tyson my belifs why we underate him

[Vantage_West]

i found a guy at a party on friday talking about boxing....and i made a dash across the room ,im seriuos i go all crazy when somone says "i like boxing"...then i go on a rant about who would winn greb or hearns? the response is as follows > :blood

i found out he was a semi pro...just an am boxer who gets paid (i really doubt it as he is 17 but he did know his boxing). i got into a convo about how tyson was underated and of course this made him do backflips about how amazing tyson was and i agreed with him until he talked about how great his koes were.

then it struck me boxing fans dont look for koes....we may say we want a ko but a good fight is what we want. yet casual boxing fans or somone who just likes watching people koed. always want the ko it's put on the youtube highlight relles it's put on news rells on how bad boxing is ect.

tyson was a ko machine and transended (SP?) the sport he was a hiphop icon he was on the cover of time magazine he was the money cow of don king.
and boxing critics and factomonsos were saying he is the dangerous/greatest thing on the earth.

but when he was stopped by douglas he became a used-to-be to everyone, people all around stopped beliving in him. every one knew who he was even today people think he is still fighting:patsch he is more well known than any boxer even ali has to compete here.

now when we boxing fans look back on him i feel some of us are taking in the celebrity tyson not tyson the fighter.
and we as boxing fans are too insecure of looking like ordinary boxing fans who only see the spectacule of iron mike and beacuse of that we distant him from stardom to go "ha look at the noob who doesnt know his boxing", "becuase he prefers tyson over greb or langford" rofl lol lmao

this is a long ting way of saying it but in short

tyson is forced to be underated and disrespected by people who want to sound like they know what they are talking about ,becuase only ordinary sports fans know tyson.

we will look into are archives and find a man who had beaten alot of men and proclaim he was the greatest fighter of all time.

[ironchamp]

I've always said the same thing. Tyson's celebrity and out of ring antics make it very easy to underrate him.

Everyone wants to sound distinguished like they are in the know so they tend to prefer fighters that set them apart from the casual fans.

[FlatNose]

Fighters are usually rated historically by their entire careers, not just while they were still undefeated and on a roll.Tyson looked totally unbeatable for a while.Of course this was against less than a stellar bunch.Then, one of the bunch knocks Mike goofy, and his defecencies become glaring.Looking back at what Mike has done, and looking back on other past champs, I don't believe Tyson is under rated at all.

[My dinner with Conteh]

He is a tad underrated in this section. But the best two guys he beat were a light-heavy and a grandpa. That's why he'll never be rated #1...by the sane anyway.

[Sonny's jab]

Maybe people who are deliberately rating Muhammad Ali low are trying to be snobbish and elitist.

But with Mike Tyson, no.

He doesn't stack up against the very best.
Unless I'm horribly under-rating Buster Douglas then I'll stick to my claim that Tyson is usually over-rated.

[Marnoff]

Tyson head to head has a serious shot against anyone in history.

[Bill1234]

Tyson is constantly overrated. People going around calling him #1 or a top 5-8 guy. Its rediculas. As MDWC said, the best guys he beat were an out of shape, 38 years old (17 years older than Tyson) grandpa, and a washed up lightheavy.

[Cojimar 1945]

Spinks had only a few fights at heavyweight and his resume there falls far short of a number of heavyweights. Tyson beat a number of top contenders but failed to dominate his era.

[UpWithEvil]

The "washed up light heavy" Had just spanked holmes and sent him crying home.

If he actually managed to bend Holmes over his knee and smack his ass a few times, it would have done about as much damage as 15 rounds of his punching did.

Don't get me wrong, I thought Spinks won the first fight by a slight margin, but "spanked"? Ninja please!

[Vantage_West]

He is a tad underrated in this section. But the best two guys he beat were a light-heavy and a grandpa. That's why he'll never be rated #1...by the sane anyway.oh totally it was a shame he was hyped so early on in his career and fighting comp that were phasing past the 80's.
im not saying he was top 10 material (i have him at 13 imho) jus he was in his prime the most devastating puncher his hand speed was trully awe inspiring for his size and reach.

im not saying he should be ranked top 3 just should get a bit of respect.

actully the same with frazier in certain places people saying frazier had a weak chin:huh

[Vantage_West]

ok i know he wasnt the best heavywieght, and the lounge and the general forum stalkers always say tyson.

but im talking about his power ,his speed (with power not just one shot) his elusivness his defencive abilties his dashing speed. his heart maybe he would give up but he didnt stop he took a beating in the process.

it's this snobbishness towards him he was hard to beat even a washed up tyson was beating danny williams every round until his knee gave way.

[McGrain]

Tyson was a great fighter. But the guys who go on about him being deadly head to head have to take the following into consideration.

Tyson was very, very, very, very good at one thing. He didn't have a lot in the way of Plan B. This makes him vulnerable to other types of style. That's the way it works.

He was taken the distance by guys - who were admitedly just in survival mode - far, far, far inferior to some of the guys he'd by matched with head to head. Well, there is no doubt that some of these great fighters would be able to survive whilst dishing out serious punishment.

Tyson was mentally weak. Everyone talks about Rooney. The very fact he fell apart so dramatically without Rooney and Cus demonstrates a mental weakness inherant to the man. That weakness may have shown itself in the ring when he hit serious trouble against Ali, Louis, Johnson, whichever great fighter may be being discussed. Boxing is a composite sport - what is the story with blaming Rooney's absence for everything? - if he's absolutey unable to function at his best without this man he'd have trouble at the very, very edge of the abyss, where he would find himself against greats.

He was a short heavyweight with short arms.

He had poor temperament.

Taking all of this into account it's hard for me to seriously regard him as #1 or anything like. I have him at #11 at the moment, the highest i've had him is #10.

His strengths meant he would give anyone a fight. But I beleive any good fighter would have a chance to beat him.

He has NEVER beaten a great fighter to cast doubt upon that statement.

[McGrain]

I Am Legend, I don't understand what you mean.

Do you mean that most people have Tyson around 11 and I have a vested interest in maintaining his position there or there abouts?

[McGrain]

you're just reguritating the same old "mentally weak" "no plan b" "short arms" bullshit that everyone's heard a million times, theres nothing new there and most of it is bullshit anyway. You bring up he was taken the distance, you act like going the distance is a mark of shame, like tyson somehow "failed" despite winning by incredible margins ( sometimes 10+ rounds). It the same from all the tyson haters, you put him up near the top 10 just enough where you wont seem like an obvious hater but just low enough where you can tear him down in matchups with your favorites.


You're a strange, strange guy!

I don't hate Tyson. I like him. I like his fights. I grew up watching him.

Interesting you should say that it's "bullshit" that he has short arms. He does.

I agree with you that many hold the wins over the distance against him like a loss and that is a joke. But why so touchy? The fact that he was carried to the bell by contenders is significant, especially when trying to decipher an ATG's chance for carrying him the distance.

A lot of this is subjective. Sometimes some dialogue on the site provides an insight, straightens you up, makes you see something that you didn't see before. You change your mind.

But here is an incontrivertable fact: if you think that i would put Tyson "near the top ten just enough where [I] won't seem an obvious hater" to appease prissy little nuthuggers like you you are mistaken.

If I thought Tyson #20 I would say so. If he was #70 you would know.

I think he's 11 so I have him at 11.

Let me ask you a question. If Tyson wasn't mentally weak why did he mentally crumble?

[McGrain]

you mean the same way Ali mentally crumbled against holmes? He quit on his stool like a little bitch and couldnt do anything against holmes speed because he had no plan b.

:lol:


You're nothing more than a tyson hater with an agenda.

They're after you Legend. They're after you bud.

[McGrain]

and frazier quit like a little bitch in the Thrilla, he had no plan b.

It's true that he had no plan B, good observation. It put him in trouble against Foreman too.

You really think he quit? Did They tell you that?

[UpWithEvil]

you mean the same way Ali mentally crumbled against holmes? He quit on his stool like a little bitch and couldnt do anything against holmes speed because he had no plan b.

Young Tyson = Ancient Ali with a tinge of Parkinson's Disease?

OK, I can sorta see that. I'm a bit disturbed by your pathological hatred of Mike Tyson, but that's between you and your therapist.

[McGrain]

Young Tyson = Ancient Ali with a tinge of Parkinson's Disease?

OK, I can sorta see that. I'm a bit disturbed by your pathological hatred of Mike Tyson, but that's between you and your therapist.

:lol:


I wish i'd said that.

[hobgoblin]

Tyson was missing somethng very fundamental for a great fighter. He couldn't strategically adapt himself to a situation not going his way. When Douglas started outboxing him, when Holyfield started smothering his punches on the inside - Tyson showed no signs of progress of doing something about it to turn the tides in his favor. With Douglas he landed a good punch when Douglas got careless - it proved his heart but that isn't strategy. Since Mike Tyson seemed lack strategical fighting for an extender period of time, he'd lose against many ATGs. This was his biggest flaw IMO.

[kenny weldon]

Mike Tyson was Cus Damatos dream .He was built perfectly for the style Cus perfected and while Cus was alive was possibly the greatest prospect ever in the division .When Cus died ,so did Mike Tyson .It was just a matter of time.Kevin Rooney was no Cus in no shape,form or fashion .Mikes compact,explosive style got longer and less explosive with each fight until Buster ,who was extremly fluid was able to bait and destroy Mike in Japan. Evander beat Buster by staying in Busters flow and beating him with turns and explosive combinations inside ,keeping Buster off ballance until Buster started reaching with upper-cups . Evander beat Douglas at his own game ,as was Holyfields greatest assets ...knowledge...knowledge....knowledge....God bless....kenny weldon

[Dempsey1238]

Dempsey was still trying to find ways to win even in round ten. Dempsey was not just contempt with taking a beating and hopeing to land the shot. He was finded ways to find the mark and wear Tunney down. He did land on Tunney pretty often in the 2nd fight. He was only just a step or 2 behind Tunney.

[hobgoblin]

Dempsey was still trying to find ways to win even in round ten. Dempsey was not just contempt with taking a beating and hopeing to land the shot. He was finded ways to find the mark and wear Tunney down. He did land on Tunney pretty often in the 2nd fight. He was only just a step or 2 behind Tunney.

that is exactly what i'm talking about. tyson didn't have that. this was dempsey at the twilight of his career so he didn't have the ability anymore - but at least he had the strategic planning.

[Zakman]

Tyson tends to be very overrated by those who really don't know too much about boxing or its history - but he is also underrated by some who assume that his opposition was extremely mediocre, or that all anybody had to do was stand up to him to beat him. At his best he was a very formitable fighter - but not unbeatable, as some claim.

[Amsterdam]

Tyson tends to be very overrated by those who really don't know too much about boxing or its history - but he is also underrated by some who assume that his opposition was extremely mediocre, or that all anybody had to do was stand up to him to beat him. At his best he was a very formitable fighter - but not unbeatable, as some claim.

He's underrated by those who claim that Lennox Lewis beats him peak/peak, that's just insanity!:patsch

Realistically, Tyson is a top 10 Heavyweight in my book and at his peak, quite a head to head monster in fantasy matches.

[Sizzle]

Tyson is underrated by self-proclaimed historians, simply because he's the most well-known and infamous boxer out there (Along with Ali), and thus rated highly by the "casual" fan.

Playing down his accomplishments, and/or Ali's for that matter, gives the historian an intellectual edge with the fan that doesn't know the entire lineage of the heavyweight title.

The fact is, there is no way someone like Dempsey could match up to Tyson in terms of legacy (or head-to-head in my opinion). Anyone taking an objective look at their career would see Tyson achieved more than Dempsey, although granted head-to-head is a matter of opinion.

[Cojimar 1945]

Tyson appears to rank 3rd in his own era (behind Holyfield and Lewis) and if we rank eras at an equal level all the heavyweights who proved the best of their eras must rank ahead of Tyson. There is no need to unduly criticize Tyson but from an objective standpoint he appears to rank above guys like Walcott and Bowe but behind the heavyweights who dominated for long periods.

[Holmes' Jab]

He's underrated by those who claim that Lennox Lewis beats him peak/peak, that's just insanity!:patsch

Realistically, Tyson is a top 10 Heavyweight in my book and at his peak, quite a head to head monster in fantasy matches.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Silver]

agree with some of you. tyson gets uderrated and overrated. kind of like ali becasue they are the two most popular fighters in the history if the game. but ali's legacy is less in doubt then tyson's is. and alot of people expected too much out of tyson. people thought he'd go 50-0 or something. while he had all the physical gifts, (except height), he had alot of other flaws that hurt him in the long run.

[Ramon Rojo]

Tyson was an underachiever.

He could have been the greatest, but what he did outside of the ring ruined his what could have been a great career.

[Denny Cruser]

Tyson is very underrated, while likes of Marciano, Liston and Holmes are very overrated

[JohnThomas1]

you mean the same way Ali mentally crumbled against holmes? He quit on his stool like a little bitch and couldnt do anything against holmes speed because he had no plan b.


You're nothing more than a tyson hater with an agenda, just like bill1234.

Sorta like Tyson quitting vs McBride.

[McGrain]

expect to be crucified for having indepent thoughts.


More paranoia. Nobody gets "crucified" for having "indepent thoughts", just doesn't happen. People sometimes get attacked when they can't back up what they've said but people never get hammered in back down.

You're probably the most aggressive poster that haunts ESB classic, i've seen you attack people for having poor english and spelling - even thought the poster is speaking in their second or third language - i've seen you wish cancer on a fellow poster's mother for disagreeing with you (twice) and your little hissy fits when someone picks against or criticises your idol are hysterical but sometimes quite unpleasant.

If anybody is guilty of being overly aggresive in the face of "indepent thoughts" it's you.

[Denny Cruser]

To take Ali out you must be a great combination-puncher with one KO-punch. Like Frazier never was, like Foreman never was (he hit as hard as hell, but one punch KO - is not his ability, glassies Rodriguezes and Mooreres didnt matter), like Liston never was, like mediocre Shavers never was. Ali never had good block against left hook - best and quickest MT punch. Ali was KD only by Left-hooks and MT could landed such punch alone and in combinations. I think Tyson has good chances to KO Ali, but definetly better chances to take this bout has Muhammad. ALi to tough mentally for MT he can frustrate and took away Tysons courage and fighting plans.

[McGrain]

To take Ali out you must be a great combination-puncher with one KO-punch. Like Frazier never was, like Foreman never was (he hit as hard as hell, but one punch KO - is not his ability, glassies Rodriguezes and Mooreres didnt matter), like Liston never was, like mediocre Shavers never was. Ali never had good block against left hook - best and quickest MT punch. Ali was KD only by Left-hooks and MT could landed such punch alone and in combinations. I think Tyson has good chances to KO Ali, but definetly better chances to take this bout has Muhammad. ALi to tough mentally for MT he can frustrate and took away Tysons courage and fighting plans.

Good post, this is pretty much as I see it.

What would be most interesting to see would be Ali taking a big shot from Tyson - i think he would beat the count - and then see if he could get out of the round. You'd have the best heavyweight finisher ever agianst the smartest heavyweight survivor ever. Heart in the mouth stuff.

My pick would be Ali in a late stoppage, perhaps having to get up of the canvas, but as you say, Tyson has a reasonable chance in this one.

[Vantage_West]

really short arms 74' for a guy 5'11 thats a big enough reach for his size though against heavywieghts he almost was always smaller armed.

he did posses a good quick jab and he wasnt squared on only on the inside when he was on the outside he was in a conventional stnace with a high guard.
so what maybe he couldnt jab the man to a shut out. but he could be patient and had the tricks to counter and outsavy the man.he wanst 2-d
he wasnt a totally rounded fighter becuase of his ...'unique' size and shape he couldnt have a plan b same with frazier and marciano

[Sizzle]

Tyson was a purely offensive fighter, he was fast, powerful & aggressive but Buster Douglas NULLIFIED his offence. A real class-A fighter would work around this but Tyson was 1 dimensional, all he could do was carry on trying to get those power shots in and Douglas didn't let him ergo schooled him.

Conclusion: Tyson = over rated.

Tyson was purely offensive? Is this why his evasiveness was his universally considered his best attribute, even by Tyson himself?

The head movement, jab, and stamina was not there against Buster Douglas that's why he lost.

[Vantage_West]

Tyson was purely offensive? Is this why his evasiveness was his universally considered his best attribute, even by Tyson himself?

The head movement, jab, and stamina was not there against Buster Douglas that's why he lost.agreed vey hard to hit and was rarely tagged. i agree it was the unique style of douglas to win the fight but tyson wasnt there that night

[PRMETYSON3b2181]

Ali in his prime (mid to late 60s as most people say) was too light to handle the prime tyson onslaught. If any Ali beats tyson is Ali from about 72- 75 because he was craftier and heavier. But Cassius Clay aka Muhammed ALi is to light.

[C. M. Clay II]

Ali in his prime (mid to late 60s as most people say) was too light to handle the prime tyson onslaught. If any Ali beats tyson is Ali from about 72- 75 because he was craftier and heavier. But Cassius Clay aka Muhammed ALi is to light.

The opposite of what you just said is more likely.

[Luigi1985]

because ali is an untouchable demigod right?

get over it, ali could be beaten.


Ali could not only be beaten, he was actually be beaten, even in his prime. Of course Tyson would have a realistic chance against him...

[Robbi]

you mean the same way Ali mentally crumbled against holmes? He quit on his stool like a little bitch and couldnt do anything against holmes speed because he had no plan b.


You're nothing more than a tyson hater with an agenda, just like bill1234.

Angelo Dundee stopped the fight.

Tyson never had an excuse that his trainer stopped the fight for any of his losses. He was beaten, floored or in no position to continue.

Douglas. He got up barely, and was on queer street.

Holyfield. Was taking monster punches and not defending himself.

Lewis. Well, he was getting a pasting for 95% of the fight, and was on his ass from a right hand. No position to contiune.

Williams. Floored and never wanted to get up for more.

McBride. Never seen it. But from what I heard the stoppage was simlar to the Willians one.

[radianttwilight]

Angelo Dundee stopped the fight.

Tyson never had an excuse that his trainer stopped the fight for any of his losses. He was beaten, floored or in no position to continue.

Douglas. He got up barely, and was on queer street.

Holyfield. Was taking monster punches and not defending himself.

Lewis. Well, he was getting a pasting for 95% of the fight, and was on his ass from a right hand. No position to contiune.

Williams. Floored and never wanted to get up for more.

McBride. Never seen it. But from what I heard the stoppage was simlar to the Willians one.

Tyson is ridiculously underrated H2H around these parts. His resume may be less than stellar, but 1986-1988 Tyson would be a monster for anyone to fight.

Let's keep in mind that Joe Frazier decisioned Ali (and knocked him down, too) in the FOTC, 1971. Many will argue that this wasn't even a prime Joe Frazier.

Frazier was essentially a one-armed fighter. An excellent fighter, ATG no doubt, but Tyson had double the arsenal of punches. Someone is going to try to call me out for calling Frazier one-armed, but they won't be able to deny that Tyson had FAR superior right-hand power, and the actual means to deliver that power.

Tyson, almost unarguably, punches harder than Frazier too.

He punched in extreme combinations, sometimes as many as seven or eight punches at a time, from a two-fisted puncher, no less.

Peak Tyson's defence is UNMEASURABLY better than Frazier's. Tyson rarely even got tagged clean - Frazier's style was to bore right in, get his head on your chest, and start throwing. Frazier DID HAVE a defence, but that defence was grossly inferior to Tyson's.

Footspeed? Advantage Tyson.

Accuracy? Advantage Tyson.

I can cede an advantage to Frazier in stamina, but Tyson did NOT have bad stamina. That you only had to "survive for eight or ten rounds against Tyson" to beat him is sheer FALLACY. He never lost a fight that went to decision, and his stamina was as good as most ATGs.

Chin? I'll call it equal, but in all honesty Tyson beats him out. Tyson took horrendous beatings from Douglas and Lewis before he ever went down. Keep in mind that the Tyson who fought Lewis was insanely shot, too.

Heart? Everyone is gonna say "FRAZIER! TYSON WAS A BITCH/WIMP", but I'll disagree. That Tyson never got off the canvas to win is irrelevant - Tyson only went down after taking SEVERE beatings. Douglas landed 500+ punches before he finally got Mike on the canvas.

If 1971 Joe Frazier can beat Ali, then Tyson sure as hell can.

To cap my argument, I'll say that Ali is almost physically uncapable of knocking out prime Mike Tyson:

Ali was not a puncher any way you slice it. Tyson only went down after horrendous, one-sided beatings. If Ali wants to land enough punches on Tyson to knock him out, he will essentially give away his footspeed/quickness advantage, putting him in extreme danger of being knocked out.

[prime]

I have a couple of confessions to make: when Tyson first came up and became champ, he scared me as the most ferocious man I, the casual fan, had ever seen. The way he destroyed every champion, legend and big, strong man put in front of him! But I was comforted by the opinions of “experts” who assured of the superiority of legendary names such as Marciano, Dempsey and Louis.
In those dark, pre-Youtube, days when boxing film was not that readily available, you had to take a guy’s word for it when it came to the great fights of the past. To my great delight, I finally got my hands on excellent tape of most of these great bouts circa 2000. I would finally see these guys and meetings that long lived huge in my imagination for myself! It was great.

Something bothered me, though. It seemed to me that, on the face of it, Mike Tyson was actually better, and by a considerable margin, than anything I saw from these old legends. Yes, they were great fighters, but seemed just a bit slower, a tad less powerful and impressive. It bothered me that Louis showed less resources than Mike did against, say Holmes or Bruno, in trying to stop an old Sharkey on those ropes in Round 2. Sharkey actually punched Louis back in the face a couple of times because Louis was basically just standing there, wide open, measuring with a left. It bothered me that short, fat and slow Tony Galento would actually worry and floor Louis, with one punch. I couldn’t believe George Foreman’s utter inability to hit Ali on the ropes in Zaire and how an old man such as Walcott could rough up and floor Rocky Marciano in the first seconds of a championship match.

I was comforted again when I discovered boxing websites and read “expert” opinions saying Tyson was never comparable to the best. But those videos would keep coming back to haunt me. What I saw did not stack up with what I read. After dozens of viewings, stuff suddenly started appearing out of nowhere before my very eyes. I began to see in Mike Tyson one of the most fundamentally complete fighters I had ever witnessed. Yes, he was fast and powerful, but he had the proper balanced stance and approach for his style: he would come in with a jab and had several ways of clobbering bigger men than himself, always with amazingly fast, perfectly timed and supported punches, now a swift left hook to the jaw, now a surprise overhand right, now a body blow followed up by a huge uppercut down the middle. “This is classic boxing!”, said something inside me. It really was. I began shaking my head at every puny Ali or Holmes left hook or Frazier right to the head. Fundamental by fundamental, champion Mike Tyson simply showed me better stuff, punches and results, than that of all the legends.

And so, as a guy who appreciates fundamental quality in the ring, I know young Tyson had to put in the effort in the gym to become the champion he became. And the results are there. He showed us new dimensions, because he paid the price for greatness: ten years dedicated to making the most of his wonderful physical gifts, in the solitude of training, to reach the dream Cus planted in his heart.

[radianttwilight]

I have a couple of confessions to make: when Tyson first came up and became champ, he scared me as the most ferocious man I, the casual fan, had ever seen. The way he destroyed every champion, legend and big, strong man put in front of him! But I was comforted by the opinions of “experts” who assured of the superiority of legendary names such as Marciano, Dempsey and Louis.
In those dark, pre-Youtube, days when boxing film was not that readily available, you had to take a guy’s word for it when it came to the great fights of the past. To my great delight, I finally got my hands on excellent tape of most of these great bouts circa 2000. I would finally see these guys and meetings that long lived huge in my imagination for myself! It was great.

Something bothered me, though. It seemed to me that, on the face of it, Mike Tyson was actually better, and by a considerable margin, than anything I saw from these old legends. Yes, they were great fighters, but seemed just a bit slower, a tad less powerful and impressive. It bothered me that Louis showed less resources than Mike did against, say Holmes or Bruno, in trying to stop an old Sharkey on those ropes in Round 2. Sharkey actually punched Louis back in the face a couple of times because Louis was basically just standing there, wide open, measuring with a left. It bothered me that short, fat and slow Tony Galento would actually worry and floor Louis, with one punch. I couldn’t believe George Foreman’s utter inability to hit Ali on the ropes in Zaire and how an old man such as Walcott could rough up and floor Rocky Marciano in the first seconds of a championship match.

I was comforted again when I discovered boxing websites and read “expert” opinions saying Tyson was never comparable to the best. But those videos would keep coming back to haunt me. What I saw did not stack up with what I read. After dozens of viewings, stuff suddenly started appearing out of nowhere before my very eyes. I began to see in Mike Tyson one of the most fundamentally complete fighters I had ever witnessed. Yes, he was fast and powerful, but he had the proper balanced stance and approach for his style: he would come in with a jab and had several ways of clobbering bigger men than himself, always with amazingly fast, perfectly timed and supported punches, now a swift left hook to the jaw, now a surprise overhand right, now a body blow followed up by a huge uppercut down the middle. “This is classic boxing!”, said something inside me. It really was. I began shaking my head at every puny Ali or Holmes left hook or Frazier right to the head. Fundamental by fundamental, champion Mike Tyson simply showed me better stuff, punches and results, than that of all the legends.

And so, as a guy who appreciates fundamental quality in the ring, I know young Tyson had to put in the effort in the gym to become the champion he became. And the results are there. He showed us new dimensions, because he paid the price for greatness: ten years dedicated to making the most of his wonderful physical gifts, in the solitude of training, to reach the dream Cus planted in his heart.

Great post. His fundamental mastery, before he abandoned it, was truly undeniable.

[RoccoMarciano]

Not by Tyson.

Not even the Ali that Frazier beat?

[RoccoMarciano]

Always amazes me that some people think Tyson had a serious chance of beating primed Ali. How is he going to do this. If its a ko there is a very small chance that Ali is the one being koed. Ali went over 100 rounds against Frazier,Norton,Foreman,Liston,d Shavers without getting close to be koed. And almost all these rounds were when Ali was older and alot easier to hit. On the other hand Tyson never in his career finsihed a fight when taking seriously punishment. Against Ali he takes a beating and is very lucky to finish on his feet. How anyone could just say Tyson would have a serious chance to ko Ali amazes me.



If its a decsion Tyson doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell. He doesn't throw enough punches to get a win over Ali and it wouldn't even be close. Tyson was great when he could bully people. He has a very small chance of beating Ali.

Why wouldn't Tyson have a chance against Ali prime vs prime? Tyson is just another Frazier in a few ways.

[Punisher33]

I have a couple of confessions to make: when Tyson first came up and became champ, he scared me as the most ferocious man I, the casual fan, had ever seen. The way he destroyed every champion, legend and big, strong man put in front of him! But I was comforted by the opinions of “experts” who assured of the superiority of legendary names such as Marciano, Dempsey and Louis.
In those dark, pre-Youtube, days when boxing film was not that readily available, you had to take a guy’s word for it when it came to the great fights of the past. To my great delight, I finally got my hands on excellent tape of most of these great bouts circa 2000. I would finally see these guys and meetings that long lived huge in my imagination for myself! It was great.

Something bothered me, though. It seemed to me that, on the face of it, Mike Tyson was actually better, and by a considerable margin, than anything I saw from these old legends. Yes, they were great fighters, but seemed just a bit slower, a tad less powerful and impressive. It bothered me that Louis showed less resources than Mike did against, say Holmes or Bruno, in trying to stop an old Sharkey on those ropes in Round 2. Sharkey actually punched Louis back in the face a couple of times because Louis was basically just standing there, wide open, measuring with a left. It bothered me that short, fat and slow Tony Galento would actually worry and floor Louis, with one punch. I couldn’t believe George Foreman’s utter inability to hit Ali on the ropes in Zaire and how an old man such as Walcott could rough up and floor Rocky Marciano in the first seconds of a championship match.

I was comforted again when I discovered boxing websites and read “expert” opinions saying Tyson was never comparable to the best. But those videos would keep coming back to haunt me. What I saw did not stack up with what I read. After dozens of viewings, stuff suddenly started appearing out of nowhere before my very eyes. I began to see in Mike Tyson one of the most fundamentally complete fighters I had ever witnessed. Yes, he was fast and powerful, but he had the proper balanced stance and approach for his style: he would come in with a jab and had several ways of clobbering bigger men than himself, always with amazingly fast, perfectly timed and supported punches, now a swift left hook to the jaw, now a surprise overhand right, now a body blow followed up by a huge uppercut down the middle. “This is classic boxing!”, said something inside me. It really was. I began shaking my head at every puny Ali or Holmes left hook or Frazier right to the head. Fundamental by fundamental, champion Mike Tyson simply showed me better stuff, punches and results, than that of all the legends.

And so, as a guy who appreciates fundamental quality in the ring, I know young Tyson had to put in the effort in the gym to become the champion he became. And the results are there. He showed us new dimensions, because he paid the price for greatness: ten years dedicated to making the most of his wonderful physical gifts, in the solitude of training, to reach the dream Cus planted in his heart. Great post, Tyson was one of the most gifted boxers of all time, the combination of speed and power may never be replicated again. I think Tyson is underrated by the older guys and overrated by the younger guys, its a amazing to see how much love fans have for him even after all these years.

Tyson is a legend to alot of diehard and regular fans alike, when Tyson fought it wasnt just a match it was an event. I think when Tyson was in his prime during the late 80s I feel he would of gave any fighter a tough time in the ring, he had a great chin, power, speed, head movement, stamina, was a good finisher, amazing combinations, top notch body puncher. He was the most complete fighter as you can find, Ali was the only fighter comparable IMO.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Tyson had great stamina? Must have missed that one. He went the distance with blokes that stopped punching seven rounds earlier now and again mind.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Why wouldn't Tyson have a chance against Ali prime vs prime? Tyson is just another Frazier in a few ways.



Not between rounds 8 and 15 he isn't.

[RoccoMarciano]

Not between rounds 8 and 15 he isn't.

No question Frazier had more stamina, but could he hit as hard or as fast as a late 1980s Tyson?

[brownpimp88]

Tyson is constantly overrated. People going around calling him #1 or a top 5-8 guy. Its rediculas. As MDWC said, the best guys he beat were an out of shape, 38 years old (17 years older than Tyson) grandpa, and a washed up lightheavy.
And the best guys holmes beat were?

[My dinner with Conteh]

No question Frazier had more stamina, but could he hit as hard or as fast as a late 1980s Tyson?


Probably not. But I don't see any fight with the 'Jungle/Manila' version of Ali being an early night.

[RoccoMarciano]

Probably not. But I don't see any fight with the 'Jungle/Manila' version of Ali being an early night.

That's where we run into real trouble regarding punch power and chin. Holmes, an ATG HW, was KOed by Tyson. While it wasn't a prime Holmes he faced, Holmes was still KOed by Tyson. I don't think an ability to take a punch fades quickly.

[My dinner with Conteh]

That's where we run into real trouble regarding punch power and chin. Holmes, an ATG HW, was KOed by Tyson. While it wasn't a prime Holmes he faced, Holmes was still KOed by Tyson. I don't think an ability to take a punch fades quickly.



Yeah, but fitness and condition do. I was impressed with the way Tyson dismantled Larry actually (even the grandad version). But there's no denying this was a flabby out-of-shape Holmes. Holmes had been fading since 1983.

[RoccoMarciano]

Yeah, but fitness and condition do. I was impressed with the way Tyson dismantled Larry actually (even the grandad version). But there's no denying this was a flabby out-of-shape Holmes. Holmes had been fading since 1983.

Holmes wasn't prime against Tyson.. enough said about that. But did Holmes' ability to take a flush shot from a heavy hitter change all that much? I don't think so. Ali's didn't with reduced movement and age (I'm not talking about the health problems he faced at the end either)!

I seen Larry get battered worse than he'd ever been battered before. I guess, for my own part, I'm still trying to figure out the why :)

I'm no Tyson hugger BTW! I think the guy was bad for the sport and never once tried to live up to his own potential.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Ali had a better chin than Holmes though. Larry's main strength was his recuperative powers, when concerning durability.

[RoccoMarciano]

Ali had a better chin than Holmes though.
I don't know that with any degree of certainty. Holmes took some huge shots.... as did Ali. Should make any person wonder just a bit who was really better. Both were just to damn good!

Prime Tyson against a post war crap (war crap, not Ali) Ali is no given for Ali.

[Luigi1985]

IMO it´s pretty simple with Tyson, we can´t rank him that high (the best, realistic ranking would be 8th ca.) because legacy-wise he didn´t do that much (he had much more potential), but head-to-head I don´t see many guys beating a 87- Tyson...

[josak]

IMO it´s pretty simple with Tyson, we can´t rank him that high (the best, realistic ranking would be 8th ca.) because legacy-wise he didn´t do that much (he had much more potential), but head-to-head I don´t see many guys beating a 87- Tyson...
That's how I see it.

[Robbi]

That's how I see it.

The 87 Tyson was beatable IMO

[Luigi1985]

That's how I see it.


:thumbsup

[Vanboxingfan]

I think the fighters who could give a prime Tyson a go would be Ali, Lewis, Foreman, Liston and Holyfield. Of those TYson is likely to win some and loose some, but regardless, that puts him in the top 5 H2H in my opinion. Could he be #1 h2h, I don't know the answer, I think anyone of these fighters could potentionally beat him, but they might not.

But as to where he ranking in terms of boxing history and accomplishments I think he's just inside the top 10.

So in terms of where someone rates Tyson, to some extent on what criteria you're using. If it's H2H it's a different rating than if it's based on longivity and career accomplishments.

[godking]

Anyone who has Tyson out of the top 10 ATG is underrating him .

Anyone who has Tyson in the top 5 ATG is overrating him.

No HW Who won a title within one year and seven months at age 20 who till this day is the only HW to unify every significant belt of his era in the ring and damn near cleaned out the top 10 hw contenders of his era in the 80s can be ranked out side the top 10.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Anyone who has Tyson out of the top 10 ATG is underrating him .

Anyone who has Tyson in the top 5 ATG is overrating him.

No HW Who won a title within one year and seven months at age 20 who till this day is the only HW to unify every significant belt of his era in the ring and damn near cleaned out the top 10 hw contenders of his era in the 80s can be ranked out side the top 10.



Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

:good

[Bill1234]

Fighters are usually rated historically by their entire careers, not just while they were still undefeated and on a roll.Tyson looked totally unbeatable for a while.Of course this was against less than a stellar bunch.Then, one of the bunch knocks Mike goofy, and his defecencies become glaring.Looking back at what Mike has done, and looking back on other past champs, I don't believe Tyson is under rated at all.

Same with me. IMO he sits just out side the top 10.:good

[SevenSamurai]

because ali is an untouchable demigod right?

get over it, ali could be beaten.

It is so passe and so predicable for people to say that Ali was the greatest ever heavyweight. Good Post.:good

[SevenSamurai]

Tyson was missing somethng very fundamental for a great fighter. He couldn't strategically adapt himself to a situation not going his way. When Douglas started outboxing him, when Holyfield started smothering his punches on the inside - Tyson showed no signs of progress of doing something about it to turn the tides in his favor. With Douglas he landed a good punch when Douglas got careless - it proved his heart but that isn't strategy. Since Mike Tyson seemed lack strategical fighting for an extender period of time, he'd lose against many ATGs. This was his biggest flaw IMO.

Tyson had a very low fighters IQ. He could never adapt as you said, to his work being nullified and he never ever turned a losing situation into a winning one.

He was borderline retarded out of the ring as well. He is over-rated to be at 11. He is definately top 20 minimum in terms of achievements of all time.