How can people think Tyson is overrated?

Research has shown a correlation between the people who overrate Mike Tyson and those who studied this video, end-to-end, more than once...

This content is protected

 

He was absolutely in his physical prime at age 29 in 1996. If we are going to give Tyson a pass for losing to Holyfield at such a tender young age with little wear and tear than a lot of other fighters would get passes for losses that are held against them.

By your logic we have to throw out Fraziers loss to Foreman given he was roughly the same age with more brutal fights

And Holyfield gets a pass for the Moorer fight and third Bowe fight etc

 

Also even if we try to use the past prime argument the fact that Holyfield was older than Tyson and seemingly farther past his best doesn't bode well for Tysons chances pre prison
One could reasonably argue the outcome of their fight in 1996 proves Tyson would lose pre prison

 

Frazier wasn’t off for four years and nor did many people consider him to be at his peak against foreman either.

 

On phenomena that we see throughout the history of the sport, is that the current or recent great heavyweights, define peopels idea of what a great heavyweight should look like.

If the man of the hour is a big heavyweight, then a high premium is placed on size.

We obviously see this today because there have been a string of quality big heavyweights, but we also saw it in the time of Jeffries and Carnera.

If the heavyweight champion is some 5' 10'' dynamo like Mike Tyson, then guys like Joe Louis suddenly look very credible.

At the moment Tyson is riding relatively low, because we are in an era of big heavyweights.

However if Usky cleans out the division, then expect the smaller heavyweight greats to gain currency.

 

I mean, if we can use a time machine to grab the Tyson who fought Spinks as he walks into the ring, I'm not sure who beats THAT Tyson. I'm not sure even pre-exile Ali could pull that off.

Overall he's overrated due to his career path. Although he's underrated too because, at his very best, he was a H2H monster. Elusive, quick hands, big power in both hands, excellent at throwing power combos, iron chin, plenty of stamina.

 

But the fight absolutely is counted against him legacy wise. Fans don't just throw it out as irrelevant like you seem to want to do regarding Holyfield.

Plenty of fighters successfully come back after long layoffs. Most people count Alis losses to Frazier and Norton against him even though they came after a long time out of boxing

 

You began by criticizing his longevity. When I explained why he was still great despite having a short reign you resorted to past prime losses. You keep trying to climb to higher grounds rather than defending your original points. Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champ of all time. He started off 37-0 with ten title wins and a unified crown. He won several fights against ranked opposition after losing the title as well. When contrasted to the achievements of a lot of other heavies he’s definitely an atg

 

Pretty much how I feel. It's tricky when you assess his career as it doesn't track like most careers. he peaked early and stopped progressing soon after and although didn't really decline physically straight away his skills started to regress relying on the big punch to bail him out.
Also people who don't like a fighter can easily poke holes in a resume. we see it constantly on here it doesn't mean that some points aren't valid it's just that those same people will ignore those flaws with their own fighter. The thing is that some people don't understand or choose to forget is that Mike definitely had an aura about him on the way up. being so young with his demeaner and intent he was considered the baddest man on the planet. I think this perceived aura fed into the myth that Mike would later become. Even in the US I remember some of the media thinking a shot Tyson could beat Lewis...the myth persisted even after several defeats. In his pomp though he was a scary dude until that perception started to crack. So it's complicated and reality lies between the two extremes.

 

I think he is rated somewhere in the middle. I feel he is a top 10 HW (I have him 8-9) - anywhere between 6-20 would be fine.

I was only young at the time but I do recall that each of his fights in the late 80s and early 90s were a huge spectacle even here in Australia. I can only imagine what it was like in the US.

Then there were the Holyfield fights. Even the Lewis v Tyson fight was massive, every pub showing it was packed, unlike anything I had ever seen.

Since then, I don’t think there has been any boxer that had the public reaching feverpitch in the same way Tyson did.

 

Just offering my 2 cents …

There’s a difference between peak and prime. To me, a peak is really one fight that defines a fighter at his best. His physical prime is while he still has all of his physical tools and they haven’t started to erode due to old age.

I don’t see 29 as post-prime for Mike Tyson. I do see it as post-peak, but to me that works against the arguments of his greatness because greatness (to me) is something proven by sustaining a high level … not a shooting star that soared to great heights and then exploded before it got as high as it could and fell to the eart as rubble.

Of course different people can have different views of that, but if we’re going to say anything after 27 or 28 is post-prime, it can’t just be a ‘special case’ for Tyson but not apply to others. He didn’t have an overly long or demanding amateur career. He didn’t sustain a lot of damage or wear and tear on his rise to the top — not a lot of wars there, just quick KOs for the most part.

Generally people say a come-forward style leads to a fighter burning out quickly, but also generally that’s because such fighters are ‘face fighters’ who take a lot of punches. Joe Frazier took more significant punches in the first and third Ali fights than Tyson probably took through at least the two Holyfield fights and maybe through his entire career.

As for taking a few years off: Ali did it and had a great third act, Leonard had one fight in five years and came back to beat Hagler and have other significant fights where he clearly had a lot left. If Tyson didn’t apply himself in the gym and dedicate himself mentally, to me he doesn’t get an asterisk that says — *didn’t try hard or take it as seriously … and we just accept that ‘oh well that’s Mike for ya’ but not count it against him as far as defining his level of greatness. That’s as big a defect in assessing a fighter as someone having a so-so chin or not having a great punch or a porous defense. It’s a mark against greatness, because we know greats find a way.

And to @Barrf — to me we just don’t know. He was electric against Spinks … for 91 seconds against a guy with bad knees and not a full heavyweight frame. We saw the same physical Tyson immediately before and after that fight not look like an unbeatable tank. Someone who survives that opening barrage might well have a lesser Tyson in front of them in round 4 or 6 or 8 or 10. We never saw Tyson sustain the 91 seconds of Spinks for 12 or 15 rounds so that’s a projection I’m not willing to make.

 

But just because some fighters came back after layoffs and did well doesn’t mean that all fighters can and nor does it mean that there successful ones were prime. No way was Leonard prime when he fought Hagler. And Ali wasn’t prime when he beat foreman either. Joe Frazier and Ricky Marciano were much like Tyson in that they wouldn’t have been made for old age or long periods of inactivity. Doesn’t mean they weren’t great

 

I don't consider the Holyfield losses to be past prime because other fighters don't get excuses for losses at that stage in their career so no dice. Don't see how being the youngest champ is of any relevance legacy wise.

Ultimately I don't think Tyson can be said to have dominated a distinctive era which counts against him.

Ezzard Charles had more title defenses and many don't rate him as a top 10 heavyweight.

 

Watch the fighter. Watch what he does that makes him stand above not only the fighters of his era. And potentially other ATG's of other era's.
Tyson head to head would've been an absolute nightmare for most heavyweights in history during his prime.
His strengths matches up shockingly well to most ATG'S weaknesses.
" How he matches up" with most heavyweights ATG's in history would be advantageous to him.
Is he "overrated "? I don't believe he is, I have him in my top ten between 6-10.
He has some chinks in his armor that we saw in his prime. But their was no truly great talent ( Or very good TBH) around at the time to push him to the limit. We did see after his prime how fragile he was mentally, and we can reasonably infer that fragility was always their.
I'm sure real "hard" men like Liston, Foreman, Ali, a few others would've picked up on that too .
Tyson easily could've been the "best ever" .
Imagine his skills and physical ability matched with Holyfield's toughness, desire, and dedication?
I don't know how someone could overrate him tbh in his prime. He had all the tools.
Was he the best ever? No, not in my opinion.

 

No, but coming back successfully after a long layoff vs. someone who didn’t is a marker of greatness. We can’t pretend it’s impossible and give Tyson a pass. He was still young enough to be a force (and to an extent was … until he ran into better opposition).

I don’t see Tyson as resembling Rocky or Frazier in any way as why he would have a shorter prime — those guys took much more punishment (and Marciano’s time on top was longer than Tyson’s anyway … at an older age with more miles on him).

Joe was on top longer than Tyson and his ONLY losses were to Ali and Foreman, two ATGs. He has probably he single greatest heavyweight win of all time, being the FotC. Tyson has no win even close to that. And Tyson lost to Buster Douglas in his absolute peak prime — if we’re going to say he wasn’t prime anymore just because he lost at, what, 23 years old, then we can excuse every loss by every other great too. He doesn’t get an asterisk.