Mike Tyson:Overhyped?

Astounding, wasn't it? There's no way that was rational. It had to be done on purpose. :think

 

Crazy story. Man were you lucky. I don't handle getting f*cked over well.

Glad you got the poster, one of my favorites. I'm checking evil bay right now to see if any programs are available. Probably cost a fortune.

 

About 1 a year comes up. last one's went for $225/$175 but with the economy as it is???? the field of compitition may have shrunk a tad.

Oh you'll def have a scrap on yer hands as you'll be up against UK collectors who pay big bucks for these. But yer never know yer luck, many a time i've pinched a gem of a poster for $20.00 which has a market value of $1K. It all depends who's watching/not watching/when & were, i love that handle EVIL BAY

 

According to the hype, Tyson was (for example) expected to reign as champion for 7, 8, 10 or 15 years.
He was only 20 years old when he became champion, and was expected to get better and better until he was 25 or 26 at least.
Sure, there was always a possibility that he'd come up against someone who beats him .... but that was expected to be a great fighter, not just one of the re-tread contenders who Tyson was supposed to have "saved" the division from.
After the Spinks win, all the hype was convincing that Tyson was to be champion for many years. He was expected to keep defending successfully against the current contenders and wait for someone who could provide another superfight to come along. Holyfield was built up as the next big quality opponent, but only a few thought even he would be a massive threat. But Tyson didn't even get as far as that, he got KTFO by Douglas.

If in 1987 and 1988 most people were thinking, "Oh, he'll be over-the-hill next year and he will probably get beaten up by one of these average-looking heavyweights 2 years from now, and after that he'll never again be the man in the division again" .... do you really think he would have received all the hype and praise ?

When he fought Tony Tucker in 1987, few people were saying, "Well, that's the absolute best he'll ever look going the full 12 rounds" .... they were actually saying, "he'll get better. He'll iron out those flaws. This is still early days". No one said he'll be past his peak 18 months from now.

He didn't live up to expectations.

 

Old SI article from July 1988

 

You're right. Tyson was expected to go 100-0 with 92 knockouts.
(He would have too if he didn't get rid of Rooney.)

 

Check out the above article.

The expectations were rather unrealistic.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlQ4OzlZ4MQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlQ4OzlZ4MQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

 

Wow! What a shitty landscape. The future looked bleak for the division and may be a contributing factor to Tyson leaving the team behind by not seeing any challenges ahead. It would be a full year before Holyfield emerged as the outstanding contender and a bit longer before Foreman made some noise. If Tyson could have kept it together there's a possibility he would have lived up to the expectations.

 

Yeah they really were. According to Unforgiven, I mean Conn, because Tyson didn't fulfill those expectations we should automatically use that as a means to mark down Tyson's greatness. He really wasn't THAT great, you know!

Bruno
Damiani
Rodrigues
Holyfield
Ruddock
Foreman
Stewart
Holmes
Mercer
Morrison
McCall
Witherspoon
Coetzer
Bowe
Seldon
Lewis
Briggs
Botha
Sanders
Tua
Rahman
Ruiz

This might be the order of opponents had Tyson stayed on course, throwing in a few rematches with either Berbick, Ribalta, Thomas to start off with.

 

I have this on VHS somewhere. Isn't there some new doc on Tyson in the works for HBO? Or is it a mini-series of sorts? Can't remember which.

 

How do you think Tyson would have fared if he kept up his training and stayed focused? Do you feel Douglas would have still gotten him? Holyfield? Foreman? Bowe?

 

I'm not saying anything about "mark down his greatness".
I'm just pointing out that he didn't live up to the hype and expectations. And, I agree the hype was unrealistic.
That's the question of the thread.

I don't think he was "OVER-hyped", the hype was good for the boxing business ... but the hype was just hype after all.

"Greatness" is a different issue.
The greatness of a fighter is based on the results, the performances, the quality and variety of the opposition. The things that actually happened.

I don't know.
Like I said, I just go on what happened. Sure, we can dwell on hypothetical alternative history scenarios ... stuff that didn't happen, but what's the point ?
You can do that with every fighter, "what if .."
What if Joe Louis or Muhammad Ali had always trained hard, never slacked off and didn't spend so many hours chasing girls .... how amazing would they be ?
But, on the other hand, what if all their opponents had done it instead. What if Tony Galento had actually trained ? What about Max Baer ?

What if tyrell biggs had never done cocaine ? what if Tony Tubbs knew how to train and never touched drugs ? What if Pinklon Thomas had stayed focussed and didn't think he was a soul singer or go through an acrimonious divorce ?
What if tony Tucker had never had injuries and management problems his entire career ?


Those are all rhetorical questions.
But why are such questions always thrown around and applied only to Tyson when discussing his greatness or his losses ?

 

That's true.

I think a lot of the hype back in the day stemmed from the fact that in reality, he was just a baby still. He was what? 19? 20? He was a kid who was destroying full-grown men with ease.
I guess it got people thinking something like: "Well ****, if he's this good now, what will he be like in ten years?"

After he crushed Spinks, a lot of veteran sports writers suddenly were asking very seriously whether he could become the greatest heavyweight of all time.
He was more or less doomed to fail, I think, for obvious reasons. It's an extremely lofty perch, the G.O.A.T.

Despite the way his career eventually unfolded, he built up a very impressive record and scored spectacular wins over solid opposition. He was a pretty active champ as well, and has he fought only once or twice a year, his reign could have lasted a fair bit longer, probably.

Even so, for essentially a short, small heavy fighting in a big man's era, he did extremely well to still be fighting at the top level ten years after winning the title. (Barring a stint in prison of course.) He had longevity. He just was exceptional for a relatively short time, and merely pretty good for a longer period.

I can't really put forth a decent argument excluding him from the elite heavyweights.

 

Excellent post.
I agree on all points.

Yes, his age was DEFINITELY a big part of the fact that expectations were so high, and a large part of the "myth" and "legend" that was surrounding him from very early on.
It's the same in any sport.

Sometimes the young ones DO fulfill those expectations (eg. Steffi Graf, Joe Louis, Stephen Hendry) and dominate their sport for an entire decade. Sometimes they are all washed-up and old news within a year or two.
Tyson's final assessment is somewhere in-between those two extremes.