¿Why does the public underestimate Mike Tyson's resume so much?

I haven't checked but I'm guessing the Jake Paul fight will be sanctioned as a pro bout. If So, technically Jake Paul will be apart of Tysons resume. Is it just me or is that bazar?

 

I suppose that hinges on what precisely you mean by impressive? Eye-catching to non-Boxing fans? Or genuinely impressive to the students of the game?

 

The general public doesn’t follow boxing like we do. In large part, they either overrate Tyson or underrate him and regurgitate the tired old narratives that we debunk.

 

Everyone pretty much said it, but I wanted to say on resume Mike can be argued to be top 10-15. Anything above that isn't feasible because he never once beat a prime world champion and a number of guys have better resumes than him. When it comes to H2H skills though he is definitely in the top 10. Few guys have a better combination of power, speed, chin, stamina, reflexes, offense, defense, etc.

 

But this isn't about rating him as much as his resume. I think he's rated fine too, here, but I also think there's a reflexive and nearly insane way of devaluing his opponents that irritates me a great deal.

 

For the sake of discussion, who do you think is improperly devalued?

To me, he cleaned out a group of mostly unmotivated 1980s ‘champions’ who played hot-potato with the various non-Larry Holmes belts as their claims to fame. They were all more or less about even, but none of them stood out or above the rest.

I agree that the fashion he beat guys was often impressive, but the ‘who’ that he beat to me is less so.

 

This would basically be what I'm talking about, as a lot. The concession is that Tyson looked great doing it, and he seems to be rated on that, but with caveats like attributing negative opponent motivations and mindsets that fit a popular narrative and afflict the majority of his wins, magically. Instead of what virtually anybody else gets from us, which is an assessment of the overall quality of the opponent, by skill, physical attributes and career place, as a general rule. Not for every individual, granted, but generally speaking, when a resume is being summed up, by uniquely interested parties like forummites. With Tyson, it's about the whole lot, which I think was a nice lot, full of diverse sizes and styles. And mostly in such dominant fashion that it seems if everyone is just scared or not training right, because, for some reason, they're lukewarm on fame and fortune and don't want it enough. It's like a neater thing to sweep the Brunos and Ruddocks and Smiths under the same rug of non-falsifiable mentalities. The reasons for strategy go out the window, also, I find, and it's all character deficit, instead of failed strategy. They were unmotivated and scurrrred. It's tiresome to me and it's just not how I see it. You know, guys like Thomas, Spinks, Berbick, Tucker, Holmes, nobody wanted to beat the superstar enough to just be right on the night and come take it. This is a meme, essentially.

It's just they weren't feeling it, man. Even the 'champions' bit. I mean, Tyson individually put together every title from reigning champions, including the lineal champion and the one before that. Why are they only 'champions' for Tyson? They were literally everyone who was around with a claim that was taken seriously and they came for Tyson, as they should have. Also, the quality is what it is, whether they're just contenders in a non ABC hell or they happen to have a belt in the time of many belts. These were the top guys in the world, regardless, and we're talking about those guys, plus all the guys after that, until he lost the title, then the guys after that, then the guys after prison with new titles and without after that. They seem pretty solid as a list on a great champion's record, as a whole, to me and impressive when all stacked up.

So, again, it's just this framing that I find ordinary but wrong-headed, and, if I'm honest, hoopleheaded, as well. No other dominant champion I can think of has had their opposition bunched together under suspicions of character deficit, let alone for less concrete reasons like "His eyes were real big! Scared!" When Joe Louis was flattening people and they were saying "Nothing scarier than seeing a mad Joe Louis across from you." it phases absolutely no one, nor does it make them craft this tidy package of character deficit that devalues them with the concession "He sure beat 'em up good, the unmotivated, cowardly lot." But that is essentially the spirit with which Tyson's wins are generally unfairly assessed. I mean, George Foreman can say he was scared and his knees were knocking against Joe Frazier, but if Spinks says he was scared against Tyson, it's treated as some extraordinary proof that he had abnormal, damning fear, and that fear was proven to have manifested in a shameful strategy of fearful fighting, as proven by that near-complete 1st round. Eyes real big! All arguments from character deficit that are treated like a pugilistic, psychiatric RICO case. Everyone's in on just not being oriented the right way to fight for this one guy. That kind of thing, which I am not trying to attribute all to you. But it's just not for me, and is an aggravating pet peeve. I've never bought it and I'm going to doubt anyone on this forum is going to change that any time soon. But all the guys I mentioned and more, I consider as irrationally undervalued for perception of fear and lack of motivation, if not one leading to the other. Even later guys he fought, it's never quality, it's all in their heads and their moral fibers. It was a fix and he quit for this guy, he was always a headcase for that guy, or this guy did drugs, etc.

If you fight a few decades and look over any heavy's record who has, you'll find wins over fatties, alkies, dopers, failed spoiler strategies, accusations of fixes, guys who mentioned they were scared, guys who said they didn't care anymore, etc. But it's the phenomenal finishing megastar Tyson who gets them all lumped together as guys who just didn't have the spirit to train, fight and win. If they had the mentality for all those things, obviously they'd have beaten Tyson if they were all that impressive. Why, no true Scotsman ever lost to Mike! High five! Again, I'm not framing all my sarcasm as being aimed at you, but you're now part of this case. It's already in my dossier.

 

The reason is because whenever you are extremely dominant as a champion as he was, people are going to hate you. That's just how it is. They'll find something to gripe about.

Marciano was only 184 lbs, went 49-0, but still that is not enough and he gets nothing but hate.

The whole, "he fought nothing but bums" can be applied to every champion in history.

 

Yes, I also get the feeling that public opinion has him as one of the best ever, even p4p. This OP reads like it was about Ezzard Charles.

Mike Tyson is one of the most respected current or former athletes alive.

 

Wouldn't say it's underestimated, I think it's a case of what could have been. Saying he were to beat the top fighters of his era in Lewis, Bowe & Holyfield (in his prime), we'd be talking about a different kind of resume completely. One that would hold up against any boxer in history.

 

I am struck by the clarity of this post.

 

Mike did something every single fighter should strive to do; Cleaned out the division.
In 3 years (85-88) he completly cleaned out the division.

But the thing about Mike, is that Mike was a steppnig stone fighter. He isn't an All Time Great. To me, there are 2 types of fighters. Hall of Famers, and All Time Greats.

A Hall of Famer is a fighter that did something, like youngest heavyweight champion, or Mayweather beating the most champions or Joe Louis amount of title defenses. This is hall of famer stuff. Achievements.

An ATG(All Time Great) , it 100% comes down to; Who did you beat? This is why Ali is the greatest of all times IMO. His resume is jam packed with All time greats. Duran, even outside of Leonard at Lightweight, ran through the divsion and the proceeded to beat A PRIME Leonard. The same Leonard that went on to beat Hagler,Hearns and then himself. Leonard who beat Duran,Hagler,Hearns and Benitez ( I believe).

The problem with Mike,is that in the 70s,there was Ali,Frazier,Foreman. The 90s version is Holyfield,Bowe,Lewis. Tyson in essence to me,was more like Earnie Shavers, Ken Norton, Ron Lyle. These were the fighters you prove that you were legit. Great Fighters, but not all time greats.

 

Tyson is possibly the biggest choker in boxer history. Almost always ****ed up at the biggest stage.

 

Is this meant to be sarcastic or you don't count him becuase he wasn't lineal?

 

By "The Public", do you mean the Classic Forum? Because if not this post makes zero sense.

Mike Tyson is arguably the single most overrated boxer in boxing history (yes even moreso than Mayweather) Casuals overestimate the **** out of his resume and usually puts him P4P Top 10 all time because of it.

On the Classic Forum however I think he's rated fine. He's in the top 10, with nobody, not even the people defending him, making arguments for why he should be ranked higher.