How can people think Tyson is overrated?

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.

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

 

1. There’s nothing about Tyson’s style that didn’t age well. Floyd Patterson was a D’Amato disciple who learned the exact same fighting system that Tyson did and he aged better than most any heavyweight champion ever (with the exception of George Foreman with his remarkable comeback, but if he had kept going without a break after the Young loss it’s doubtful that he would have regained championship form).

Again, Tyson took almost no damage and was never in a war before his imprisonment layoff. He wasn’t like Joe Frazier or Marciano walking in and taking blows, sometimes absorbing three to land one. There’s nothing intrinsic to his style that screams ‘short career.’

2. It’s a nice footnote. But being good at a thing at a younger age does not make one better than what anyone else is at a later age. The youngest person to ever star in a Broadway play is not the best actor; the youngest pianist to headline at Carnegie Hall is not the best pianist of all time. Babe Ruth wasn’t the youngest pro baseball player ever and Michael Jordan wasn’t the youngest NBA player.

3. I don’t think Tyson dominated an era. Buster Douglas is of his era. Not only did he lose to Douglas, he fought on for about a year-and-a-half later (before being incarcerated) without becoming champ again. Instead of jumping right back in with the top guys to force a title shot, he took giant steps back to face Henry Tillman and Alex Stewart … if you’re the dominant fighter of the era, you don’t piddle around like that.

4. Ezzard Charles was a fine and champion who had the misfortune of following the beloved Joe Louis.

 

Part of the idea behind ratings is ranking people on what they do in their own era.

Tyson Holyfield and Lewis are all basically from the same era and it seems like putting all 3 guys from a single era in the top 10 is overrating that era especially given the guys didn't just lose to each other

 

Shut up you clown.

 

Yes. Tyson Lewis and Holyfield to me are undisputably top 10 ATGs...I don't see any way around that.

 

Because the casual fan thinks that he's possibly the best fighter ever when he's not even close to the best heavyweight ever. Also when people say that he would never lose a fight in his prime. Which is funny causes he lost to Buster Douglas in his prime (yes that was his prime).

Mike Tyson never beat another ATG heavyweight. Micheal Spinks is an ATG light heavyweight. Larry Holmes was 38 years old.

Mike Tyson's first run was very short and he got KOD vs the 3 best opponents he fought. Evander Holyfield 2x and Lennox Lewis.

 

Great comment.

 

No, it was not, he wasn't prepared for that fight.

 

Louis is inferior to modern HW's like Tyson.

 

No it ain't. Tyson dominated from 85 to 90, that's 5 years, 4 of which saw him with a belt on his body.
It's the number of title defenses that matter, not the number of years.
Using your stupid logic, then why would someone like Foreman ever be ranked among the top 10 ?!
After all, he was only champ for 1 year in his prime, then lost to Ali.
Dempsey was champ for 7 years, yet he barely fought in that time.

Greatness is about achievements + peak form/H2H ability + impact on the sport.
Tyson is the youngest HW champ, he regained his title, he made 9 title defenses, he's a monster H2H in prime vs prime scenarios and is one of the biggest names in boxing, he drew numerous people to this sport, he's known world wide.
Tyson is an automatic top 10.

 

That's cause he didn't get to face them while he was at his best/in his prime.

Did Holyfield face all those men ?!? Did Lewis ?!?
Tyson beat all the belt holders and top contenders, it's more than good enough. Nobody can face everyone.

You must be trippin'. Tyson was nowhere near his best.
Sure, he was still a good boxer, but nonetheless a pale shadow of his best.
90's Tyson was a head hunter who no longer possessed that incredible defense.
And he had fought just a few rounds before taking on Holyfield.
Meanwhile, Holyfied was roided to the gills.

He did that so that he could fight Holyfield for the bigger bucks.

Their primes never overlapped, stop talking crap.
Tyson's prime was 86-88, Holyfield's was 92-96, and Lewis's was 96-2000.

 

He wasn't even prime for Douglas, let alone for Holyfield. One's prime has got nothing to do with age.
As soon as Tyson achieved all his goals, he lost his motivation. He stopped training as he once did. Add to that him firing Rooney, and the turmoils in his personal life, and it's not hard to see why he started to decline.
Sure, physically he was not old, but his head was no longer there. And his skillset had degraded.

People are already doing that.

Just like Tyson, Frazier's style ain't suited for longevity. And Frazier was almost completely blind in one eye by the time he faced Foreman. I'm not saying he'd win, but it sure as hell would be easier for him with 2 good eyes instead of just 1.

Holyfield was still closer to his prime than Tyson was when they met.
And pre prison Tyson wouldn't be facing such as strong roided version of Holyfield.

 

Great post. Yes, a fully focused prime Mike can pretty much beat anyone that ever lived.

 

Horse****. Holyfield was never considered the best title challenger in the 80s.