How can people think Tyson is overrated?

But at 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 1, 1990, he apparently turned into a pumpkin.

The interesting thing to me is, Holmes in the earlier half of the decade aside, the 1980s generation of heavyweights were considered the ‘lost generation,’ a bunch of guys who traded around the lesser belts (or weren’t recognized by the public as the real champ) among each other like a hot potato. Someone was bound to come along and beat a bunch of ‘former champions,’ but really none of them seized any sort of momentum to make as much as a couple of successful defenses.

So ‘cleaning out’ a division of Trevor Berbick and Bonecrusher and the like — who were really past their sell-by dates and had been already dispatched by Holmes, was hardly the stuff of legend (it was, however, the stuff of hype, as Mike had been PR’d to be ‘the guy’ since he was on the cover of Sports Illustrated as a teenager and had the New York/East Coast press fawning over him from the start).

To his credit, Mike won the lineal title beating Michael Spinks, but he was an awkward beefed-up light heavyweight who caught Holmes as he was declining and by the time he fought Tyson had knees made of sawdust. But still, Tyson did it in impressive fashion.

Then he walked through a few guys and seemed to be the real thing until that night in Tokyo, when a motivated longshot completely dominated him. And of course with the Don King cooked-up ‘long count’ the excuses started and they never ended. His terrible opposition (Ruddock aside, due credit there — limited guy but a strong one with a punch), his **** conviction and his losses starting with Holyfield were all whisked away as if they never happened.

Tyson was a shooting star but he’s treated like a once-in-a-lifetime comet. And he wasn’t quite that.

 

I don't see how keeping him out of the top 10 is unreasonable given how briefly he was on top

He was clearly considered the best heavyweight in the world for like 18 months

 

He was viewed by many as the best heavyweight in the world for the better part of three years and through ten title fights. He was the youngest title holder in heavyweight history ( is suppose youngest linear title holder can go to Patterson but that’s iffy given that Floyd won it in vacant fashion anyway. ) Tyson was a repeat belt holder. Dominated in an era where most were bigger than he was. I don’t rank him very highly but lower part of the top ten isn’t unreasonable. Having him outside the top fifteen is ludicrous

 

his opponents weak or medium levels contenders
& lot of them had pass their peak.

& yes he is not at his best condition of against with James Douglas. but still: losing to James Douglas is show of some limitations.

so if persons call him the #1 best or greatest or can beat all the others. this is over rate. is serious hype only. not based reality.

instead he was still great fighter & entertainments fighter. but not amongst with the top class of greatness all time.
he was never in that top greatness class.

 

I liked him in the 1980s because his fighting frequency. he stayed active in early years.

 

He's in my top 10.
He was a breath of fresh air in the 80's, exciting to watch and the best technician punching wise since Joe Louis.
His feet and head movement plus his subtle shifts from orthodox to southpaw and back again to land his right hook to the liver followed by a right uppercut was beautiful to watch.

PS What's a casual by the way ?

 

I think casual would know the star boxers & the hyped boxers.
but more dedicated fan have knowledge of the opponents more & better understanding of context of a match.

 

He's overrated in the sense that some of the more detached from reality Tyson fans view him as Thanos and Thor rolled into one. I think he was a very daunting H2H prospect in his prime but not an unbeatable one. I find it reasonable to have him in the lower top 10.

 

Righto, thanks for that, I've seen the expression on YouTube and knew it was obviously an insult.
A lot of 'dedicated' boxing fans don't know about contenders, journeyman, national champions, regional champs and also rams though.
One thing I don't like hearing from these 'casual fans' is usage of the phrase 'bum'
Fighters who don't make it are not bums, bums are not in the ring, they're pulling thr strings outside of it.
'Casuals' also seem to be fixated on boxers chins too, have you noticed ?? As in "such and such has a glass chin"

 

Spot on as usual,mate. A lot of knowalls simply don't understand this thing about a boxer's chin. e.g. Frank Bruno gets mocked for having a "Glass jaw" so not being able to take a shot,whereas us genuine fans will know that in the early going,Frank could take a punch as well as most. The problem was when he'd get exhausted and he lacked the instinct on how to defend - a lot would clinch or move away when tagged but Bruno would just stiffen up then the writing would be on the wall. I also get annoyed when a boxer is referred to as a bum. Anyone,amateur or pro,who steps through those ropes into the ring is worthy of respect.

 

I remember someone at work telling me once that Frank Bruno would beat Tim Witherspoon because the American was flabby.
I was a fan of Witherspoon and thought him underrated and Bruno for all his strengths, as you've mentioned here, he wasn't a natural fighter and it was only when he beat McCall that he seemed to react properly when hurt.
Another one told me in a pub toilet, that big Frank couldn't take a punch.
I took no notice of either and didn't bother answering

 

Yeah Witherspoon was really good when he was on song.

 

I think Dong King was the difference between being on or off song on a lot of occasions

 

Yeah KIng ruined a lot of boxers.

 

Depends on whom you ask: if you ask his fanatics or a casual fan, then he’s dramatically overrated. Most his fanatics are bigger fans than Tyson over the sport whereas a lot of casual fans don’t know much and equate fame with greatness. Like when you see stupid lists online of “all-time greatest pound for pound” look at the comments and it’s always “Why isn’t Tyson #1”, stuff like that when they say Tyson ranked like 30-40 when in reality, if you polled genuine historians, he’d be very lucky to get top 100. His fanatics who think if he wore his favorite undies, woke up at a certain time and listened to a certain song on the way to the arena he’d beat every heavyweight in history in one round. They overrate him and they gloss over his losses, lack of longevity, relatively thin resume. Like, Holmes and Spinks were peak for him but he wasn’t prime for Douglas?

Then there’s also a theme from current scene fans to downplay anything from the past to elevate todays game or fighters like Wilder fans putting their man ahead of anyone who made less defenses than he did of his trinket. I think they are more in the minority than the wild fanatics who think Tyson was from a different planet and could never lose a fight.

Tyson can realistically rank among the top 10 heavyweights, but fairly low down like 9 or 10. Seems like a ranking 9-12 is fair for him. Anything higher I deem as overrating, anything lower underrating.