Mike Tyson:Overhyped?

I do not dispute it was an off-night.
I do not say Douglas does that to ANY version of Tyson.
I've explain this too many times to repeat myself.

If Tyson at his absolute 100% prime was good enough to beat anyone ever (which is almost what some people seem to think), then at 50% or 60% he should be good enough to beat Douglas.

All great fighters are judged a bit on their prime losses and off-nights.
When people talk about Joe Louis's weaknesses, they often list a string of things that happened to him on his off-nights. That's a bit unfair, but it's fair too, because those off-nights highlight some weaknesses that some people would find difficult to spot on his good nights.

I don't judge an absolute prime TYSON off his loss to Douglas, but it should tell us something. I would hope that it would at least cast some doubt on the myth of Tyson being literally INVINCIBLE just 18 months earlier, but maybe that's too much to hope for ?

Besides, when all Tyson's biggest defenders are pretending that all his little flaws in his winning fights are actually either strengths, or don't exist at all, or he was "carrying" opponents, or whatever .... I see why the issue of Douglas comes up to show he wasn't invincible.

Tyson's win over Ruddock was a great gritty win, and I agree he had more of a fighting spark in that fight.

But you fail to mention a MAJOR difference between Ruddock and Douglas ..... the matter of strategy and styles.

Ruddock fought a dumb fight, let's be honest. Maybe that was his style.
Rock 'em, sock 'em robots .... where did your jab disappear to, Razor ? have you ever thought about outboxing him ?

Douglas used completely different style and strategy. A smart one.

 

It sems to come accross in your posts that this fight somehow exposed Tyson as not being that good.

Not really. Douglas was ordinary in the sense of a world title challenger but he was still as world class challenger.

Who claims hes invincible? You always refer to this contingent of posters that claim Tyson was untouchable and invincible in his prime yet I never hear people claiming that on this forum. In fact its quite the contrary most think hes overated because of his loss to Douglas and Holyfield which is pretty funny when you think about that.

 

Well, look at the amount of times i've explained and stated in this thread that Tyson was exceptional, brilliant, excellent.

Just because i think he was always beatable, and had flaws, that doesn't mean I'm saying he wasn't good.

How many fighters do you make favourite to beat a prime Tyson ?

 

One, Ali.
I think Tyson would be competitive with any fighter in the history of the division at his best. That doesnt mean hes invincible or unbeatable and the same goes for Ali.

I feel the same way about other fighters but I would make Ali the only clear favorite going into a fight best for best.
Louis, Holmes, Holyfield, Bowe, are all fighters I would say would always make for a competitive fight with Tyson but that doesnt make them clear favorties going in.

 

I actually rate Tokyo Douglas pretty highly, to me he looked majestic that night and it wasn't just 'Tyson not showing up'.

Liston and Louis are both defensively questionable, both using excellent compact punching so I can see you making a case for them pulling off a Holyfield style victory using counter punching. I see Tyson ko'ing both though

 

Tyson was a god, and if Cus had thrived, he would've. Cus broke him down, but didnt finish building him back up, leaving him dependant and scared.

 

But the Douglas fight is Unforgiven's main card; since many fighters are better than Douglas they MUST be able to beat Tyson! atsch I apologize to Conn but it's agitating, really. To each his own.

 

I don't know about unforgiven, but I'm not saying every fighter who is superior to Douglas would beat Tyson.
I don't have a "main card". I'm not really trying to prove anything.

The points I make, is that all flaws in winning fights, and losses in prime, and off-nights, and weaknesses are fair game to make us assess how a prime fighter matches up against other prime fighters. We take a critical approach.

Just as with Tyson's opponents, some of them were off-form or past their bests, but we still consider that the weaknesses that made them vulnerable to Tyson on that night would still be RELEVANT on their best night - don't we ?

Now, forget Douglas, I think Tyson always had certain limitations and flaws that some great fighters would be able to exploit.

It seems that if anyone makes more than one or two HWs in history a favourite over him, or doesn't make him at least a 50-50 against almost everyone ever, then they get accused of hating or being over-critical or agenda-driven or playing a card against him or whatever.
And, yes, I do think that's a strange view to have in defence of a guy who at 23 years old, a mere 18 months past his peak performance, lost quite badly to an ordinary contender.
You should expect such a fighter to have a fair few doubters in h2h match-ups, it's perfectly reasoanble.
I think he's far less bankable than you do.

Tyson was excellent, a great fighter, But that doesn't mean a half dozen or a dozen guys in history wouldn't have had his number, prime for prime.

 

You seem to put a lot of energy into these Tyson threads, more so than any other fighter. Some Tyson haters go a little too far and its quite obvious he's not a particular favorite of yours. But whatever. To each his own.

 

I grew up watching Tyson. He's of my era. I have a lot of fond memories.
I can talk about him for days, he's a great subject. Those are the reasons I have contributed a lot to these threads.

I watch Tyson fights regularly. I definitely consider him one of my favourite fighters of all time.

I just happen to think he had flaws and he wasn't unbeatable. And I don't think it should be taboo to mention his flaws.

You seem to have some problem with all that, lefthook.
Apart from that, I think you and I share a lot in common regarding Tyson and our memories of those times.
:good

 

But you dont use this logic when it doesnt suit your arguement. For example Evander Holyfield was clearly a reckless brawler in the early part of his career. He was dropped by Bert Cooper, slugged it out with Alex Stewart and George Foreman among others, yet you've often used the arguement that he would have fought Tyson more calculated and cautiously and always been victorious.

I dont think there is any comparison to Tyson's mindset and preparation for Douglas.
Perhaps the Holmes fight, if you believe Holmes that he was only there for a paycheck and didnt really prepare to fight Tyson.
Honestly its very difficult to believe any fighter knowing what Tyson was doing around this time would go into a fight with him in poor condition but possible I guess. There's aways a case to say that Tyson wasnt facing the very best version of his opponent. It was far more common to see a lazy uninspired champion get caught sleeping against an opponent he didnt think he needed to prepare for.

All fighters do. The great ones have less. Tyson, like his peers didnt have gaping flaws or limitations in his game. If it were the case we would have seen more fights like the Douglas fight where he was being outclassed or forced to come from behind.

David Tua remained undefeated for years and years but it was painfully obvious the guy had problems with a jab and a mover. It was no shock to see Lennox Lewis completely outclass him but it was a shock to see a fighter like Douglas who Tyson had seen before completely beat him up.

There would be more evidence to prove so. Thats the thing. To say Douglas had his number is not accurate. People were saying the same thing about Hasim Rahman when he beat Lewis leading up the rematch. That he had Lewis number and had mentally conquered Lewis. You cant draw that conclusion just as in the case of Lewis based off of who Tyson faced prior to Douglas and Lewis before Rahman. Fighters who had very similar fighting styles and better credentials to Douglas. Also the fact that Tyson never got a chance to avenge his defeat, which had it happened I might add, and Douglas came in underprepared and out of shape, would have still completely erased this myth thats grown that Douglas was ordinary with everyone else but had Tyson's number.

What turned out to be Tysons biggest flaw and played out in the years after the Douglas fight was his lack of focus and interest in boxing as his career played out. The lack of commitment to do the things that brought him to the top and kept him undefeated and dominant.

We'll never know what Tyson could have accomplished had he stuck with his discipline but there were certainly not enough technical lapses and flaws as you seem to think during his peak fights to suggest that a "dozen" fighters would beat him or be favored against him going in and that goes for pretty much all of those top 5 or 10 greats that had dominant runs while facing a variety of stylists.

 

I don't think Holyfield was "clearly a reckless brawler".
I don't think he "slugged it out" with George Foreman. He traded punches a bit, but he boxed mostly.

In fact, I can see glaring differences between how cautious he was against Foreman compared to against Cooper.
Not cautious enough, you might argue, and that's fine.

I don't think it's the end of the world for Holyfield if he "brawls" (your description) with Tyson a little bit. Sure, it leaves him vulnerable, but he'd be hitting Tyson too.
Holyfield was as brave and a durable as Razor Ruddock, IMO, and a better boxer, so I don't think he's going to get finished by Tyson any time he gets hurt. He'd be putting some hurt back on Tyson too, and with a ton more skill than Ruddock had.

On the one hand, I can see the logic in the argument, "If he got rocked all over the place by Bert Cooper, he's going to be in knocked out against Tyson" .... but the other side of it is, "Tyson was far too easy a target against a one-dimensional guy like Ruddock, and way too predictable too, and a sloppy finisher - he'd be taken apart by a boxer of Holyfield's class" ..... those are the two sides of the argument for a 1991 fight.
Who knows who would win ?
Take your pick.