Boxing fans tend to rate crash and burn fighters who aren't consistent more highly than consistent fighters. You don't see anyone talking about Michael Spinks as being a beaten man before he stepped in the ring when it's mentioned as one of the best wins in Tyson's career. Yet everyone wants to discredit any win Floyd Mayweather Jr has. It's like people can't appreciate consistent talent shown across a number of years. Every fighter with very few exception meets their Buster Douglas in the ring. Those that don't, it's talent, not luck.
If Wlad lost his next fight I'd just claim his prime years were 07-10, and that he was untouchable in that period but shot afterwards. Use people's own stupid arguments against them
Punchers are revered, nothing more complicated than that. Tyson was a very gifted fighter, but he is very overrated, mostly by the casual fan.
I totally agree with you, good post! I was thinking the same thing about Tyson and i actually like the guy.
If not for the Spinks fight, I would completely agree with you, yes, Tyson is overrated. Yes, despite the obvious talent he was made to look even more invincible through careful matchmaking and hype. But with all due respect to the Klitschko's, you can't tell me either one has a win more credible than Michael Spinks. And I like the Klitschko's, they are some of the best fighters I have ever seen for their size and think they are great role models, but consistency doesn't mean a thing if a real threat, a fighter that is considered great can give them the respect and legacy they truly deserve. It's like if the Klitschko's were a Mercedes SL 600 racing a dozen Yugo's and Pinto's. What is the point in that? It is not the Klitschko's brothers fault, I know they both have what it takes to be great and both are desperate for a worthy challenge, but I'm sure they will get that challenge when they least expect it. I think either one will get the respect with a win over Haye or Adamek, but I can't give them credit for that and then go on to discredit Iron Mike for his win over Spinks. It just doesn't work that way.
There is some point in the post. While we know Tyson became Champion and showed incredible skills, especially for such a young fighter, could that same fighter go into fights against the likes of Holyfield, Lewis, and Bowe and win? Don't know. But I do think this: Tyson, from Berbick to Spinks, trained and guided by Rooney, was better than any version of himself after. But how would he do (even with Rooney) against the three names above...who really knows. One thing should be counted: Tyson's decision making as Champion was poor and it cost him his career. Lewis and Holyfield for example, made better choices for the long haul.
Tyson was 19, still learning, and hadn't gone past 6 rounds yet. Something that was mentioned being on the mind of Tyson. After that fight, his confidence grew and looked better the next time he went the distance...which was in his next fight. Tyson at 19 looked sharper than 18. And at 20 looked better than he did at 19. Quick learner. More experience. And Tyson still won a UD over Tillis. We can list many fighters early in their career that didn't look so good at 19...especially against seasoned veterans.
I give Tyson more credit than the thread starter, but agree that the "Prime Tyson is God" crowd are wishful thinkers. Once he parted ways with Rooney it was all downhill for Tyson. I won't discredit what Tyson achieved because he was getting the job done in mostly spectacular fashion. Frightened or not, Spinks was a damn good fighter and it was a damn good win and Tyson would have gotten much more credit if Spinks had some success and lasted 5 or 6 rounds. But he didn't and I give Tyson full credit. It would allow for more logical debate if Tyson had better competition during his pre-Douglas era but we have to base our thoughts on what if's. IMO a prime Tyson would have been a tough match for just about any of the atg's, and he would have won some and lost some.
Any version of Tyson has problems against tall (6'4+) fighters with heavy hands, good feet and good distance judgement. The moment he faced guys who weren't intimidated by him and stood up to him, he lost. Simple.
I just brought it up cause he said how people say Tyson's prime was from 85-88. But in 86 he looked pretty **** against Tillis.
:good As invincible as Mike seemed, I also would loved to of have seen how far a Dokes, Mercer, Morrison, or McCall might of pushed Tyson pre-Douglas. I've heard the stories supposedley McCall would get the best of Tyson in sparring, doesn't exactly mean he'd beat Tyson, but it would be interesting nonetheless.