loose:
a) Louis
Louis was a very technical boxer, great for his era, but who's clearly outmatched in terms of speed, punching power, movement and chin.
Outcome: Tyson by KO
b) Holmes
Holmes was a brilliant boxer in his prime, but he's at a disadvantage due to the stylistic matchup.
Outcome: Tyson, either by KO or on points, but the match would be closer than in 88.
c) Marciano
Marciano could hit hard for his size and had a lot of heart and stamina, but with an average technique at best. He's clearly dominated by Tyson in terms of speed, punching power, movement and even chin. Most will disagree with this latter department, but the likes of Charles and Walcott would have never been able to hurt Tyson the way they hurt Marciano.
Outcome: Tyson by KO
d) Frazier
Again, lots of heart and stamina, but that's about it. He's inferior to Tyson in every possible way: Tyson had KO power in both hands, Frazier only had a left hook; Tyson had a better defense, was a lot stronger and faster.
Outcome: Tyson by KO, very likely in under 3 rounds.
e) Ali
Although he stands a chance, the stylistic matchup clearly favors Tyson.
Ali was great against big slow sluggers, who could never beat him, no matter how hard they hit, cause he'd beat them to the punch.
Ali on the other hand struggled against:
- swarmers
Busy HW's who could punch with him and smother him, making him uncomfortable and forcing him to fight at a pace where he wasn't able to dictate the action and tempo of the fight. Boxers like Banks, Jones, Frazier and Norton. Tyson is vastly superior to all of them in terms of speed, power, punching accuracy and combination punching. He had the explosiveness, head movement and good defense to get inside on Ali and hurt him bad.
- defensive fighters
Ali did not know how to fight as an aggressor. A clear example of Ali’s inability to fight as an aggressor is the Jimmy Young fight. Yes, Ali was past his prime, and yes he was out of shape. But the lesson from this fight, is not Ali’s age or lack of conditioning, it is the fact that Ali was forced to fight as the aggressor for the first time in his career and he was clueless on how to go about approaching him. Ali was used to the big sluggers coming at him, not the other way around.
Tyson had a brilliant defense and was an amazing counter-puncher.
So Tyson combines the traits of the 2 boxing styles that bother Ali bigtime. On top of that, he's far superior technically. Ali did not possess proper boxing fundamentals and made many tactical errors in the rings: he did not know how to properly hold his hands, or how to duck (he pulled back or sidestepped), nor did he know how to parry or to block a jab. He got away with those against the slow stiff sluggers of his era, but he wouldn't get away with it against Tyson.
OUTCOME: Tyson by KO. Either men winning on points is also possible, although less likely
f) Holyfield
This is a boxer who many think could beat any version of Tyson. I beg to differ.
Very few know that Holyfield and Tyson actually had a contractual agreement to fight for the title on November 8th 1991. But the bout never happened because of a Tyson rib injury and then later was delayed when Tyson went to prison.
When Tyson came back he faced McNeeley, Mathis Jr, Bruno and Seldon and even though he beat them, it was more than clear he was not the same fighter. Tyson was nothing more than a crude head-hunter at this point. His head movements and defense were all but gone. He went on to face Holyfield in 1996, having fought just 8 rounds. On the other hand, Holyfield had honed his skills and was roided to the gills. Ad to that the headbuts and it's quite clear how Mike lost.
But this is a prime vs prime matchup, a 92 Holyfield against a 88 Tyson. Despite being on steroids ever since he climbed to the HW division, a 92 Holyfield wasn't quite as big as he was in 96-97. And this time he'd be up against a fully focused and trained Tyson that had all the traits that helped him clean out the division:speed, power, incredible defense.
Outcome: Tyson by KO.
g) Foreman
At a first glance, in this case the stylistic matchup might seem to favor Foreman, cause we saw what he did to Frazier. But things aren't that simple. When he was with Rooney, Tyson was not just a swarmer, but more of a counter-puncher. He'd get under his opponents jab and land combos when they were off balance. He could also jab his way in very well at times and even out-jabbed taller opponents. So against Foreman, he'd probably resort to counter-punching rather than going head in like a bull. That was the approach he had when he came back from prison, but not in his prime.
Outcome: Tyson on points. He out-boxes Foreman in the same manner Holyfield and Morrison did. It's hard for me to picture a win by KO by Tyson, cause he's have to get in close to do that, and that would make him very vulnerable to being KO'd himself by Foreman's uppercuts.

3. Boxers who would pose problems and could even beat him:
a) Liston
Sonny was a brilliant boxer in his prime who unfortunately is vastly underrated by the general public due to his fights with Ali. Very few know that he was actually a lot older than stated when he fought Ali (he was around 40), he barely trained for the first fight and had a shoulder injury. He took a dive in the second. Sonny had a great jab and a very good technique. He's also one of the hardest punchers. Tyson could also hit hard and had speed on his side. So this fight could go either way and it's not a given Tyson would win.
Outcome: unclear.
b) Lewis
Lewis was big, strong and with great skills. He had a great jab and could do a lot of damage with his right. But Mike has the edge in speed and could get on the inside to do damage. We saw how an old Holyfield frustrated and gave trouble to Lewis with body shots, and there was nobody better at working the body than Tyson.
Outcome: unclear, the fight could go either way. I'd put my money on a Tyson KO, due to his speed, but it's not guaranteed.
c) Wladimir Klitschko
Wlad is one of the hardest punchers in history. On top of that, he has a huge size and reach advantage and was very skilled. His flaws are the fact that he is too afraid to take risks and has a susceptible chin. The outcome of a Tyson - W.K fight depends a lot on the ref. If the ref allows W.K to punch and clinch, then he stand a good chance of winning it on points. If not, then Tyson has more than enough time in 12 rounds to get on the inside and land.
Outcome: most likely Tyson by KO, WK's weak chin being his downfall.
d) Vitaly Klitschko
Similar to his brother, VK has size and reach on his side. On top of that, he has an iron chin, far superior to his brother, so a KO by Tyson is highly unlikely. The downside for Vitaly is that he doesn't hit as hard as his brother, he is not very fast and he can put himself in positions where he is off balance.
Outcome: either of them to win it on points, but with a slight edge to VK due to his size and reach.
e) Riddick Bowe
Bowe is one of the toughest possible matchups for Tyson cause he was a great inside fighter. The downsize for Bowe is that he doesn't have such a great defense.
Outcome: Tyson on points in a grueling 12 rounder.

Summary of the H2H hypothetical matchup:
- the likes of Johnson, Demsey, Jeffries, Tunney, Langford, Charles and Walcott - stand no chance whatsoever and Tyson will demolish them;
- Louis, Holmes, Marciano, Frazier, Ali, Holyfield and Foreman stand a small chance of beating him, although Tyson will most likely KO or outpoint them;
- Tyson outpoints Bowe;
- it's a 50:50 match against the likes of Liston, V. K., Lewis;
- Tyson most likely KO's W. K, although a W.K win is also possible.

CONCLUSION: a fantasy H2H event involving the top 20 ATG HW's will most likely see Tyson clearly finishing among the top 5, and with a high probability of winning the whole thing.

 

Lewis manned up and faced McCall and avenged his loss. Then went on to dominate the division for another decade (including manning up again and avenging his only other blemish of his career).

Tyson was a 42 to 1 favourite against a guy seen as at best 1-3 rounds of work for him and a bit of a joke opponent. He got beat down and destroyed (completely different from McCall catching lightning in a bottle with one punch against Lewis) over 10 rounds. Completely dominated aside from one punch in round 8 and was totally clueless to do anything about it.

Tyson didn’t man up and avenge this humiliation and aside from a few mutterings never really gave an indication that he was desperate to do so. So yes it was a shame on his career that he didn’t avenge this or any other defeat as is that he lost to a fighter if this caliber in the first place in such a one sided fashion.

 

Great fighter but nothing is more important than resume. He's my favorite fighter of all time easily, and I strongly believe at his very best, however short his peak was (before Cus' brainwashing had faded enough), he has a good chance against any HW ever. But he just doesn't have the career defining wins over greats or a collection of very good or near greats like others do.

He isn't a myth by any stretch of the imagination. All you had to do was watch him to see the tremendous talent.

 

Douglas achieved less than all of those you mentioned over the course of his career. Moorer, Schmeling, Norton, Young all trump Douglas for resume quite comfortably over the course of their respective careers and the astonishing jab of Douglas was amplified by Tyson being totally clueless in Tokyo to negate it. Douglas’s never looked anything special before or after this fight and the reason is simple- He wasn’t that special but it was enough to destroy Tyson and inflate his own reputation out of all proportion in the eyes of some.

What does the other guys likely performances against the listed guys have to do with anything anyway? We’re addressing your question as to whether Tyson was a myth not the other greats status in the scheme of things so stop deflecting.

Show me where any of Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Louis , Holyfield, Lewis lost in their physical primes to a fighter of Douglas’s caliber without at least avenging it and putting it to rights? Lewis lost to someone of that level but had the stones to avenge this but Tyson never ever did. And I don’t think any of the listed greats lost to fighters if Danny Williams and Kevin McBrides level full stop (and plenty of them fought in for too long too just like Tyson).

Tysons pre title run looks great on paper but who did he fight? Until he met Berbick his resume was bums and journeymen exclusively. Foreman for one built as impressive a resume against similar standard opponents too pre title. Tyson is hardly unique there in the fattening of records. After Tyson stepped up to World Class (Berbick onwards) his record was 31 fights 23-6-2 (NC) 19 KOs. Makes him look somewhat more mortal now doesn’t it though to be fair there is some less than stellar opposition in that post title lot too. Joe Louis built a much better and sustained KO record pre and post title run than Tyson and it’s not even close.

And seriously why bring up the problems that Frazier, Louis and Foreman had (Wlad is a bit different and pretty unique in boxing in that he overcome about 3 pre title disasters to build an extended and dominant reign)? They all endured and overcome these tough spots in their career. Tyson’s first difficult spot saw him not only not endure it, it saw him KTFO! Poor comparison there.

You can wax lyrical all you want about fast hands and crushing power but the facts are Tyson had more black marks and question marks on his career than all the true ATG’s. The fact his disciples have an excuse for them (pretty **** poor excuses at that) doesn’t change this one bit and if you apply the same standards and critical eye to this instead of deflecting and glossing over them you’ll see that too.

 

Lewis didn't exactly man up and fight McCall for an immediate rematch. By the time Lewis rematched McCall, Oliver was a drug addled mess who had no business being in the ring. And Lewis still fought cautiously.

 

He did but that’s on McCall and his team (well more McCalls team actually). Steward did take a cautious route in rebuilding Lewis before meeting McCall again so I concede your point. But Lewis is one of the very few fighters to have avenged every blemish on his record (McCall, Holyfield, Rahman). That’s a worthwhile accomplishment in my view.

 

Wait a sec, is your point here that Lennox Lewis, who could barely walk for the count after he was taken down in an instant early in the fight, deserves more credit than Mike Tyson for losing in 10 with dropping a fortunate Douglas at the very end of round 8, because Lewis could avenge this loss against McCall in a curiosity of a psychosomatic breakdown?

As an argument of making Lewis look like the better fighter?

James Douglas, 15lb heavier than the previous fight, fought Evander Holyfield next and retired.

 

The top head-to-head heavyweights will likely be found among those greats who didn't get stopped in their prime by non-greats.

 

Get real. Tyson's prime ended in 88. He got beat up when he was completely unprepared for the fight, it's totally irrelevant.
H2H, Tyson is top 5 all time in the worst case scenario. Most likely, he's no. 1.

 

Okay.
You've convinced me.
#1 he is.

 

That's not what I said. Try learning to read.

 

Its a matter of counterbalance. How to comprise when a boxer looked fantastic among these same non-greats? What about Larry Holmes? He didn´t look the way Tyson did fighting those and looked more flawed in some occasions too. But he never lost until age caught up with him.

Stylistically, it looks like fending boxers have a head-to-head advantage just by versatility.

 

I think Lewis did enough via beating Ruddock, Holyfield, Tua, Golota, Mercer, Grant, Vitali, Rahman and reigning for a decade to prove he was the better fighter than Tyson. The McCall redemption was just an asterisk to those quality victories.