How can people think Tyson is overrated?

Not at all. Louis was technically superior to Mike and clearly so. Being a more rounded technician tends to lend to greater longevity - so there is that resounding evidence in favour of Joe also.

 

Interesting take.

I personally don’t think Mike was destined for longevity BUT I don’t contract his prime to the degree that some do. Certainly, he was prime for Tokyo.

Given his physical disadvantages in height and reach, his skill set as it was, was the perfect and most ideal fit - but it required a lot of energy to maintain.

Even if Mike fought 5% less than himself at prime, he lost so much more in terms of overall effectiveness as compared to more rounded boxer types.

He really was a fighter that needed to fire on all 6 cylinders to not only dominate in stunning fashion but also to stay afloat.

Suffice to say, Mike couldn’t afford the luxury of coasting as some other fighters might - as soon as Mike slowed up, the opponent, no longer under extreme duress, could step in and peg him back.

Literally, Mike’s best defence was his offence.

Patterson’s similar style and opposing longevity is often called into the equation - but Floyd carried a lot less, energy sapping bulk than Mike - even in his prime you could see Mike slow down in the later stages of fights - less combos, more one off punches, less head movement etc.

No, he didn’t take a any real beating prior to Douglas - but that beating was severe and highlighted shortcomings that I don’t think Tyson could necessarily repair and evolve from - if he’d made any stylistic adaptations I couldn’t see him approximating to the quality fighter he was in his prime.

23 years isn’t old - but is it not old for a fighter to reinvent himself? Did Ali adapt so much stylistically or did he simply and primarily wear and stand up to more punishment due to his deteriorations?

There were still some features to Ali’s own game that might been improved a bit but were there any significant changes?

Nothing black and white or necessarily in concrete refutation. Just some points to consider.

 

Louis only seems that way cause he fought stiff bums. He gets destroyed by slick movers.
And he simply had more longevity cause he was way more dedicated.
Put Tyson in that era, and he obliterates everyone.

 

He lasted longer because he had a greater skill set and more weapons in his arsenal.

It wasn’t like Louis didn’t have his own issues/distractions that at times would’ve impacted and taken away from his own preparations and focus for fights.

Mikes woes were no worse than many other fighters - they’re simply magnified to an unrealistic degree - without one iota of equal consideration for all other fighters.

Movers present difficulties for everyone in varying degrees - particularly those presenting as physically smaller targets and being that much more agile for their very lack of comparable size.

On a losing run, a reasonably mobile Tillis gave streaking Mike all sorts of issues - Quick wasn’t obliterated. He was supposed to be. 10-1 underdog I believe.

Easy to say Mike destroys all before him in hypothetical match ups -

In fantasy, Mike apparently obliterates a lot more quality fighters than he did in his actual career - opponents he actually engaged who he was also emphatically backed (in real time, to the second) to wipe the floor with but failed to do so.

It does seem lame that only AFTER his not performing to heady forecasts, a million and one excuses were plied to excuse and explain away same - rather than entertaining the possibility that, while still a great fighter - no argument there, perhaps Mike was a tad overrated.

 

Two part answer: the casual public overrates him and boxing keyboard pundits underrate him.

Tyson is underrated and an underachiever, and it's crazy to say that considering how much he accomplished. But he really left so much on the table.

 

His later career fight plans all seemed to just be wade in, won't worry too much about defense, trust his durability to hold up, try to land KO shots. Doesn't hold up so well when you face a man tougher than you (Holyfield) or when you think you're going to walk through a bunch of power shots thrown by a big hitter (Lewis). And if you just can't get to the guy, and he happens to have enough pop to grind you down, that also doesn't work (Douglas).

Also, at his peak, he was incredible at the dodge and counter. When you stop dodging, the dodge and counter doesn't exactly work.

 

Imagine a Tyson with the drive, focus, and dedication of Holyfield. Wouldn't be surprised if that Tyson was able to retire undefeated. Not sure even Lewis at his best would have been able to handle Tyson at his best.

 

I don't remember any slick mover beating Louis, when did it happen?

 

Tyson was a terror anyway. Him, with his original team behind him and him away from all the vices of humanity.............

 

Overrated

could only beat bums

 

Rating Mike Tyson is always going to be difficult because, from the perspective of boxing fans and sports fans in general, he can simultaneously evoke both seemingly endless admiration and deep disappointment. This is entwined within and further complicated by him having two distinct phases of his career, which are night and day, in terms of their nature and quality.

It is unfortunate that the factors, interconnecting these two chapters in his boxing, are essentially negative. Tyson's rapid falling off in form, his shock loss to Douglas, his public downfall and eventual prison sentence all do damage, in terms of a rating - and this poured immense amounts of pressure on him, post-prison, to perform and redeem himself in the sport. That he ultimately failed to recapture the dominance of old had an effect on the fan base, as well as a good number of impartial observers - perhaps accentuating the impact on his historical rating.

When I first started looking at putting a heavyweight top-10-ATG-listing together (which I do find difficult and do not particularly enjoy, tbh) I had Tyson just outside of that list. Part of the reasoning was formed from Tyson’s dominance (almost total) and the quality of his opposition (good, but not extraordinary). However, much of the rationale was based on the tail-end of that first chapter, followed by a quite different second half of his career.

Over time, I have also noticed in other listings that Tyson is often ranked on or near the cusp of a top-10 rating - sometimes just inside; other times, just outside of it. While a positioning in this ballpark area of a list is not unrealistic, the matter of a placement ‘inside or outside’ seems to speak to a correlation with the question of Tyson’s being overrated or underrated.

This, of course, is an illusion, albeit a powerful one, altering the perception of a rating’s validity. Depending on one’s viewpoint, either side of the argument might be deemed as committing sacrilege.

Ironically, I never did feel entirely comfortable with Tyson not being within the walls of the top-10 - and I have since moved him up my list (8) - But I wouldn’t argue with those that have him outside, in theirs. Ultimately, what we have with Tyson is his extraordinary rise and the dramatic fall, along with what might have been.

 

Mike Tyson sure as hell wasn't "overrated" back in his 80's prime when these same naysayers (if they were even born yet) were sitting agape on the edge of their seats watching with awe this terrible monster Mike Tyson.

 

I think this topic is more about overall.

 

Well I was around then and I thought he was a very, very good heavyweight with an incredible hype machine (how does a guy who can’t even make the Olympic team get put on the cover of Sports Illustrated before he’s done anything in the sport) who came in and cleaned up the tattered remains of a 1980s heavyweight division of one-and-done titleholders

He was entertaining but no more so to me than a lot of fighters of that era — JC Chavez, Hearns, Hagler, returning Ray Leonard, Pernell Whitaker, etc. I never saw him as an ATG then nor later. Didn’t take long after he became lineal before he got exposed by Buster Douglas. And for the latter part of his time, I found Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis equally exciting.

His fights were events of a sort — not that people got too excited over Tyson vs. Tony Tubbs or Truth Williams or some others — but the difference was he appealed to casuals. For a generation, he was THE heavyweight (even though he wasn’t at the top for a generation) to the point that when he fought Lennox Lewis a lot of people (casuals are casuals for a reason) had no idea how far down he’d sunk because they didn’t really pay attention and thought he was ‘the same’ Mike Tyson from years before.

 

Tyson was near perfection in the ring so I can't see how he is overrated. Then there is people saying about his lack of good opponents but even that has no basis. He run through the HW division