Is Tyson Derangement Syndrome a real thing?

No you are @spravedlivylev said do you think any of those 32 opponents are "ATG fighters or HOF fighters". And then your listing "Marvis Frazier Pennsylvania "BHOF" to make some type of case for those opponents like come off it. You know exactly what he meant by the actual Hall of fame, where the most prominent fighters are inducted.

Like serious question do you think Bonecrusher Smith, Marvis Frazier, Jose Ribalta, are Hall Of Fame fighters or perceived as great fighters ? That's the question that was asked here.

 

Absolutely. I feel like there was, obviously during his 1980's heyday and then beyond into the nineties and even since, a sizable cult of personality that mythologized and overrated him, but that has been absolutely DWARFED by the legions of irrational haters 'n' under-raters.

He was probably the #1 bogeyman or Antichrist figure among the boxing intelligentsia (this place's Classic section being fairly representative of that, for the most part) for a generation or so ...until a certain Floyd Mayweather, Jr. came along. Now he's the one that makes them see red and lose all capacity for objective analysis. It still does happen with Tyson as well...albeit to a lesser extent, now that all their rage-boners have found a new fetish object.

 

Mate, what?

You specifically said ALL ( = every single one) of his opponents were either HOFers and/or ATGs and/or P4P kings. What's up with the mentioning of some random BHOFs of some US states? With all due respect, this is ridiculous.

This is what you wrote in the OP: no fighter has 58 bouts and all of his opponents were HOF, ATG or P4P.

So your claim was that all of Tyson's opponents were Hall of Famers and/or All-Time Greats and/or P4P kings. Now, who the hell cares if some fighter is inducted into the Boxing Hall Of Fame established by a boxing fan on a farm in rural Kansas? You wrote HOF. That means one and only one institution: the International Boxing Hall of Fame, located in Canastota, New York.

And even if you try to move the goalposts now with this "oh, but I meant the BHOF in Montpelier, Vermont" thing, that wouldn't work either. Obviously, not all of Tyson's opponents were inducted in some type of home run, small BHOF. Are you going to tell me that there is some BHOF somewhere in the world where a 1 win, 10 losses Hector Mercedes was inducted? Or a 1 win, 4 losses Trent Singleton? Or a 2 wins, 23 losses Ricardo Spain? Or a 3 wins, 19 losses Larry Sims? And on and on, I'm not going to list all of the tomato cans Tyson beat up in the eighties.

You made a risible statement, and I don't know why you are still trying to defend it by moving the goalposts.

 

Yes, it exists on both sides -- the pro and the anti-Tyson crowds. The pro-Tyson crowd believes Tyson was the second coming of Christ and always rationalizes his losses and bizarre behavior with silly excuses. The anti-Tyson crowd believes he was a flash in the pan who dominated an extremely weak division, would buckle under pressure against most of the past great champions and is ranked far below the likes of Ali, Holmes, Louis, Foreman, etc.

Me personally, I believe prime Tyson was as talented, if not moreso than any heavyweight champion that came before or after him. That having said, he had his weaknesses, his losses are the fault of his own and he is easily a top 10 heavyweight of all time.

 

Yeah ok whatever you know exactly what he meant by HOF, you know the actual legit one that has some of the greatest fighters of all time in there. I'm sorry but I don't like the way your trying to deflect here and move the goal post.

Your not silly when someone says "ATG fighters or HOF fighters" you know damn well that isn't the same criteria as "Marvis Frazier BHOF Pennsylvania". Like come on mate you must see the difference, and you know exactly what he meant when he asked you about HOF or ATG fighters.

Is Marvis Frazier Frazier or Jose Ribalta considered ATG fighters or HOF worthy ? No. So I don't really understand what your going on about.

 

I have my reservations, mate. If that would have been the case, instead of writing "no fighter has 58 bouts and all of his (their) opponents were HOF, ATG or P4P", you could have just simply worded: "no fighter ever had only HOFers, ATGs or P4P kings as opponents".

But then again, it's a bit suspicious how you are backtracking now. You replied

If you really just meant "why pick on Tyson's resume for not always fighting HOF/ATG opponents, when that's the case with every other fighter ever", why reply and try to explain how these fighters you listed were inducted some random, nobody-knows-or-cares-about-them BHOFs?

I suspect you just made a pretty wild claim, and now you are trying to backpedal out of it. It's okay, I mean who cares, it's just an online boxing forum. So you made a silly statement, so what.

 

You haven't proven anyone wrong, all you've done is been caught out making a ridiculous statement. And now your trying to back pedal and move the goal post.

Anyone with half a brain knows when someone asks for "ATG fighters or HOF fighters" that Marvis Frazier BHOF Pennsylvania obviously isn't the same frigging thing is it ? I can't believe I'm even having to try and explain the differences.

Is Marvis Frazier an ATG ? No. Is Marvis Frazier a HOF fighter ? No. Do any of the fighters you listed meet those criterias ? No.

And that's my last reply on this thread, anyone else reading this thread can make their own conclusion. But I'm pretty sure when someone asks for HOF or ATG fighters, that frigging Marvis Frazier or Jose Ribalta don't meet that criteria.

 

I don’t hate Mike at all, but on one occasion, someone called me a “hater” for a very simple, factual statement I made.

I was close to being mortally wounded but I think I refrained from the obligatory nut hugger retort. Lol.

I will say this though, SURELY it cannot be argued that Tyson is afforded (very much in his favour) more shoulda, woulda, coulda scenarios than any other great fighter -

In those instances, the disdain expressed shouldn’t be confused as being directed toward Mike - rather its directed toward the method and accomodation uniquely applied to Mike.

Most every other fighter is judged primarily on their material achievements - and certainly, that’s ALL that’s being called in on their behalf when imagining their fighting Mike .

In fantasy matches I often read Mike gain advantage from hypothetical victories that didn’t actually happen in order to hypothesise his defeating a fellow ATG. Hypothesises squared.

Sure, fans might ponder momentarily on what Ali might’ve been and done if not for the 3.5 year exile - but such musings don’t actually build into his resume or H2H hypotheticals.

There was more than enough left behind in Ali’s material achievements so as to not to have to dive into the “imagined” Ali (of 67 thru to 70) to have to make a case for Muhammad.

Of late, even Mike himself said that he is tired of people making excuses for him - so is Mike a “hater” of himself? He went on to say that maybe he lost just because he lost. Period.