How can Tyson be overrated when....

Exactly. When Tyson was under control and well trained, he would have been difficult for anyone to beat. I associate his peek as being during the Rooney tenure. When King entered the picture, Tyson begin to deteriorate, first slowly, then quickly. Tyson's career is one of the biggest "what ifs" in the history of sports.

 

nah mate it dont work like that. if u wanna box u enter a class based on your weight.

no bonus points for your height. whether lanky or stocky and solid u use you attributes to your advantage!! current crop of heavyweights are rubbish so the klits use there size advantage and just jab everyones heads off....

Tyson was awesome btw

 

nice :thumbsup

 

Quality point well made!!!!

 

But they were, Tyson won everyone round against RIbalta, and Smith (who should have been DQ).

Won the fight against Tillis 6-4 and Tucker 9-3.....

He fought Tillis in his 14th month as a pro.............who did Ali, Liston, Holmes, Lewis, Joe Louis, Frazier, Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Hplyfield, Klit brothers fight in there 14th month as a pro?

 

he delivered clean KOs that would put a man to sleep but now a days you dont see that happen so very often

 

The main problem Boxing suffers from his lack of regular matches, as most combat sports do.

For example Floyd Mayweather fought De La Hoya in the summer of 2007 and beat him by 1 round on my scorecards, but because they only ever fought once then we automatically assume he beats him every time. But we know that sport, life etc does not work like that especially when fighters fight so sporadically.

In other sports like Tennis, Football (soccer), Cricket, Athletics, Rugby, NFL, Basketball........the top teams or players go against each other often, so sometimes we see Murray beat Federer, or Barcelona lose to Hercules.

We all know that Murray is not better than Federer or the the small little team Hercules is not better than Barcelona, and that Ross Purrity is not better than Wlad Klitshcko.

BUT, BUT....BUT losses do happen, and it can happen in boxing, combat sport....but because the top guys dont fight each other that often then what we have is hypothetical match-ups or just that one fight they did have in reality.

So consistency is the key, that why whoever wins the super-bowl, or the world cup is the best, because they were consistent in there wins....its why the Klits brother are the best right now, because they have beaten a strong of top fighters on a regular basis.

Anyhow this all leads to why people or critics of Tyson label him overrated, it because some people say he is unbeatable, which we know is not true. No man, no team, no thing is unbeatable they go against the laws of nature, logic and probability. I think this is why people on the other side of the fence say he is overrated because you have hardcore fanatics who say he could never lose but he did, and every fighter in history has lost bar a handful and even those fighters had dubious wins.

Tyson was a great fighter, he will go down as an all time great...fact.

 

He didn't fight Lewis on a nightly basis.
Douglas and Holyfield didn't fight him tall. He was inside most of the night(s).

I think Tyson gets overrated by a lot of not so casual boxing fans. He's always a name people throw around when they list people who would have "killed" the Klitschkos. Tua gets the same kind of nonsensical appraisal.

Every big puncher of history gets more hype than people, who worked a little longer for their victories. Even Arthur Abraham, it doesn't get a lot less skilled then him, gets way more credit than he should because he produced some pretty KOs of bums.

Prime Tyson was awesome to watch, but when a guy gets worse with every fight he does, one has to seriously question if he really gets worse or if the opposition just makes it seem that way.

 

I know the results, that wasn't my point.

He beat guys earlier in his career, but he peaked early, I don't get your point.
Lewis beat Klitschko turning 38, who did Tyson beat at 38? Age is irrelevant, body of work is.

 

His body of work is top notch though -

In 18 months he won the WBC title.

He beaten - J. Ferguson, J, Tillis, J. Ribalta, T. Berbick, J, Tillis, P. Thomas, T. Tucker, T. Biggs, L. Holmes, M. Spinks, F. Bruno, C. Williams, A. Stewart, R. Ruddock, F. Botha, A. Golota.

He was the first the unify all 3 main titles the WBC, WBA, IBF.

Defended the title 10 times,

Was a 2 time heavyweight champion (in reality 3)

Only man to ever knock out L. Holmes, and M. Spinks.

Only man to ever dominate F. Bruno, (Bruno fought Witherspoon, J. Smith and Lennox Lewis)

Destroyed Alex Stewart who gave hell to G. Fioreman and Holyfield.

I could go on, his body of work is impressive.

 

who cares. Tyson was more dominant in his prime than Lewis ever was.

why are you bringing up Lewis? he wasn't half as good as Tyson

 

i think there is some misunderstandings of definitions here.

 

Tyson had less trouble with those guys than Lennox had with his competition!:deal

 

:deal
:deal











:deal

 

Any heavy weight that can win a world title by the age of 20, then have the WBC, WBA, and IBF locked up by the age of 21 isn't overrated. And it wasn't even like he was a Mayweather type who was born into boxing. He had no real amateur background. That's even before you get into the size differences.

You can talk about his level of comp, but that is even out by his age, size, and lack of experience.