How can people think Tyson is overrated?

A successful comeback is only one metric of graetness though

 

Not really. He was only heavyweight champion of the world for about 3 years and about as many title wins as Tyson did. And half of them were against Ron Stander, Manuel Ramos, Terry Daniels, Steve zyglewic, and Bob Foster

 

To me you nailed it on the head: We have to imagine Tyson with attributes he didn’t have to get him there.

It’s like imagining how faster a horse would be than Secretariat if it had a rocket engine attached. Or how much better a Ichiro would have been than Babe Ruth if he had his 2004 .372 batting average for his entire career plus hit 70 home runs per year, lol.

Hey, give an average heavyweight Holyfield’s dedication and determination and Tyson’s hand speed and Ali’s footwork and mental game plus Chuvalo’s chin and Marcino’s conditioning … and guess what, Lou Savarese is the GOAT, haha.

But we can’t award Tyson what he didn’t have and give him a pass on everything he didn’t have and pretend he’s better than he was. I have him in my top 15, not my top 10, but everyone is of course free to see things how they see them.

 

From March 1968 to January 1973 is longer than three years, lol. And Tyson fought some far-from-greats himself in title fights, mostly washed-up 1980s guys who got to claim ‘former champion’ because Holmes gave up some belts and they traded them around.

And Tyson LOST to a 38-1 underdog who most didn’t rate any higher than those guys you mentioned. By KO. And it wasn’t a lucky punch — sustained beatdown.

 

You forgot Old Foreman, Mike Weaver, Greg Page, David Bey, Bigfoot Martin, Morrison, Gary Mason, Damiani, Bert Cooper, Snipes, etc.

You can't face everyone, LMAO!!

Holyfield missed out on Golota, Morrison, Spoon, Tua, Akinwande, Briggs, Zolkin, Schulz, Brian Nielsen, etc. etc. etc.

 

This is it. Tyson was on an extremely busy schedule and did more work in a short amount of time than just about anyone and he also fought one top contender after another, unlike most others.

The short reign, despite the quantity and quality he crammed in still goes a little again him as new threats didn't have time to fully develop i.e. jail cut short potential fights against Lewis, Bowe and Holyfield while Tyson was looking to rebound and fight his way back to the top of the pile. It's tempered, but it's still a bit of a knock.

 

Quality post.

 

No one could have demolished Spinks like Tyson did. That alone makes me believe Tyson is not overrated. He is a nightmare for the division during any era.

 

I mean in some odd way I can see what you mean that Tyson's body reached a physical "prime" by 29. I think something like 25 is the average age most bodies reach their peak. But Tyson also has freak genetics. A 15 year old Tyson could compete with grown heavyweights, so I don't buy that this idea that his peak is at 29, it wasn't. Maybe in a physical perspective but he did nothing to actualize the potential of his body the same way he did under D'Amato and Rooney.

 

He was declared the NYAC champion when he beat Mathis in 1968 which was only recognized in several states. Meanwhile the elimination tournament was going on to determine the next champ which Frazier chose not to partake in. He finally faced the winner of the tournament, Ellis in 1970 just three years before losing to foreman. And I would wager that whoever Tyson’s WORST title opponent was, he’d beat Stander, Ramos, Zyglewic, Daniels, Foster and possibly Mathis

 

Wilder had ten defenses, though I don't put him anywhere near 80s Mike.

There were people whom had grave doubts about Mike by 1991, the Douglas fight made some folks pay close attention to what was going on with Holyfield at the time. I don't think they were convinced Holy could beat him (I wasn't), but Evander had some key wins under his belt.

If not for that one night in Tokyo, which might very well have been a simple underestimation coinciding with the best night a classic-style boxer ever fought, Mike's potential seemed unlimited. To this day, it's hard to think of a heavyweight as fearsome and feared as he was in the 80s....Foreman didn't last as long or make as many defenses (and let's keep in mind, Mike made defenses against the best in the world at the time), Liston only had those two huge wins.

 

1. Nonsense. People make concessions for fighters losing all the time and taking four years off and having a style that doesn’t age well is certainly a valid indication of being past it. If you don’t believe me then watch some of his fights from the 80s and then look at him in the mid 90s.

2. The record for youngest heavyweight champ is relevant because it’s a record that no one else holds in the 100+ years in the sports history.

3. he dominated an era by beating the best available men around and solidifying his claim to being undisputed - something that his immediate predecessor didn’t.

4. Actually Charles didn’t have more than Tyson. He had EIGHT to be exact. And while I don’t personally have him in the heavyweight top 10 there are some who do. Ezzard also beat the hell out of a very long list of great fighters before winning the crown.

 

Most people consider an era to be a period longer than 20 months. Tysons period of dominance prior to the arrival of Holyfield seems too brief to qualify as a distinctive era. It cant be compared to someone who beat all challengers over a decade like Joe Louis.

The best title challenger during Tysons 80s reign was Holyfield who he didn't defend against and who beat Tyson when they fought. That seems to torpedo that argument

 

Yes I have Tyson in my top 10 for both legacy and h2h, although some members will swear by their ancestors I hate the guy.

He is usually overrated more than he's underrated, but sometimes both. However, to be fair, it's often casuals or people who stopped watching boxing in the late 90's who have the most ridiculously high opinions of Tyson.

 

And Tyson didn’t become lineal heavyweight champ until he beat Spinks … so he was top dog for 20 months before losing to Buster. Who was given the worst odds of any heavyweight title challenger in history no less.

If your point is that Joe Frazier has a worse resume than Tyson … I’ll take Joe’s best win over Mike’s every day and so will you. I will also say every defeat on Joe’s record is more respectable than Tyson’s worst losses — we’re comparing Buster “One Night Only” Douglas to Ali and Foreman there.