Teddy Atlas: “Mike Tyson was NOT a great fighter”

He was shot.

If you're shot, you're shot.

He tried his best against Williams the year before, but he just didn't have it anymore.

 

he wasn't suffering from Parkinsons. And no excuse on McBride. What do you think current 43 y\o Wlad does to that McBride? Does he last two rounds? McBride was a can from the alley.

 

I don't know what point you're trying to make.

When the tank is empty that's it.

 

freakish power isn't enough to be classified as a great fighter. neither does losing to the only 2 serious opponents u ever faced (Holyfield and Lewis)

 

Lol exactly.

 

Has Mike responded to these comments from Atlas yet ? How long are we gonna wait till we hear somebody ask Tyson about it. I kinda wanna see Tyson come at Teddy Atlas . It was very disrespectful what Teddy Atlas said about Mike, the boxing world needs to hear from Iron Mike on this one .

 

I don't know if it is true that if a fighter does not come back to win he is not great. He was just a force and if guys could hang in there they could turn it around. I think more the guys who turned it around could be seen as great, but he has to be great. He wiped out guys who were never wiped out. Good fighters. Holmes was not a guy anyone could stop in 4 in 1988 no matter what. Spinks in one. And stopping Biggs easily and Tubbs. He was great, how great? Who knows. I put him top 10 heavyweight.. ATG? Not too high. That is where he lacks in beating greats, but he is great.

 

I think you guys are missing the mans point, Teddy is defining greatness as the ability to win when you are on the verge of destruction.

 

I'm not disagreeing with anything u said and it backs up what I said, Lewis wanted that tyson fight for ages.

 

Again you are correct but the reason he went to jail, went on the slide, the drugs, the party's his decline was due to his mental fragility. If he was as mentally with it as he was a physical specimen and boxer he would have miles better and had far more longevity

 

This content is protected

 

Does the fighter have to be great who he is fighting? Hearns was great, but he was out the verge of being out by Kinchen who was not great. Should he get credit. I think that is a part of greatness, but dominating great fighters shows great skills. So I think Atlas is missing something.

 

The point he's making is it's all good and well looking a million dollars when you are steamrolling opponents. Now we know in reality it's never easy but Tyson was that good and talented he made it look that way.

His point is you only become a great when you face adversity and have to dig deep and beat the best. Tyson lost to the best fighters he fought and never avenged a defeat. Atlas is being harsh i think but i understand his points.

 

Tyson is a great fighter by definition. Of all the men to lace up the gloves at HW (probably in tens of thousands if not more), Tyson is at least in the top 15-20. Now that being said, Tyson does get overrated by people who say H2H he destroys everyone in his prime; he lost to Douglas in his prime. There is no disputing that. And Atlas is right that if he faced certain fighters (like Holyfield, Lewis, Frazier, Ali, Foreman, etc.) he needed something extra mentally to win. Tyson wasn't going to blow through a certain level of fighter. And he failed against the great fighters he faced (Holyfield and Lewis). Tyson was shot against Holyfield but it's not like Holyfield was in his prime either.

Still, I think it is being disingenuous to say Tyson wasn't a great fighter. Of course he was. Atlas is bitter and says as much in the interview.

 

Tyson was a great fighter. He was so good that he DOMINATED his opponents .
if someone got to the second round that was a BIG DEAL .
in his prime he was a beast .