Tyson is a top 10 HW based on every criteria Tyson did more in three years of his first reign then many other ATGS did in decades. When i see another young HW win a title at 20 after a year and 7 months as a professional fighter. unify all the important titles in the Ring (Tyson is still the only HW to unify the titles in the Ring) Damn near clear out the contenders in his first reign. Then and only then can you call Tyson overrated.
Surely besides the part with regards to oppositon. People seem to assess Tyson's career in a unique way compared to everyone elses. Why is this? I dont mean that as a sarcastic question I genuinely want to know. What did Lennox Lewis do in the second Holyfield fight then? It's not his fault the idiotic WBA decided to strip him soon after because they considered John Ruiz a more worthy challenger than Michael Grant.
well as uninspiring as the heavyweight division is now that might be possible lol jp jp but Tyson HAD skills and wasted his potential. I think people tend to focus on his knockouts only instead of the entire fight. Since Mike's prime was so short lived it's hard to rate him as high or as low as most fanatics/detractors do. The older heavyweights did have much more heart than Mike's last showings. They had longer fights, the gloves were smaller too, and sometimes the conditions were horrible. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Ali/Foreman fight had them fighting around 4am (give or take) in order to match the US evening...the atg fought through harsher conditions i believe
Point well made. It's like when some were proclaiming Lennox Lewis the greatest of all time after his KO of Tyson. How that victory is at all comparable to Ali's win over Frazier in their last fight is beyond me. They fought in hellish conditions that night.
Depends on the rabidness of the nuthuggers, look at some of the Klit fans for example, atleast Tyson fans don't try and say he was poisoned , it's not meant to be rational, the more popular a fighter is with casual fans the more of that sort of weirdness you'll see. As for Spinks was a great light-heavy, but at heavy I wasn't extraordinarily impressed watching him against Cooney, didn't look that much better than an Ibragimov. Hell, maybe an Ibragimov could've taken that version of Holmes, he looked even bloody worse than the version of Holmes that tried to mount a comeback a couple of years later. Looked like the weight and age had taken a lot out of him, he was both overmatched and intimidated by the younger Tyson.
Exacty and this is one of the reasons why I dont see Tyson beating alot of the past heavyweights because I doubt he could've went 15 rounds in near 100 degree temperatures, and getting pounded constantly. I still watch the older fights because the heavyweights used to actually FIGHT back in those days. Dont get me wrong we've had some good 80's 90's bouts like the Holyfield/Bowe series but the recent HW fights haven't been as great
Tyson competition in the 80s is no worse then that of many supposed top 10 HWS. Tyson did more in 3 yers then alot of ATG HWS did in decades.
That doesn't makes sense. If you're saying Tyson's competition is no worse than other top 10 heavyweights how could he have achieved more in three years?
Tyson is not over rated by any means.. If you saw him as the best heavy ever then you have indeed over rated him.. But the majority of folks that i know in the game place him just outside the top ten heavys of all time maybee an 11, and that really is a fabulous compliment. Considering that Larry Holmes, Sonny Liston, Ali, Lennox, George Foreman, Jack Dempsey, Corbett, Jack Johnson, Joe Frazier, Jimmy Ellis, Joe Frazier, Riddick Bowe, Kenny Norton, an ATG around the 10 spot is very solid criteria of his massive personal acheivements. Some class him slightly lower, some slightly higher. But over rated by people inside the game he isn't. His power and varied ability from younger years compared to recent performances.. Mike is an ATG.. But i dont consider him over rated..
Tyson was the youngest HW champion, he was undisputed and he beat most in very devastating fashion. Personally I think the 80's had limited competition though............. Still, I think he's a solid top 10 ATG guy.
I for one don't place "Naz" on a pedestal though. This goes back to what I was saying about Tyson's career being analysed by most people in a unique way to others. Most of the time the emphasis is placed on quality of opposition beaten but with Iron Mike people don't seem to do that. I totally agree with what people say about him creating a unique atmosphere & no doubt he had a magnetsim that is unparalleled. This should not, however, be allowed to cloud the analysis of his actual achievements inside the ring.
1. Louis 2. Ali 3. Marciano 4. Lewis 5. Dempsey 6. Holmes 7. Forman 8. Johnson 9. Holyfield 10. Tyson In roughly that order, it does change from time to time though.............but both Lewis & Holyfield are always above Tyson.
Thanks.:good I would love to place Lewis that high because he was one of my favourite fighters but, sadly, I can't because of those two embaressing KO losses. I too always place those two above Tyson though.
I know what you mean about Lennox and Wladimir will no doubt have those same issues because of his losses. On another note that is why I rate Rocky so highly. He fought boxers & punchers & he never lost. He always found a way to win even when he was behind on the cards. That has to count for something even if his competition level wasn't near that of say Ali or Lewis.