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

I don't even wanna know, lol.

 

Interesting question.
In such scenario there is a good chance Tyson never becomes a world champion because there is always a superior ATG blocking his way. In that case his resume would be more akin to Norton or Quarry: an excellent boxer who was unable to reach the top.

Being in the right place and time matters a lot and Tyson was kinda "lucky" because the 90s was not exactly the greatest HW era, thus his opposition was quite "manageable"

 

tłumacz Google?

That's one for the Polish speaking forum members

 

Okay cheers.

 

You would need specific parameters. Are we saying he begins his career in 1970 precisely? & that he developes as quickly as he did in the real timeline? That would mean he was ready for a title shot around 1972, maybe early ‘73.

I despise saying this because Joe Frazier is my absolute favourite fighter of all-time…but even FOTC Frazier probably loses to an energetic young Tyson, all the more chance Frazier around the time he fought Foreman does, too.

Of course, he would have to beat Foreman to Frazier while Joe still had the belt, because I see prime Foreman blasting Tyson out.

But then the picture changes again if he debuts in 1973, or 1976 etc. A lot of permutations but Tyson could become champ by beating any version of Frazier IMO & probably post-Manila Ali, & debatably prime Holmes too.

 

yes, unfortunately something popierdoliłem, sorry again

 

I’d say it’s overrated. Casual fans literally think he’s one of the best 5 or 6 fighters ever. They ridicule lists that don’t have him #1.

 

Prime Mike Tyson on a given night with his head completely straight and all the stars properly aligned had the chops to beat any heavyweight who ever lived.

I don’t think his batting average in the real world would have been anywhere close to 1.000.