He's both. a freaking well-schooled physical specimen. but with some obvious limitations.
He was so exciting and so dominant it was awe-inspiring. my favorite heavyweight to watch.
Printable View
He's both. a freaking well-schooled physical specimen. but with some obvious limitations.
He was so exciting and so dominant it was awe-inspiring. my favorite heavyweight to watch.
Exactly, this is how I feel. Everyone has some tough scenario that you have to overcome, Tyson was never able to overcome it. I'm not saying Tyson wasn't skilled because he was, but the guy was not mentally strong. Everyone said he made a mistake letting Rooney go, but whose fault was that? If it's not broken why change it? People said he was manipulated by Don King and Robin Givens, but it's funny for a street kid like Tyson he wasn't savvy enough to know it? Come on.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon09
Yes Mike Tyson lost his prime years in prison and never really entered it, but what about Ali? Ali never entered his prime years either and was close to 29 when he returned to the ring and was no where close to the physical specimen that he was in the 60s, but he sure accomplish a lot didnt' he?
In a way I do feel sorry for Tyson. His life story is almost a mirror image of Ali's but with an evil element to it. Both were dominant HW champs, great physical specimens, exciting inside the ring, both were controversial out of it, both were convicted of crimes and lost their prime years (Ali for draft refusal and Tyson for Rape), but Ali's story was more of triumph, while Tyson was of failure inside and outside the ring.
Interestingly, Holyfield became Tyson's mandatory almost a year before the Douglas fight. However, Tyson (Don King) kept asking for exceptions to fight other fighters for an entire year.
The reason was economics. Tyson owed HBO a couple more fights for a set price. King wanted to put Holyfield vs Tyson on PPV because if meant big buck; so they wanted to fulfill their HBO contract fighting scurbs, while saving Tyson vs Holyfield for PPV
If you remember Holyfield was in the audience of the Douglas fight.
IF those two would have fought in 1989, we would have a better handle on Tyson's greatness.
There was an old interview around '89 after he had disposed of Bruno, that he said Holyfield was another Spinks and would get ko easy. So tell me with this kind of mindset would Tyson beat a prime Holyfield? Holyfield is no Spinks. History has proven that. He for sure wouldn't be scare of Tyson and he always had an rock solid chin and heart. With this kind of mindset Tyson wouldn't have train hard for Holyfield, thinking it's another paycheck and easy ko.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut
Tyson gets his ass handed to him earlier instead of '96 if he fought a younger and prime Holyfield in '89.
Plus take a look at the kind of corner he has with him in '89. They'll probably forget to bring an enswell or something. Either way Tyson was destined to lose to Holyfield.
Did not know that, Thought these fights were PPV but maybe that was a new concept then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut
My take on the intimidation factor with Tyson is that I find people often underrate that characteristic of his game. Almost as though it detracts from his greatness or boxing skills. I don't think it should. When you talk about the fact that he faced mediocre competition, his competition was still made up of professional fighters--most of who have been fighting most of their lives. Full of machismo and violence, these men were turned to little girls when they faced or even discussed Tyson. In and out of the ring. Some tried to talk the talk but it was so obvious they didn't believe the words coming out of their mouths. But, God bless them, they were trying to convince US and themselves they weren't scared. I grew up in the late 70s and 80s, but I've never seen a boxer literally and convincingly strike fear in the heart of opponents. Opponents who up until that point in their lives, probably would tell you that they were not scared of any man. lmao. You can't underrate Tyson's intimidation factor. We have a lot of trash talkers these days, but no one that I can think of actually scares opponents. It was really part of Tyson's package and a significant part of what made him great. If he didn't back it up, it would have been just a bunch of BS. To me downplaying the indimidation factor in a discussion of Tyson's greatness is like saying that George Foreman wasn't a great because all he could do was just hit hard. If a boxer has skills/characteristics that help him win/destroy opponents --it shouldn't be counted against him because it doesn't fit into the pretty box of what a great boxer must posses. For the relatively short time when Tyson was at his prime, IMO he was great. It was clear when he was done and he finally even told US as fans that he just didn't have boxing in his heart anymore. The need for money and fans who wanted him to keep going (in hopes of seeing the old Iron Mike), extended his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon09
Good post.Quote:
Originally Posted by DC Amateur BoxingMy take on the intimidation factor with Tyson is that I find people often underrate that characteristic of his game. Almost as though it detracts from his greatness or boxing skills. I don't think it should. When you talk about the fact that he faced mediocre competition, his competition was still made up of professional fighters--most of who have been fighting most of their lives. Full of machismo and violence, these men were turned to little girls when they faced or even discussed Tyson. In and out of the ring. Some tried to talk the talk but it was so obvious they didn't believe the words coming out of their mouths. But, God bless them, they were trying to convince US and themselves they weren't scared. I grew up in the late 70s and 80s, but I've never seen a boxer literally and convincingly strike fear in the heart of opponents. Opponents who up until that point in their lives, probably would tell you that they were not scared of any man. lmao. You can't underrate Tyson's intimidation factor. We have a lot of trash talkers these days, but no one that I can think of actually scares opponents. It was really part of Tyson's package and a significant part of what made him great. If he didn't back it up, it would have been just a bunch of BS. To me downplaying the indimidation factor in a discussion of Tyson's greatness is like saying that George Foreman wasn't a great because all he could do was just hit hard. If a boxer has skills/characteristics that help him win/destroy opponents --it shouldn't be counted against him because it doesn't fit into the pretty box of what a great boxer must posses. For the relatively short time when Tyson was at his prime, IMO he was great. It was clear when he was done and he finally even told US as fans that he just didn't have boxing in his heart anymore. The need for money and fans who wanted him to keep going in hopes of seeing the old Iron Mike extended his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon09
To me i also think he is a bit of both. Overrated in the sense that he had weak opposition(it doesnt change the fact that he destroyed them and they were still professional fighters as DC Amateur boxing said) and underrated in the sense that he had promise and skill but he dealt with too much trouble from prison to temper problems (boxing random people who pissed him off) to biting off holyfield's ear. :o
For me personally, Tyson in his prime was a great fighter, and a real handful for any heavyweight in history. His problem was he was born into a weak era. He never had the fights to truly define him, and the moment had well passed when he eventually fought Lewis, to have any real bearing on his legacy, for or against.
For me, he can never be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Louis, Ali, Frazier, Marciano or Larry Holmes. Was he overrated or underrated ? Thats a hard question as it all depends on who your are judging him against. And even if the benchmark is determined, how can you really judge without the defining fights, which were not of his choosing.
I remember Mike for being one the most aggressive, powerful, scary motherfuckers that ever lived, and as exciting as your ever likely to see. And a great fighter.
He's a fighter that is over-rated by the casual fan. Spectacular knockouts over mediocre opposition will do that.
He did have a bit of everything. Very fast upper body movement for a heavyweight, great power and explosiveness, good defense and a good chin. Just also had a lot of mediocre opponents which wasn't really his fault. You can't help which era you fight in.
Always thought he struggled a little bit with slick boxers.
He's underrated if you say he wasn't good in his good old days and overrated if we say he,s one of the greatest heavyweight that ever lived. He was very fast with explosive power, did bring load of aggression but Tyson had 2 big problems, which got debunked over the years:
1) As it has been stated before, a load about him depended about intimidation because.. well, he was damn scary. Many fighters basically lost the fight just by seeing him in the ring but later, to me it got clearly proven that a good slick boxer who didn't get intimidated and who did play movement well against him had their chances to win.
2) Tyson has been all about the 5 rounds rule: Past 5 rules, he did fade significantly. Lack of conditioning or giving it all to blast as fast as possible his opponents? Maybe a bit of both. Still, after 5 rules, he was a lot easier to hit and wasn't throwing as many bombs as in the first couple of rounds.
How good was he? Damn good. But not as much as the great skilled ones.
I don't disagree, but considering all the shit he had to deal with, I still say he was great. Not the best skilled boxer, but I'm speculating his potential greatness based on what he accomplished despite all he went through. . . everyone knows his story, but I really wish we could have seen him at 80% of his potential like most great fighters. I'd say we only saw about 50% of Iron Mike. The great ones that you mention are great because when they first showed potential, they continued to blossom and grow. Fortunately, they experienced the polar opposite of a lot of things that added to Tyson's demise: Only person that ever showed him love died (D'Amato), money and fame had him firing the people that he needed (Rooney), keeping the people he didn't (Rory & crew) and marrying the people that he had no business with (Givens). After listening & watching him over the year-- and most recently in Tyson (documentary) and on Oprah, I give the guy props for just making it this far in life. But like someone said earlier, coulda, woulda, shoulda. I think it's fair to speculate on greatness because we do it all the time for athletes that are cut down in their primes before they get a chance to be great: Ernie Davis, Len Bias, Sean Taylor, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nameless
Not saying it's the exact same circumstances, just making the point that we only got a glimpse.
The Tyson Documentary was great!Quote:
Originally Posted by DC Amateur BoxingI don't disagree, but considering all the shit he had to deal with, I still say he was great. Not the best skilled boxer, but I'm speculating his potential greatness based on what he accomplished despite all he went through. . . everyone knows his story, but I really wish we could have seen him at 80% of his potential like most great fighters. I'd say we only saw about 50% of Iron Mike. The great ones that you mention are great because when they first showed potential, they continued to blossom and grow. Fortunately, they experienced the polar opposite of a lot of things that added to Tyson's demise: Only person that ever showed him love died (D'Amato), money and fame had him firing the people that he needed (Rooney), keeping the people he didn't (Rory & crew) and marrying the people that he had no business with (Givens). After listening & watching him over the year-- and most recently in Tyson (documentary) and on Oprah, I give the guy props for just making it this far in life. But like someone said earlier, coulda, woulda, shoulda. I think it's fair to speculate on greatness because we do it all the time for athletes that are cut down in their primes before they get a chance to be great: Ernie Davis, Len Bias, Sean Taylor, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nameless
Not saying it's the exact same circumstances, just making the point that we only got a glimpse.
I think he gives as accurate an account of himself and his legacy as anyone ever could.
Mike Tyson was such an insecure beast it was obvious that Cus accounted for 100% of he's mental strength.
Cus was the voice inside Tyson's head.
He said it best when he claimed that from the moment he lost Cus, he started to lose himself.
As for the question, i think he definitely gets overrated by the less knowledgeable of fight fans but then the only fans i see underrating him are the one's who are trying to bump their favourite fighters up the list ;)
My opinion he was always overrated. Yes he was a big upcoming fighter when he was with Rooney but when Don King got a hold of him by the nuts and put absolute retards in his corner he was done. They let him do whatever he wanted to do and what he wanted to do was simply party and get laid. With Rooney he would be a legend and with Teddy Atlas I feel he could have been the greatest ever period. But hey he is only the most all-time grossing fighter ever. So who can complain.
I think Tyson is rated exactly where he should be if you ask intellegent fans. His nuttriders will say he is the greatest of all time and in his prime would knock out anyone (no one who's ever lived in their prime would beat everyone, styles make fights and there's always someone out there with your number), and his haters will say he's overrated because his era of competition was weak (which it was, however he obliterated everyone in front of him and even in all weight classes when there is a lack of competition, rarely do we see the top fighter rip through the division like a hurricane). I don't think he would have ever beaten Evander (style) or Lennox, but there is no shame in that considering they themselves are among the all time greats. Winning any world title at the mere age of 20 is unbelievable, and winning the Heavyweight title at that age is exponentially greater. That in itself IMO is the greatest notch on his belt so to speak. And he deserves further credit for his intimidation factor. Haters b!tch about how his opponents would have lasted longer if not scared sh!tless, but intimidation and psychological warfare is as much of a skill as one punch knockout power. If others could intimidate the way Tyson did, they would. The fact that they don't is because they CAN'T. Tyson IMO is a top 10 all time heavyweight, although down around the bottom 10.