Why was tyson ''a hype job'' ?

Yeah I counted them. There's a thousand excuses. atsch

We all know how you feel about Tyson. You may stop posting on this thread now. :good

 

We all know how you feel about Tyson. You needn't be here either. :good

And with you, there clearly are feelings, rather than just thoughts.
An irrational emotional attachment.
I guess it's kinda sweet. :good

 

When evaluating Tyson, these days I look at the positive facts and the negative facts, not what could have been, but what actually happened. As a fan of Tyson's I am a lot more realistic when discussing his greatness as a fighter. Its a complicated subject though, was he a great champion as in hype and excitement he created or was he a great fighter deserving of top 5 status? Personally I put him up there with the great champs from an excitement point of view, no one since Ali created as much drama and excitement as Tyson. The fact that his three year prime to this day keeps him relevant, and people still hold him in high regard despite his mistakes speaks volumes. There were great heavies after Tyson but they didn't reach the same level in terms of icon status, he was the last great name at heavyweight.

I'm on lunch break so here's a few obvious ones I can think of right now: -

POSITIVES
Fact 1 - Tyson had a 3 year dominance that transfixed the public, no heavyweight after this captured the people's imagination like this again.

Fact 2 - Tyson dominated his completion in that 3 year window and performed consistently.

Fact 3 - Tyson had the "invincible" tag attributed to him, right or wrong, he had that tag. Not many fighters get called that at any time of their career.

Fact 3 - Tyson fought with courage in all of his losses except Holy 2.

Fact 4 - Although Tyson never came back from losing to win a fight there were times he met resistance pre prison and it didn't discourage him.

Fact 5 - Some of his prime opponents were not scared as most think, just over matched.

Fact 6 - Tyson was a different fighter post prison, was older and no way had the same physical ability he had in his early 20s, that youth was needed in order to perform the way he did in his prime.

NEGATIVES
Fact 1 - People that don't particularly rate Tyson have a shed load of negatives to bring up due to his terrible post prison career!

Fact 2 - Tyson's competition wasn't as bad as some say but he never had that great challenge, when it did happen with Douglas he didn't get the chance to re match him or fight Holy due to prison. So we are left with an average resume, compared with Holy and Lewis, which is his own fault.

Fact 3 - Tyson couldn't overcome Douglas and lost badly, great champs usually find a way but mike couldn't. The only glimmer was that uppercut. It was one sided.

Fact 4 - even though Tyson was past his best post prison he didn't show the character or discipline to make his comeback more of a success, once he lost to Holy that was pretty much it. His didn't come out a courageous loser during his comeback but instead disgraced himself a bit, the Lewis loss helped in a strange way as was more humble.

Fact 5 - Tyson's later career was a complete circus and nearly destroyed his entire legacy.

There obviously loads more you could add but for me it comes down to the same thing, he was a great and exciting champ but maybe falls short against some all timers. He just about makes my top 10 as a fighter but is up there with Ali as a champion that ignited the public's imagination. Tyson was not all hype, he earned most of it by his own actions.

I should think he is pretty happy about the way he is viewed these days even if people don't rate him as the best ever, he seems very humble about his ranking. To be honest I think his image these days has helped people hold him in higher regard, it shows his character was never all that bad, just easily lead and gave in to his indulgences.

 

Screw this "hype" stuff,....as it's usually the ruminations of some hyperventilating sports writer...like this "Chris Williams" who disgraces boxing writers everywhere with his "ESPN-like" salivating over Mayweather. There are higher than realistically possible expectations and burdens put on certain boxers, and Mike Tyson was just too much for them to resist...Again, I say screw their hype fever,...Tyson was, for a relatively short amount of time, a legitimitely great fighter.

 

didn't he get injured vs. Williams, immediately after which he was KO'd?

and holding McBride against Tyson at that point in his career is a bit like saying Julio Cesar Chavez wasn't a great because he lost to Grover Wiley - BOXERS GET OLD!

 

This.

 

One other thing I'd throw out there........let's say Douglas decides to stay down for just one more second in round eight. Or let's say he just can't get to his feet. Does that then put Tyson up on higher ground in terms of "grit" or being able to fight through adversity to victory? Does that one second that someone else has in THEIR control change your opinion of the level of his determination and will to win? To read some of the posts here, you'd sure think so. After all, he would have come back to win a fight he was losing, right? Does no one else find that utterly ridiculous? I can't be the only one. I mean come on...........

 

Firstly, you ARE the only one. There is a you tube clip of both counts in that fight shown simultaneously. Both counts were started at the exact moment the fighters were " down " both were at EXACTLY the same tempo. Therefore Tyson was also DOWN for more than 10 seconds, if you are claiming that Douglas was given a slow count which allowed him to get to his feet before 10.

 

I never said that anyone was given a slow count. That isn't the point at all. Try to catch up.

 

Your defence though admirable is fundamentally flawed.

The reason the " public " was transfixed by Tyson had NOTHING to do with his boxing, rather it was his out of ring behavior. And I am talking long before the ra pe, with the assualts, and that pathetic marriage to some actress bird. The " public " didn't give a sh it about his boxing.

The same was the case with the out spoken Ali, who upset the " public " with his separatist views, which caused millions of them to hope he got beaten up and knocked out. Most of them didn't watch his fights, they just looked for the results in a state of eternal optimism.

Admittedly after he toned down the N.O.I. stuff, and the consensus became anti Vietnam the public took him to their hearts, but in the years 64 - 68 Ali was despised by the so called " public "

 

I don’t get how you can say the beatings Tyson dished out in the 80s had nothing to do with why the public had a fascination with him. I know as a kid I was totally sucked in by it, guys being lined up but no one could beat him. That’s what got me into being a fan, I couldn’t care less about his outside antics at that time. In the ring he was a ruthless fighting machine that couldn't be stopped, that story and how Cuss took him in etc really captured the public's imagination. The circus stuff came later.

As for Ali, I am really referring to his image as a whole, I agree his stances outside the ring coloured people’s opinions but he was ultimately a boxing icon.

 

I agree with that.
But I suppose the counter point would be that Douglas did in fact beat the count, so the onus was then on Tyson again to do something about it.
I agree, it's better to talk about reality rather than contending theory.

I'm not of the belief that Tyson "lacked the ability to fight through adversity", but I will say that he never showed much or any great adaptability against the few fighters who did in fact have him figured. When he lost to Douglas and Holyfield it was pretty one-sided, he just kept doing the same thing over and over and got beaten down.

 

It's only a slight exaggeration to say that Tyson knocking down Douglas was his one moment of success in the entire fight.

 

I've heard some whoppers before but this actually takes the cake!

George Foreman had no real intention of fighting Mike Tyson, rather he was piggy backing off his former reputation to add relevance to what, at the time, was considered a novelty comeback. He was offered $5,000,000 in 1990 by Don King to fight Mike Tyson and he claimed he was more scared of Don King than he was of Mike Tyson and rejected the offer.

Keep in mind that Evander Holyfield was criticized for taking on George Foreman in April of 1990 whereas Mike Tyson, almost 1 month prior, was praised for taking on the very dangerous Razor Ruddock in what was considered the "Unofficial Heavyweight Championship" between the number 1 and number 2 ranked fighter in the HW division who, again, at the time, were considered to be the division's best fighter, save for the "placeholder" that was Evander Holyfield.

Holyfield with his titles was almost rendered irrelevant due to his refusal to grant Don Kings demand for a immediate fight with Mike Tyson. He decided to parlay his titles and new found fame into fortune so he took on George Foreman who was not a perceived threat, provided a curiosity factor, a sizable draw, and a likeable image of an everyman whose previous career fashioned him the ultimate destroyer.

Nobody expected Foreman to win, but Holyfield's lack of size, lack of respect from boxing fans and people's desire to see George do well was a big reason for the fight's box office success. After the fight Holyfield sort of legitimized him. Sure there was still Ruddock, an up and coming Tommy Morrison, Ray Mercer, a young Rid**** Bowe; but Tyson's camp (Don King) looking for an easy payday and leverage against Holyfield and his camp's demands found a way to leave Holyfield with his titles but without a way to seriously cash in-unless he fought Mike Tyson.

So they upped the offer for Big George to $20,000,000. It would be the highest sum offered for a participant of a non-title fight. He rejected it in pursuit of a Holyfield rematch; it was a lucrative fight, it was a title fight and given the first bout it seemed to be the "easier" option.

After beating Moorer and Tyson being released from prison he was offered a 3rd fight this time for his lineal title but he instead rejected any offer from Don King citing he won't do business with him.

As for the insinuation that Tyson would have lost to any version on Douglas, watch Pacquaio vs Marquez 2, Ali vs Norton 2, Louis vs Schmeling 2 as examples of a fighter having some sort of perceived stylistic advantage but losing anyway. The reality is that Mike Tyson was by far the more consistent fighter and therefore it is not only plausible but also highly likely that he would have beaten Douglas had he come in better shape. Douglas had a good night against a man who was more than capable of beating him.


As for the OP, glad you've gotten into the sweet science, its a beautiful sport with many great fighters and plenty of great fights. Mike Tyson wasn't a hype job.

There have been plenty of hype jobs over the years but none have gone so for to:

Setting the record for youngest Heavyweight Champion

#1 p4p for 3 years running as a Heavyweight Champion

Unifying the belts by not just beating the title holders but by also beating the guys those guys beat to get the titles so that there is no question who is the rightful champion

Top 10 HW based on Ranked Opponents defeated

Having a title reign longer (winning streak) than George Foreman, Sonny Liston, Jack Dempsey, Evander Holyfield, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano.

When you take this into account he kind of went extra mile. He was the real deal and for a period he was the "baddest man on the planet." It didn't last as long as we wanted, and he never met the unrealistic expectations that some of his peers (even those who some rank higher on ATG lists) ever had to endure.

 

Its true.