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.
Being the youngest to ever do something doesn’t make someone the best — or one of the best — to ever do it. It’s a footnote in history, an accomplishment but being the best heavyweight in the world at 20 doesn’t make a boxer better than one who did the same thing at 25 or whatever. In perfect fact, the ‘unify the belts’ thing is such a recent phenomenon that it doesn’t even apply to most of history. There weren’t a lot of belts out there to unify during most of the 20th century. It’s certainly no more impressive than beating the one, true champion in an era where there is only one, true champion.
He's far from the only one who dominated an era where several of the top guys were past their best. That could be said of Ali and Marciano also.
Tyson did for boxing what Jordan did for the NBA around the same time. Both drew in a LOT of attention to their respective sports. U kno the adage, "A fun heavyweight division is what draws in the most viewers"? Sum truth to that. Ofc I rate the four kings of the 80s higher but it was Tyson who captivated more ppl and thus his myth is born n continues. Was he thrilling? Ofc but he didn't have the competition for me to really rate him highly. That still doesn't take away from the viewership he garnered. Even a past it Tyson drew crowds but he knew he had to fall on antics to sell fights bcuz he was faded. Before I conclude, he lost to the biggest names he faced. Holmes n Spinks were ATGs but Holmes was coming out of retirement two years after he was past prime in Spinks fights tbf. To give credit, his obliteration of Spinks does make it easy to take that win 4 granted bcuz he still beat the then undisputed(Holmes) prior n obliterated Cooney. Peak Tyson in his most revered performance is his only clear loss. Nothing 2 b ashamed of. Essentially it's Tysons exciting style, being an American heavyweight n his personality altogether which give him most of his benefits. Fair to say he was overrated but he was that missing part that boxing longed for post Ali for that small time he shined.
I wonder if Tyson isn't the fighter with the most amount of fans claiming with absolute conviction that he would beat anyone at his best. In that sense he's overrated.
Bingo. I can remember back in the day people would get excited about an upcoming Tyson fight but when asked, they had never heard of names like Carl Williams or Frank Bruno.
However, Mike Tyson stands out from all other heavyweight champions in boxing history. And that is that he won the title of world champion in the heavy category at the age of 20.
My observations on Tyson being rated see two distinct groups. 1. Casual fans: A lot of people who grew up watching him fight, many of which became boxing fans because of him, see Tyson as this unstoppable juggernaut who beat everyone in a round while destroying the heavyweight division. Listen to them long enough and you’ll think he knocked out Godzilla, ate people’s souls and was the pinnacle of everything great. These people are wrong. 2. Boxing Purests. These people saw Tyson as a capable but limited fighter who was exposed the second anyone stood up to him. They will point to Tokyo Douglas and say he was still the same man who captured the title at twenty. He wasn’t. They point to Holyfield and say Tyson would always lose to this style or that type of boxer. These people are wrong. The truth lay somewhere in the middle. Simply put Mike Tyson was a machine. Tyson and Cus D’Amato talked about him becoming the youngest champion ever. That was the goal. When he did that, which was after Cus died, he and Jimmy Jacobs then created a new goal of holding all three major belts. When he did that Jimmy Jacobs died and he had no more goals. Nothing new and challenging to motivate him. Tyson lost his fire. Tyson was a machine. He fought often because the people who knew him, knew it was the best way to keep him ring ready and out of trouble. If you keep the machine in use, maintain it well and make sure nothing gets stuck in the gears it works well. If you don’t, the machine breaks down. Once the people who maintained the machine Tyson were gone or dead, it broke.
Ask yourself who the best Tyson defeated in his career compared to the best other HW champs through the years have beaten, and you’ll have your answer. It’s unfortunate for him. He came along during a HW lull.
By casuals? Yes. By hardcores? No, he's actually a bit underrated. Larry Holmes was not superior imo.
Holmes showed he could scrape himself off the canvas and win in spectacular fashion, and he held the title for nearly 7 years. Mike held it roughly half that long. It could also be argued Larry beat a comparatively much better fighter in Ray Mercer than Iron Mike did in his comeback/post prison (hell, Mercer looked better against prime time Lewis than he did against Holmes). Larry even looked WAY better against Holyfield (and this was a prime Holy, not the well past it Holy Mike faced). Finally Larry only got stopped once, and never in his prime.... Granted, Holmes ducked a couple of key fights (probably Thomas and Page, though the latter is iffy considering the people he shouldn't have lost to), and he most certainly should have granted either Norton or Witherspoon a rematch. Perhaps even Snipes. But...and keep in mind I have huge respect for the Iron Mike of the 80s, from an overall perspective it's hard for me to see him above Larry. Longevity, durability, chin (Holmes came back from flush shots by Mike Weaver, Gerry Cooney and Earnie Shavers, Mike got knocked out by Douglas and Holy), overall skill level, ring generalship and IQ.....
To define and interpret a casual fan perhaps only requires yourself as a model in the appropriate context. Think of another sport that you’re not entirely up with but still well aware of the marquee names - or more popularly circulated exponents of said sport. I’m not a basketball fan per se, but I do know the names of Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. Such was their overall impact on the sport. I’m also superficially aware of their more celebrated achievements. Being a causal fan is okay - BUT - if I were to go boots’n’all on a dedicated basketball forum arguing for their greatness - well, that would be foolish and I would be talking out of my a**. Lol. There would be many others great players I am not familiar with and I would understand (from my exposure to boxing) that best known and/or most popular (factoring the influencing press and the fans) does not necessarily equate to actual best or greatest in the given sport. See, I’ll have a go at basketball. I do understand that Chamberlain held insane personal stats - but conversely, Bill Russell held stats (including assists?) that more strongly recommended him as a team player - an equally important role/contribution if not greater. Have I got that right basketball experts? If not, be gentle - I’ve stuck my neck out, lol. One advantage of a casual fan, if any, is that they might not be encumbered by passed down and repeated beliefs - especially if they are repeated affirmations of false positives. Fresh eyes, so to speak.
Call me crazy but I saw a bit of something in Larry’s actual fight with Mike to recommend success for the prime version of Holmes - and I’m obviously pulling on established attributes of the prime Larry to make that leap. Extrapolation gone mad? Maybe. But where Tyson is concerned, I think there was a fair demarcation point where a fighter, if he was still viably upright, could see his chances of victory notably rise. Young Foreman might be a more acute example. Last 5-6 rounds with George, then you might be looking at a major turn in the tide. Viably lasting that distance was the biggest hurdle. With all his prime skill and durability, I really believe Larry has prime Mike covered. So much so, I’d bet on Larry. Not the house. Just $5. No aspersions on Larry, I’m just not lucky when it comes to betting. I wouldn’t want to put the mocker/mocca on Larry and have him suffer for my bad luck. Come to think of it, I wouldn’t bet on him just for that superstitious fear.
Larry's ring rust and age were showing in the fight with Mike, but yes you could see the tactics he would have used to beat him in his prime: jab, jab, try the right, hold or push him off balance and back into the jab, stir and serve. I also saw some fear in Larry's eyes, probably fed to him prefight by some of the adulators. That wouldn't have affected prime Holmes in the least. Buster Douglas was a second-rate Holmes that night in Tokyo. It would have ended earlier for Mike in 1980. But that's just me, guys like Foreman, Holmes, and of course Ali are my favorite fighters. I have become a huge fan of 80s Mike since I joined this forum several years ago, but I still don't see him beating any of them, nor Louis or prime Lewis, Holyfield.
