How good was mike tyson?

When did Ali become a wife beater? He slapped his first wife Sonja for refusing to change a revealing dress which violated Islamic mores. He shouldn't have done that. You should never lay your hands on a woman. A wife beater implies a pattern of using significant force against a spouse. Where's the evidence of that?

 

very, very slowly, take a breath and think calmly about what you wrote. Try to find the cause and effect relationship and the context... shall we try? Holmes was 38 years old and rusty and Spinks was LHW, ok. Do you know how old Holmes was in 1985 and how rusty he was? Do you remember who he lost to? Spinks wasn't LHW then? Wasn't Moorrer LHW? weren't Moore, Walcott, Charles the best in LHW even though they fought in HW? wasn't Billy Conn who gave the toughest fight to prime Joe Louis LHW? Why do I keep hearing that Tyson won against LHW, but no one writes that this LHW stopped Holmes' domination in HW, something that 47 HW couldn't do?
The difference is that Tyson dominated his rival from LHW and Louis and Marciano fought with them for their lives, Holmes and Holyfield lost... the old 38-year-old Holmes 7 years after the fight with Mike gave a difficult fight to Oliver McCall. Oliver stated that in his entire career he had no tougher opponent than Larry Holmes, the second being James Douglas, who defeated him in 1989. Nothing about the others

 

I can't believe you can perceive it this way... if you are a 42-1 favorite against a player like Douglas, it doesn't mean that this guy is weak, just that he is considered weaker than you. Lewis was a 5-1 favorite against McCall because Lewis was never as highly regarded as Tyson before the Douglas fight. Douglas won against McCall and McCall wasn't a major underdog anyway. If Douglas 1990 before Tokyo had fought Lewis 1994 before London, it would probably have been 1-1, pick em. Because Lewis wasn't anything special. Unlike Tyson. If you lose to someone who is so much less appreciated than you, it means that either this fight is terribly accidental, or the guy who won against you slept through his career because he should have at least comparable successes to yours. Which version do you choose? because either you agree that in Tokyo it was an accident: Poor preparation, stylistic mismatch, bad luck, injury, something else or everything that made the fight unreliable, or that Douglas should have unified the belts in 1987, outclassed Holmes and Spinks, and won like Tyson 10 title fights, just be at least as successful because he was class better, right? If this didn't happen, what was the reason?

 

You have good points.

 

The most transcendent star in boxing since Muhammad Ali and probably the most famous boxer alive in the world today, his cultural impact was huge and remains so even now. That part of his legacy cannot be understated.

In terms of purely boxing alone, he was the best fighter in the world for about 3 years from 86/87 through to the defeat to Douglas in 1990. During that run, he quickly became undisputed champion and cleaned up the alphabet mess that had been in place for the entirety of the 1980s up to the point he arrived on the scene - that was a significant achievement on its own. He also beat some very decent fighters on the way to doing that and it was the same crop of fighters who’d been winning and losing world titles before he came along so it wasn’t a bum of the month club, although they were a certainly a collection of flawed individuals that he met.

At the point, he seemed like boxing’s saviour but he had a mental fragility that wasn’t exposed early on in the ring at least (but was on display outside the ring). It wasn’t until the 1990s during his comeback that I think that fragility revealed itself more clearly in terms of boxing but I think it would have been exposed by greater fighters had he fought his prime years in a different era such as the 1970s.

Having said that, his emergence as a fighter was one of those rare moments in the history of the sport that brought about a seismic shift in the heavyweight division and for a time, he seemed genuinely unbeatable as Foreman, Liston and other feared heavyweights from the past have been considered until the aura of invincibility goes in shocking fashion.

But he deserves his place on the inner edge of the top 10 in my opinion.

 

I’m not the one claiming it. I was responding to someone who did, so you should ask him.

Mike bragged about beating Robin Givens. Said the hardest punch he ever landed was one time when he hit her. Thought it was funny.

 

The incident with Sonja was in his autobiography and also in the movie based on it my memory is correct. Of course he shouldn't have done it but that's different than hitting a woman with a closed fist and doing it on multiple occasions.

 

the disclosure of his negative mental sides was visible in fights with Savarese, Golota, Botha, Norris... in fights with fighters with whom he had no major problems and beat better ones in the 1980s.

 

None of that matters in the discussion we are having. You just like to talk a lot, huh?

 

Mike was great for a year or two but his style needs perfection and energy to be effective since he was shorter than most, so after Spinks he that small distraction of ego and thinking he was the best ever, and that made him bob and weave less and then hit more and it sped up his decline. For a year or two 1987-1989 only a handful of fighters in history could have beaten him. The problem today is heavyweight is not the heavyweight of the past. The 1980s guys could not have fought Marciano's 1950s heavyweights, and the guys today are getting too big for Mike Tyson or Holyfield's time. We need a superheavyweight division.. The weight disparity makes it hard to really know how good Tyson Fury is. If he were 6-3 220 how dominant would have be? How great would a 6-9 260 pound Holyfield have been? Usyk might have been one of the best ever. It does matter how he does today. I think he has a good change to win. Both guys do. I think either way the result will be a surprise.

 

no, I'm just refuting your arguments. On what basis was Tyson a 42-1 favorite over Douglas? After all, Douglas was a top heavyweight fighter... if someone is so favored, he loses, it's either a coincidence, a result of some circumstances, or the other guy is damn underrated and his career is a mistake. If he was better than Tyson, he should have at least the same successes or even greater . Meanwhile, since he hasn't achieved anything, he lost to 3 players whom Tyson defeated, so explain the Tokyo phenomenon to me. Use arguments if you want to discuss. You started it and if you lack arguments, you have a problem, sorry...

 

Buster was a 42-1 dog. Evander was a 25-1 dog. That was the Tyson mystique. I would add most sportsbooks weren't even taking odds on Douglas-Tyson

 

Lucky punch or not, Tyson never got poleaxed by single shots to lesser fighters in the heart of his prime.

 

He got schooled tho. It's even worse.

 

It takes incredible mental gymnastics to write that it is worse to lose a fight at a very high level in the 10th round, in which you had your opponent on the boards for 14 seconds and then were knocked out by one of the best boxing actions in history and then knocked out by an even worse fighter in a completely colorless fight. , already in the 2nd round,