Why do people underrate Tyson?

i believe "swarmers" have short careers because they take abuse "coming in",Tyson did not.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

atsch
Tyson was never a boxer. First he was a swarmer with head movement and then later became a wild headhunting slugger. You are really bad at this. Perhaps you would be better of learning how to knit.

 

Tyson was a come forward pressure fighter his entire career, never a boxer. Tyson could never have success on the backfoot.

 

A matter of definitions...Tyson sure was a swarmer then 1 punch hunting slugger.

Though in the sense of boxing skills, not the Holy Trinity fo styles, he was an excellent boxer.

Almost no wswarmer has success on the backfoot. What he could have worked on & improved was inside fighting & handling himself in the clinches.

And not letting his discipine & career go down the tubes. But he was not psychologically healthy enough to do this.

 

Excellent post, saved me a lot of typing, high quality stuff!

 

Foreman jab.
One of your best posts.

 

I agree with that, Tyson does get overrated when you hear things like "Tyson was the GOAT" or "Tyson would Ko Ali in 2 rounds" etc (although that could possibly happen).

With the benefit of hindsight we can look back over his career now and say he wasnt at his peak anymore by the time he fought Douglas, his peak was Spinks and he never reached that pinnacle ever again, so yes people are right to say he wasnt the fighter he once was when he lost to Douglas. However peak and prime are two different things.

He was 23, yes, but when you look at guys like Lewis, Vitali, Wladmir, Holmes, etc, these guys hadnt even turned pro by that age.

Lewis was 4 years into his career (same as Tyson) when he suffered his first loss, as was Bowe. IF you put in a 20-21 year old Tyson vs 20-21 versions of most ATGs, i guarantee you none of them would see the final bell.

Its not specifically written anywhere that a fighter cannot be finished by the age of 23. After all, Tyson achieved more at that age than any other fighter in history.

Impressive performance against Bruno(2)? that might be due to the fact that Bruno refused to put up any resistance whatsoever, unlike the first fight which was competitive and where Bruno actually came to fight.

Holyfield is a whole 4 years old than Tyson, i feel that hardly makes a difference. Yes Holyfield was perceived as shot, but on the flip side, hed fought the best opposition of the decade while Tyson rotted in prison. Prior to facing Holyfield, Tyson had fought 8 rounds of boxing in 4-5 years.
Are you telling me Holyfield didnt learn anything when facing Bowe, Moorer, Mercer, Holmes and Foreman?

Just because he put in a good performance against Bruno (a guy he already great once) doesnt make Tyson suddenly at his best again. Holyfield Moorer in a rematch, does that make him prime again?

He was a high ranked heavyweight up until about 2002 when he fought Lewis. Thats about 14 years from when he turned pro and he did it in a weightclass where he was physically disadvantaged. Is that not longetivity? not only that, Tyson is/was the last ever heavyweight to be number 1 p4p. The proof is in the pudding, Tyson most definitely belongs higher than most on the P4P list.

Most people credit Pacqiao for moving up in divisions and dominating bigger men, isnt that what Tyson did throughout his career?

Not only that, Shane Mosely, Antonio Margarito and Manny Pacqiauo have reach similar to or greater than Mike Tyson.

 

U make some good points Azzer...
In summary of my earlier post...he was as destructive a HW as there has ever been 86-89...
His lifestyle caught up with him v Douglas.
Post prison he was (for the most part) a shell of the fighter he was .
As the nineties moved on his decline was tangible but that didn't stop him being marketed as something he no longer was.(Fighters like Bruno and Seldon not showing up against him helped keep the "legend" alive).
To those of us that know at least a little about boxing it was easy to see the decline , which when set against the brainwash type marketing that went alongside the guy, probably produced the perception that by that point the guy had now entered the realms of 'over rated'.

 

The definition of being a boxer does not rely on boxing on the back foot.Tyson had underated boxing skills imo. Tyson could not win going backwards because of his relatively short stature, not because he lacked boxing ability.

 

There are just as many people who overrate Tyson as there are ones who underrate him. Probably one of the most lopsided viewed fighters of all time.

 

Forget about Foreman and forget about Liston. Tyson WAS the most intimidating heavyweight ever.

His list of intimidated fighters is probably better than most guys resumes!

Bruno (2)
Seldon
Stewart
Spinks
Holmes (yes Holmes was scared according to Giachetti)
Berbick
Smith

off the top of my head.

Foremans reign of terror lasted about 2 fights, Frazier and Norton and thats it.

Tysons began in 85' and ended after the Holyfield losses.

Tyson has always been an scumbag. Even after turning pro, he was till committing crimes. In his book, it states, soon after turning pro and having a couple of hundred $ in his pocket, he got into an elevator and saw a man with a walkman, so Tyson beat him up and robbed his walkman.

The problem with Tyson is....he never grew up. Only now hes finally grown up and matured into an adult.

Also Tysons 2 biggest problems were overconfidence and frustration. Tysons attitude was, he felt he didnt need to train, just turn up, throw a punch, KO the guy, go home.

If you look at the Douglas and Holyfield fights, Tyson easily could have finished those fights and gone the distance (and still lost) the problem was, he made no attempt at defence and just recklessly rushed in over and over again, and after a while those beatings catch up with you.

Out of Tysons 20 year career, he only spent about 3 years at his best, the rest he spent on relying on chin and power to get him through and 90% of the time it did. But you need more than that to beat the Holyfields and Lewis'

Looking back, Post Prison Tyson was severly overated, if you look at some of the magazines, he was getting accolades and credit for doing next to nothing in the division.

I think pre prison, his career got a fair appraisal, even after the Douglas loss. Post prison he became super overrated.

I believe he was rushed into the limelight (by King), had he taken his comeback more seriously like Ali and Foreman did (esp Foreman), it may have worked out better for him.

After 'beating' Mcneely, Tyson becamce ranked no2 by the WBC!

Tyson himself said, 'i knew i wasnt what i once was, but i also knew, if i hit them hard enough id knock them out'. Thats great, that would work against the Brunos, Moorers or even Lewis' of the world, but that sort of gameplan is not going to work against Evander Holyfield.

 

I think hes becoming dangerously underrated now.

Thats mainly his own fault for screwing up his career and putting people off with his post prison antics.

but from 1986-88, Tyson was one of, if not the best ever.