Why do people underrate Tyson?

Yes it's lack of longevity , the fact that his losses were witnessed by the world and the little matter of him being a complete arsehole.

At his best he would be competitive with anyone who ever held the title.imo

 

I expect that means I am too.

 

Dont get me started, otherwise ill be writing a couple of essays :naughty

Points to consider

Tyson (at his peak) looked more unbeatable than Ali (pre exile) did.

And i feel Tysons pre prison opposition was better than pre exile Ali's

What seperates them is their actions/inactions post exile/prison.

Tyson at his absolute best (86-88), never came close to losing a fight and showed very little vulnerabilities, hence why Tyson fans sometimes get accused of overrating him.

Tyson;
Wasnt knocked down by the likes of Henry Cooper;
Never had his jaw broke by the likes of Marty Marshall
Wasnt knocked out by Oliver Mcall
Wasnt knocked down by Bert Cooper
Didnt struggle with Biggs/Tubbs (like Bowe)
Didnt struggle with Chuvalo

The ONLY thing you can hold against Tyson (at his best) was that he didnt Ko all of his opponents. Normally thats the only critism you hear when talking about a peak Tyson

Tyson couldnt KO Smith, Tucker etc etc

For those who say Tyson lost to a bum like Douglas need to consider;

Ali was knocked down and nearly out by Henry Cooper
Lewis lost his 0 to Oliver Mcall who already had 5 to 6 losses at the time
Vitali lost his 0 to Chris Byrd who up until then had beat no one of note and had been brutally KTFO by Ibeabuchi
Wladmir lost his 0 to Ross Purrity who had 13 losses at the time!
Sonny Liston lost his 0 to Marty Marshall who had 5 losses and had beaten nobody of note
Larry Holmes lost his 0 to Michael Spinks
Joe Louis lost his 0 to Max Schemling who already had 7 losses to his name

 

Dont talk to yourself :hooters

 

To be fair that's just unrealistic...you say if "he was at his best for his entire career "...no fighter has ever done that.

 

I don't think people under rate Tyson. Most have him at or near the top 10 all time at heavyweight and most also have him top 5-6 H2H all time. These are pretty high achievements for someone with such a short peak.

 

The fighter you are rating did not exist. It's a mythical Mike Tyson. You have to take the good with the bad, and if Tyson chose to drink and drug, to hire yes-men to work his corner, to not train at the level of a world-class athlete ... those are flaws that were exposed.

He was what he was, not what you project him to have been.

 

Correct and no fighter ever will, unless they have a VERY short career at the top and retire.

 

Good Point.

 

Tyson was never forgiven for being so thoroughly mastered and shown up by James Buster Douglas, who suffered the wrath of the boxing populace for folding so easily vs Holyfield in his first defense....sort of guilt through association with some people in downgrading Tyson.

 

Rating ATG HW's is hard. We can pretty sure about Ali and Joe Louis, but after that were guessing to some extent.

Tyson had a very short peak and he fought, and lost badly, to his toughest opponents after he declined as a fighter. This makes it tough to get a fix on him.

Imagine Ali didn't get drafted and instead kept fighting but stop giving a damn. So he loses badly to Frazier, Foreman and Norton and beats nobody of any singnificance. Would we think of Ali as having a great peak then? Or would we pick his record apart saying the Liston fights were probably fixed, Patterson had a bad back, and in the end he was never really as good as he seemed?

 

Overrated or underrated...the man looks great on film. I think Azzer85 put it best: when Tyson didn't knock someone out and people use it as a mark against him, maybe he just is that damn good. His rampage through the division DID happen, it wasn't photoshopped or tweaked in the slightest. Or the knock against him for having a short peak - look what he was able to do in that short period of time.