Tyson is the greatest of all time

“Tyson is the greatest in pure pure 100% fair plan without dirty things) boxing”? What are you even suggesting?
Mike Tyson was the a epitome of clean fighting?! Except when he was trying to break arms, hitting after the bell, using a fake dong to beat drug test and eating ears?
You know that you can admire a fighter without trying to make them into some sort of false Saint?!

 

Fury?

OK.

 

If only Tyson had Lewis' discipline he would have been the greatest of all time, but he didnt.

 

You don't understand ! One bite case isn't a boxing strategy(It was a mental psychological problem), but Lewis,Bruno,Smith used dirty tricks like a main tactical factor.
Drug test ? Dont'be ridiculous ! Who was the skinny cruiserweight(maybe lightheavy) who bulked his body or who was the ectomorph lanky guy who fought Tyson with nearly 250 lbs muscular body ?
And who's the hell "Evan Fields" ?
Tyson is a natural mesomorph and -trust in me -Tyson could fight without HGH or Steroids considering in his
prime years when-except the neck training - he wasn't into the weighlifting .
Seemingly you deny the objectivity in Tyson's case.

 

An 80's prime Tyson would tear through Lennox's resume in more impressive fashion imo. For example Tua would topple within 6 rounds and Mercer would be Botha'd.

He wouldn't have lost to the Bull or Rackman either.

 

Challenge accepted. Here's an attempt to make the case:

"Greatness is defined by the gulf between you and your nearest competitors. Tyson blasted through every Ring ranked fighter he faced before prison except Douglas, in a strong field of contenders, and usually in lopsided fashion. His style only works for a young fighter, and aside from the D'Amato and Givens thing, Tyson was never going to last. Like Muay Thai fighters who burn out as teenagers. But that's the nature of his boxing style. He needed every ounce of speed and reflexes to make his style work."

"I can anticipate somebody bringing up longevity here. Well, longevity isn't a good criterion for rating greatness. Rating fighters on longevity unfairly privileges the fighters who age slowly, or who fight with conservative styles. More important is how many ranked victims you rack up at your best, and how dominantly you do it. Tyson crammed as many dominant victories as he could into his best period. Considering the age clock he was working against, it's about as good as anybody could have expected."

 

I thought he was unbeatable at the time, but I was just a kid, I`m 42, looking back it`s clear to see after Rooney left thaty in the Bruno fight he just wasn`t right at all and the writing was on the way, but at the time I thought he was a monster and I didn`t know anything about boxing really.

 

Fury was born the samr year Mike fought Bruno.

 

Youtube comments, heh-heh. If you read those for any length of time I guarantee it won't be long before you run across a certain asshat who goes by the handle "fadethetrade". That guy is like a living parody of an overzealous Tyson fan.

 

I think your last sentence overstates the case but I gave this comment a "like" anyway.

 

Perhaps I was overzealous in trying insulate my argument from any accusation of rating Tyson for imaginary fights or wasted talent.

 

Iron Mike had a well-established reputation prior to the bite fight.
Here is an example of the common discussion: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/0...d-Mike-Tyson-of-fighting-dirty/4600549086400/ .

The “fake dong” comes from Tysons autobiography, I think he was probably being pretty objective. Tyson does not pretend he was a saint, you should join him in his honesty, it doesn’t stop you for appreciating what he accomplished.

 

Ok. I am a liar by your opinion.That's all.