The problem with people

You are not even allowed to put the Bruno fight in now :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

These guys are spastics.

 

Just wait until his E-Social workers get here.

 

Damn good question bro....:yep

 

:rofl

 

Spot on. Very good point and probably the reason some people hype Tyson (who was pretty damn good) beyond belief.

You could pretty much single out one or two fights for every champion and say "the prime (insert fighter here) would beat anyone".

In fact, why not just say "the Mosley of round 2 would knock Mayweather out in a rematch"

 

Wow, I have another poster whose opinions are worth reading about:good There are not many out there!

Tyson is an excellent example of mythology creation. While Tyson was an excellent fighter, they did an outstanding job of matching him to make him look even more ferocious. Many fighters were knocked out before the first bell sounded. As you so adeptly pointed out that myth not only survives to this day but overshadows the achievements of fighters who have gone on to have much better careers than Iron Mike.

 

Tyson is a badass and we all love him.

 

If Vitali, or Lennox or Muhammed, or Evander, or even Wlad where the unified heavyweight champion when Tyson was in his early 20's, Tyson would now have a similar reputation to that of Tua, Briggs, Peters etc.

The fact is, even when his star burned bright, it never burned that bright. He just wasn't THAT good.

 

It is a combination of insecurity and stupidity.

And liking shiny things.

 

He was an extraordinary talent who quite literally burned himself out. His losses and later subpar performances had less to do with the opponents he face and more to do with his personal live, lack of training and substance abuse.

I am amazed he could focus enough to walk let alone fight.

 

:shock:

 

...Simply put, not everyone's best years are the same length of time. It's all arguable, I guess, and maybe it's true that Tyson's losses are too easily dismissed early on, which I would agree to that point, but just the same, it's obvious to me everyone's most viable years come at different lengths. Tyson's really didn't appear to be long.

 

Good post.
Ive found on this forum and boxing mags and fans in general that if a fighter is known to the public they are viewed as a better fighter, and any win or loss for or against them is taken as significant.
I always think the super 6 is a good example of this, as it has given us an insight into the fighters and their lives, so they have become significant. But if you relly break it down, its not what it seems ie If A Ward beats A Green in the next super 6 bout it would appear as a big win but really who has A Green beaten? Hes a guy who got beat by Miranda. Thats what I mean when I say about fighters being known to the American fans.
In answer to your post Tyson was a massive star when, he first won a title, who everyone knew, so he was significant and extremely well known to the American fans, fighters like W Klitschko and Calzaghe although also excellent fighters with big wins arent as well known to the American public as Tyson was (Not many boxers have been as well known) so there becomes a belief that they are hidden protected home fighters.
Its happening a bit now with a fighter like Chris John who fights out of Indonesia, he has wins over J M Marquez, D Gainer & R Juarez but isnt known very well, but once again it comes down as to who the American public know. They dont know John but they know Gainer and Marquez who are both fighters that dont normally win the big ones