How can people think Tyson is overrated?

Excuses. Thats his fault.

 

FACTS, not excuses. And nobody said it was someone else's fault. My point is we have no way of knowing the outcome of that fight if Mike was 100%.

 

Discipline is a part of the sport

 

Well let’s look at it both ways.

Tony Tucker injured his hand. So he wasn’t 100%. Scratch that from Tyson’s record.

Larry Holmes wasn’t properly prepared. Not 100%. Eliminate that one.

Spinks was scared. Also had bad knees. Can’t count that one either.

Tyrell Biggs was battling drug addiction. Subtract that win.

I could go on and on. We’ll end up with a good percentage of Mike’s wins not counting because the other guy wasn’t 100% of what he could have been.

 

Hey pat, I would say that Tyson had a purebred peak-a-boo style, Patterson fought a essentially different form of peak-a-boo that incorporated an orthodox stance much more intimately with his squared up peak-a-boo style. Patterson had a style that aged well, Tyson didn't. Tyson should've further diversified his skill set, in the end he was a relatively single trick pony, imagine if Tyson were as competent a orthodox boxer as he was a peak-a-boo fighter. if such were the case i imagine we wouldn't even have these threads.

Looking at the twos resumes, patterson and tyson, then considering their longevity, it is clear that Tyson's lack of success during the latter of his career is more indicative of his change in lifestyle and inevitable aging rather than owed to his style as a whole. So I suppose I agree Tyson's style aged well, but Tyson didn't and few men ever will who practice the style.

 

Pinklon Thomas had a serious shoulder injury and didn’t have a right hand, during the Tyson bout. I guess we have no way of knowing the outcome of that fight if Pinklon has both his hands working.

 

After Spinks lost and retired. Holy was the only challenger who garnered any interest and considered the best challenger by most. He was The Ring's nr 1 contender for '88 and '89.

And while Spinks didn't hold any belts, he was the lineal champion so I don't know if he can be termed a challenger as such. Tucker and Smith held belts of their own, so they weren't really challengers either. Berbick was the title holder and Tyson the challenger when they met.

So if not Holy, who then do you mean?

 

He was in 1989 at which point Tyson had already agreed to fight him anyway. So yeah you’re basically right

 

Holyfield became number one at the tail end of the decade at which point Tyson had already agreed to fight him anyway. Williams and Bruno were veteran contenders who had been on the scene a while and were still in their late 20’s so fighting them wasn’t unreasonable

 

They really weren’t. Tyson’s prime and title run was 1986-1990. Holyfield was still at cruiser until 1988 and spent the rest of the decade working his way into heavyweight title contention. Lewis didn’t even turn pro until 1989 and wasn’t a mandatory until 1992 at which point Tyson was no longer champ and in prison

 

Unreasonable would be harsh to say since a fight with Holy was in the works when Tyson lost the title, but Holy was higher in the rankings than Bruno and Williams when those fights happened, at least the Ring's. And it seems justified to me that The Ring had him as the nr. 1 challenger. He had dominated CW and racked up some decent wins at HW as well.

I think he has a clear case as the best challenger during Tyson's reign, if you count Spinks as lineal champion and not challenger.

 

The ring did yes. I know for a fact that Carl Williams was the IBF’s number one when they fought in July of 1989. Regardless I don’t think anyone could consider Tyson as ducking anyone at that time

 

No, since he was due to face Holy after Douglas, I think that would be a stretch. And Tyson at the time was seen as having so little to fear of facing anyone that ducking became a more or less superflous term. Any suggestion in '89 that he was ducking anyone would be met by laughter by most.

But that wasn't the point discussed. It was whether it is "horse ****" to say Holy ever was considered the best challenger in the 80's. It clearly isn't. He was by The Ring, and many others I would say, for about a year or so.

 

Oh I agree. As long as it’s clarified that he became the #1 man at the end of the decade. The ring had him ranked #1 in 1988 as soon as he announced he was moving to heavyweight before he even had a single fight there. In fairness if he had fought Tyson and lost before even fighting anyone people would just write it off as Tyson beating an 18 fight cruiser

 

I would further agree with you in that Tyson’s style per se didn’t age poorly but he failed to grow and adapt. He had his choice of pretty much any trainer in the world after he left Rooney and went with yes men instead because didn’t want to learn and grow as a fighter.

But he didn’t age poorly because of his style. He maintained his hand speed pretty far into his career and his power never left. He wasn’t a pure reflex fighter like an Ali (who did adapt) or Roy Jr (who wasn’t able to fight at top levels based on reflexes and speed when those deteriorated). He was a pressure fighter but he never took a beating before Douglas and he was, what, 23 when that happened, and really only the Douglas and Holyfield I fights were sustained beatings until Lewis. He never took three to land one. He just stopped moving his head and using his jab (which he didn’t use all that much in his youth but further neglected later) and he damned sure didn’t seek out new skills.

Like pretty much all of his shortcomings, that’s on him lacking the inner drive and determination. It’s all on him.