Why has Mike Tyson become so underrated?

Because he got stopped by little buster.

 

He's rated pretty highly.

I'm known as a Tyson "HATER". I rate him in top 15 HWs of all-time, probably just inside the top 10. Maybe as high as 8th or 9th. (Depending on how we rate some of the old-timers that don't exist on film so much.)

He was the best HW of the 1980s. NUMBER ONE of that decade. It's between him and Holmes and I'd probably rate Tyson ahead of Holmes in the 1980s, since a good deal of Holmes's best work was back in the late 1970s.

So, probably top 10 OF ALL TIME, and also NUMBER ONE OF THE 1980s.
That's how a "hater" rates him, so I'd say he's pretty highly rated.

 

As for the deterioration of his skills, that's all very well.
But he's NOT the only heavyweight champion who had spells of bad nights and spells of bad form and deteriorated abilities.
MOST of the great champions went through similar stuff, but the best of them managed to pull through those rough nights or at least didn't get badly thrashed by a B-level contender.

That's a weakness of Tyson's. His form dropped off and he was reduced to fodder for Douglas or fodder for a war-torn-over-the-hill version of Holyfield. It is what it is.

 

Because he's all to often judged heavily on the basis of one fight.

 

Tbh that one fight was pretty damaging to his legacy wasn't it?

His two losses to Holyfield don't help him either, I'll give him a pass for losing to Lewis as he was a shell of his former self.

 

It was.. But it also shouldn't be used to sum up his entire career.

 

Because he got his ass handed to him by Buster Douglas...and...he was KO'D by a past his prime Holyfield...not to mention the ear biting incident! Tyson NEVER got off the canvas to come back and win a fight. He goes down...he stays down.

 

pretty much everything after prison hurts him tbh.

i see the circumstances of the douglas loss getting called excuses once an argument has started(or to start one), everything i know about anything tells me preparation is important and everything i know about that fight tells me tyson's preparation was awful. it's not making excuses for tyson, it's not putting down douglas' win, it's just what it is.

 

George Foreman is judged quite heavily on his loss to Muhammad Ali, and there's nothing wrong with that.

For some reason a lot of people get a little upset when Tyson's loss to Douglas is factored in the same manner.

 

Yeah, but sometimes fighters can WIN with awful preparation. Many of the great fighters do it. That's part of what makes them great. TYSON probably did it in other fights !
Douglas had some pretty bad circumstances surrounding his preparation too.
Why is it even worthy of mention? If it's not an excuse, why is it out there in such extensive detail ? :huh

 

Agreed.. Trevor Berbick schooled the **** out of a fully prepared and prime Ali as did Gene Tunny over a well rested 3 year retired Dempsey. Oliver McCall KO'd a peak Lewis and never mind anything that Manny Steward did later to polish up his game or Klitscko's after losing to Purity , Brewster or sanders. Iran Barkley knocked out a perfectly good Hearns in 1988 and beat him again in 1992.

 

Poor argument.
If you truly believe Tyson's loss to Douglas should be classed with Ali's loss to Berbick that is sad.

 

Why was it a poor argument? And why only elude to that example out of the several I've provided?

 

So why bring that fight up? A way past it and physically fcuked Ali performed better than Tyson who at that age was getting KTFO by Danny Williams and quitting against Kevin McBride