Is Mike Tyson a myth?

I agree with Lewis having a more steady career, was longer competitive as well. But thats not what we were having a talk about.

It was about jumping on James Douglas as an indication of a fighters missing quality. Deficiencies that happened more emphatically to Lennox Lewis, not once, but twice, who had the chance to avenge one of these with Rahman showing up. As one user already summed this up very well, I don´t think I have to illustrate any further. There is some resemblance to George Foreman, another eminent top-notch head-to-head heavyweight, failing against Jimmy Young and barely making it out of the ring victoriously with Ron Lyle in '76.

 

Most people will class the loss to Douglas, as the night where his partying lifestyle outside of the ring over stepped the mark. It was the night when him staying up getting drunk with whores, finally impacted on the end result in the ring.
A fully focused and prepared Tyson would not have lost to Douglas that night. No way.

He lost lost focus, became a party animal. He took shot cuts in training and believed his own hype. Eventually it led to his first professional defeat, it just happened to be Buster Douglas. He went off the rails after the Spinks fight in reality. But didnt get found out until the Buster Douglas fight.

The Tyson up until the Spinks fight was an absolute animal. After that it was a constant decline because he couldnt stay discipline outside of the ring and be a consistent professional.

 

So this means that you think Primo Carnera is greater than Mike Tyson??

 

Yep.

 

Good point. I'd like to add that Tyson's tools also required him to be more active with his feet and hands - unlike, say, Lennox Lewis (who can afford to rest at distance and keep you at the end of his jab) - and endurance is also one of the first things to go with age. So Tyson wouldn't have aged well even under the best circumstances.

Overall, I tend to take a middle-of-the-road approach with Tyson. Perhaps no fighter seem to elicit such diametrically opposed views from the true boxing cognoscenti, and I think both sides of the debate err in their extremism. No, he was not "flawless" at his best, and he could not have beaten someone like Ali even with Cus in his corner. But at the same time, he was not just a puncher who only thrived against putrid competition.

I like to judge fighters in terms of "peak" and in hypothetical head-to-head rankings. At his absolute best, Tyson probably would not crack top 5 but likely cracks top 10. Even at his best, I don't think he beats Ali, Holmes, or even Liston - guys who can keep him at the end of their jabs, know how to deal with him when he comes inside (whether tying him up or muscling him away), and has good enough chins to survive a few landed shots. But I do think he beats Lennox or Holyfield at his best, for instance - though they wouldn't be sure things.

 

But he never had another chance to fight Douglas, though. Douglas is the one who decided to up and retire.

 

Probably not boxing "fans," but more "experts."

 

For 1987 or 1988, Ring Magazine had him rated as the top pound for pound fighter at that time. Of all the talent in boxing, at all weight classes at that time, Tyson, a heavyweight, was named pound for pound best. And think of how rare it is for a heavyweight to be seen as a pound for pound best. Usually, the best pound for pound fighters come from the lower weight classes.

 

I am pretty sure Tyson beats Frazier; it's a bad match-up for Frazier. Tyson has faster hands, has far greater punch variety, hits harder, is harder to hit, has a better chin, etc. Tyson would relentlessly beat him to the punch and get him out of there. I suspect he beats Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis, and Louis, too. I'd give you Ali, Holmes, Foreman, and Liston. Vitali, likely, too. Fury, not sure.

 

Tyson was nothing short of spectacular pre-Douglas. That version of Tyson would have been difficult for any heavyweight at any time.

Because Tyson dominated for a relatively short time, I rate him below some guys like Louis or Ali who had a greater body of work at the highest level.

So my view is that he's not the greatest of all time, but he deserves to be somewhere in the discussion.

 

I'll respond to each of these points and leave it at that. If someone wants to reply to disagree or analyze, I'll respond but I'm not in the mood for another long drawn out back and forth raging mike tyson thread.

A) Dempsey was KO'd by a complete nobody Fireman Jim Flynn and people gloss over it but you could easily make the case Dempsey wasn't in his prime yet. Wladmir Klitschko was stopped by journeyman Ross Purrity who lost 3 of his last 4 fights. Lennox Lewis was a 5 to 1 favorite and was KO'd in 2 against journeyman McCall who never won a fight of this magnitude other before or since. This also depends on who you consider an ATG as boxers such as Jack Johnson and Joe Walcott have plenty of iffy ko losses to guys most of us have never heard of.

B) this is a valid criticism. Tyson only rematched 1 man who beat him and he lost that fight as well. Its very strange that his management never tried to set the record straight.

C) completely valid criticism. Every ATG heavyweight champion has gotten off the floor to win or at least avenged some ko losses (including Wladmir and Lennox). Its simply an observable fact.

D) he was pretty much the most infamous man on the planet for the bite of the century. It's a huge mark against you when the most memorable moment of your career in the mainstream media is an egregious foul.

E) This is not true. Spinks was undefeated , in his prime, and a champion of 2 weight classes. He was elite. You could argue Razor Ruddock was an elite opponent as he was 27 years old, ranked #2 in the world and was terrorizing the division with a string of knockouts. Tony Tucker was an undefeated 28 year old skilled boxer who had the IBF championship belt. Those wins would look GREAT on anyone's resume.

F) Hard to argue against this since Tyson does have a lot of flagrant fouls people overlook like trying to break guys arms, elbows, low blowing Razor Ruddock, and yes he did quit on more than one occasion (Holyfield and McBride). The fact he was past his prime against McBride does not matter, you do not quit. People give Roberto Duran and Sonny Liston hell for quitting, Tyson should not get an exception.

As for the rest:

-only an extremely biased and immature individual can gloss over all 6 of Tyson's losses, bad performances, and flaws as a fighter to prop him up as a h2h "unbeatable" monster. It's quite clear simply looking on film that prime or not, Holyfield and Lewis would always give him serious problems, let alone other tricky matchups like Foreman or Ali. In no objective reality does Tyson simply walk through every past and present champion unscathed.

-having said that he still had a solid resume. He lacks big elite names or quality but he makes up for it with quantity and domination during his brief but exciting reign. Based on resume and accomplishments you could make a case for him being top 7-15 all time.

-Likewise despite his flaws, fouls, and lack of heart, Tyson is a dangerous opponent for most h2h. I have him in my top 10 in terms of pure fighting ability and skill. You'd have to be pretty disingenuous to not even have him in your top 10 h2h.

 

Him being only a myth has itself become a myth.

 

Came here to basically say this. I have Tyson comfortably inside my top ten H2H and just outside my ATG top ten. Great fighter, but the majority of his fans make him out to be some type of God. He's not.

 

He's the God of KO's