I just watched most of his fights when he came out of jail, what a ****ing waste. Guys like holyfield,lewis and bowe fought each other.It just annoys me that a fighter who was so talented wasted himself. What do you guy thinks?
Yup. No doubt. He also would have lost one at peak, would have stopped these guys insisting upon his invincibility.
It just annoys me that HE himself pissed all over his legacy. This guy could of been top 3 of all time. Now he is lucky if he makes it in most peoples top 10.
I agree that Tyson would have been top 5 if he'd held himself in - and as you say, he's borderline top ten for me now (i have him at #9).
Whille it's true that Tyson did squander many of his God-given talents, I think he was also one of those guys who just peaked early. I don't think Tyson was ever destined to rule the division for longer than a few years. If he had kept himself in check, he would probably have had a 5 year reign before starting to slip.
I agree he just peaked early. I think he could have been one of the best (if not the best) ever had he kept his focus on boxing, but I can make "what if's" all day long. At the same time though, I think calling him a great "waste of talent" is going a bit too far. He was, after all, the youngest HW champ ever, unified the belts, two-time champion, richest/most popular fighter ever. So say what you want, but he's accomplished more than most boxers could ever dream of. But yes, he could have gone farther and fought the best and won in my opinion, had he kept his focus. He was damn near unbeatable in his prime and I can think of few guys who could have stood against him.
This is probably a fair analysis of the situation. I myself feel, however that much of his demise was due to being surrounded by a rather weak team of proffesionals, as well as having a horrible attitude. He had all the tools and physical capabilities to beat James Douglas. The problem of course, was that he chose not to fight that evening. His four year layoff absolutely killed him despite outrageous hype and overblown up predictions that he would return to the ring on a rampage. I remember when his first comeback fight against Mcneeley was being advertised like it was the biggest event in American history since Armstrong's voyage to the moon. I had my doubts about him ever reestablishing greatness, while many of my friends and co-fans insisted that he was going to man handle Holyfield. Personally, I think Tyson can only be rated by what he did in the brief period between 1986 and 1989. If we take his career into this context, then I'd say we have a fighter with a pretty solid legacy. Let's face it, 20 is an oftly young age for anyone to win a world title, particularly at the heavyweight ranks, where most men don't fully mature in size or strength until their mid 20's. In addition, unifying three belts one by one, as opposed to inheriting two or all three at once, is also an impressive feat. Lastly he defeated a nice list of big strong heavyweights in rather devastating fashion, who each had a fair amount of experience, and were not too far out of prime. Frankly, I'd probably have to rank Tyson above more lineal champions than most fans typically would.
That wasn't my intention, and nor do I have an agenda to fit, as I do not care what other authors think of Tyson. In fact, I've never even been much of a fan of him myself. Besides, I'm not just ignoring half of his career, as you so boldly stated. By the end of 1989, he was 37-0. Since that time, he has accumulated all but 13 additional wins, and 6 losses, which hardly amounts to half of his career. Yes, to an extent we have to factor in the future bouts post 1989. Keep in mind however, that I also didn't include the future pluses, and not just omitting the minuses. I don't consider his regaining of the title(s) against Bruce Seldon or Frank Bruno to be an example of a prime Tyson, nor an incredible feat for that matter. And for the record, there are many champions who's later performances I don't hold against them such as Jeffries losing to Johnson, or Ali Losing to L. Spinks, or Holmes losing to M. Spinks. Basically all I'm saying is that Tyson's prime was short but sweet, and his best critiquing material came in the late 80's. You wouldn't rate Joe Louis based on his losses to Marciano or Charles would you? Hell, even his early defeat to Max Schmeling wasn't even an example of the best Louis that we've seen.
Most people tend to nit pick and ignore Larry Holmes career post Michael Spinks even though he fought on for years. Fact is Tyson never reached his full potential and it was pretty clear to most of us that he could have had a better legacy. Same cannot be said of Lewis, Holyfield or Holmes. They guys at the very least did as well as thier talent woud allow. Tyson at the very least looked unbeatable and for a time fought that way. No other fighter in history has had as many chances as Tyson for the simple fact that no other HW in the past 20 years has looked as good as Tyson did when he got things going.
I agree, And I think that 1988/89 was really the turning point. Don King fired Bill Cayton and Kevin Rooney within the course of 6 months. In the meantime, Tyson underwent a horrible divorce with Robin Givens, and was invovled in a car wreck, which I believe was speculated as being a suicide attempt, but was never confirmed to be. In addition, his corner work had deteriorated noticabley with the new staff he had working for him. Add on the Mitch Green conflict and his sister Denise passing away in 1989, and I'd say you had a guy with a fair amount of problems. What's more, his performance in the sparring ring was slipping as he was floored by Greg Page. Also, Don King permitted him to visit with women prior to his matches, and even allowed Tyson to have some of his old neighborhood pals come along on the road. These things never would have been tolerated under Tyson's former managment. It's actually a miracle that he dispatched Carl " the truth " Williams as quickley as he did, who by the way was a crafty boxer, the kind that so many people claim Tyson could never beat. I realize that this crap has been regurgitated a million times over the past 17 years, but frankly, I can't see a remote resemblance between Tyson of 1987 and the Tyson of 1990. He might as well have had an understudy go in the ring for him against Douglas. The result would have been the same.
Well said. It's amazing how you go from the Spinks fight to the Bruno fight (back-to-back) and it's like watching a completely different fighter. It goes to show that as fast as Mike peaked, he went down just as quick.