Mike Tyson. Underrated or Overrated?

Seems like there are 2 camps when it comes to evaluating Mike Tyson, the ones who thought he was overrated and the ones who thought he was underrated.

When your biggest wins are against an 38 year old Holmes, an blown up LHW in Spinks (who beat an 36 year old Holmes and got a gift decision in the 2nd fight), weak contenders/paper champions like Seldon, Bruno, Biggs, Williams, Marvis Frazier, Berbick, then that's a pretty weak resume. He looked spectacular fighting weak contenders and knocking them out.

And 1 funny thing, Mike Tyson fans claim Mike was in his prime in the late 80s, it's really funny that Mike was past his prime when Buster Douglass beats him in 1990. I keep hearing that.

So can anyone tell me how can a 23 year old undefeated, supposedly invincible HW champion without that much wear and tear be past his prime in the Douglas fight?

Yeah he was exciting knocking out tomato cans, bums, old ass Larry Holmes, blown up LHW in Spinks, etc. But put me in the overrated camp.

And no way does he even beat an Ali if both were in their prime. I keep hearing that. Ali would just have made fun of his voice and then proceed to give him a beating in the ring.

Tyson was a bit of both.

For the period when he good, he was very good. The Douglas loss was not about being beyond his prime, but if you don't train for a fight then what can you do. He came back pretty well with Ruddock both times, but it was 3 years in jail that really ended Tyson.

For that brief period I really think that he was a match for any heavyweight in the history of the sport. He had great skills in terms of movement, output and he would be there until you were stopped or outworked.

Tyson these days is possibly somewhat underrated.

They overall in ring package of Tyson is definitely underrated when he is spoke about today but during his reign he was greatly over rated mainly due to the fact he had such weak competition during his prime era of the mid to late 1980's.

As a fighter though Mike really had it all, a good chin, great speed and punching technique, defense and heart. When put into a package Mike was a phenom....

I think so much fear was put into his opp back then because no one had actually seen a fighter like him.

Sadly enough in his later years the personal decline and the fact he really lost interest in the sport and boxed more so for money and fact he knew nothing else to do causing shoddy performances and losses to men that in his prime he would have eaten alive inside of 6 rounds to be generous....

If he could have stayed on track a few years longer and out of prison we would have witnessed the true Tyson and what he was really made of because he could have taken part in fights with Bowe and Holyfield when he was at his best..

We would have been able to gage his true over all status more accurately

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

They overall in ring package of Tyson is definitely underrated when he is spoke about today but during his reign he was greatly over rated mainly due to the fact he had such weak competition during his prime era of the mid to late 1980's.

As a fighter though Mike really had it all, a good chin, great speed and punching technique, defense and heart. When put into a package Mike was a phenom....

I think so much fear was put into his opp back then because no one had actually seen a fighter like him.

Sadly enough in his later years the personal decline and the fact he really lost interest in the sport and boxed more so for money and fact he knew nothing else to do causing shoddy performances and losses to men that in his prime he would have eaten alive inside of 6 rounds to be generous....

If he could have stayed on track a few years longer and out of prison we would have witnessed the true Tyson and what he was really made of because he could have taken part in fights with Bowe and Holyfield when he was at his best..

We would have been able to gage his true over all status more accurately

---

Really good realistic point there mate,if he did'nt get too involved with bad situations and kept on the straight and narrow,or if Cus was still alive when he broke onto the professional ranks he would have been unstoppable.There's no doubt Tyson had the whole package in the Heavyweight division,okay we know he did'nt have height,but what he lacked in height he gained in speed and raw power.Tyson was really exciting and dangerous to any heavyweight.Imgaine Tyson in his prime on the scen of the Heavy weights this present day and age??He would just stream role the lot of them.Tyson is a boxer we all loved watching weather you liked him or not you still watched him due to the unexpected of his nature inside and outside of the ring.Tyson was awseome,the way he just smash his opponants with no care and justice was just awesome,pure animal!!!

He is generally over rated by younger or new fans.

Although Tyson is tough to rate. He absolutely destroyed mediocre opposition.

There is sort of the same problem with Rocky Marciano- being dominant in a weak era.

The only difference between Rocky and Tyson are that Tyson kept fighting after his decline, where as Rocky quit before it.

Imagine if Tyson retired in 1989 at 37-0

There is always the woulda coulda shoulda thing with Tyson, Cus this and Kevin Rooney that to prison to wrong people in his life blah blah blah. Every fighter has those instances to Bowe and his diet to to Ali and his exile etc. Every person in Saddo has those same scenarios in their life that coulda defined them but they took different paths. Bottom line; I think he was a good heavyweight champion, but not great. He had intimidation going for him just like certain fighters of today have before they get beat, Sam Peter comes to mind and when they find opponents that can overcome that aura and fight back this is when it matters most and Tyson never showed that he had what it took to dig deep for greatness but he sure new how to sell it like he did.

It's a difficult one to call regarding Mike Tyson. There's no doubt that those first 5 years where impressive. I don't think I've ever seen a HW fight with the aggression and ferocity that Mike did. I always feel that longevity plays a big part when looking back on someone's career though and sadly, for whatever reasons, be it the death of Cus, Don King, or maybe just Mike not being able to handle all the attention and pressure that comes with being the youngest HW ever, he derailed.

Personally I would put Lewis ahead of Tyson in the all time greats purely for his longevity. Tyson just pushed the self destruction button and he pushed it fairly early into his career. For me its a question of what might have been. Once he lost that aura of invincibility he just became another HW.

Mike Tyson is just glad to be rated with the greats. In the short space of time he achieved a lot, unified title, youngest champ and biggest fighter since Ali.

Its difficult to say really. I'm a huge Tyson fan, but he tends to be overrated somewhat. I disagree with those that say he was past his prime when he lost to Douglas, he didn't take the fight seriously and barely trained for it. I think he would steam through any of today's heavyweights when he was at his best, because although his opposition wasn't the strongest, he was the closest i've seen to an invincible fighter, it just didn't seemlike it was possible to beat him to me. In terms of achievement i wouldn't say he's one of the best ever, but he was an animal in those early years.

I don't think Mike is really either. He was what we were looking at. It wasn't his fault that he came to prominence when the rest of the division was weak. Who can you say he ducked? Who can you say he was afraid of? The Holyfield fight was a done deal if it hadn't been for Mike getting into that car accident and then going to prison. He wasn't past his physical prime when he fought Douglas, but he was past his mental prime. He stopped doing the things he needed to do to be ready for fights. He surrounded himself with the wrong people. He trusted the wrong people. Had he been able to maintain focus then he would have fought the Holyfields, Lewises and Bowes of the division. Or at least, it wouldn't have been because of any lacking on his part that those fights didn't materialize.

I'm a huge Tyson fan, but I'm not in that camp that would claim Mike could beat anyone. I doubt Mike could have beaten Ali because guys who played keepaway gave him trouble. Mike did the best against guys who didn't move around a lot and Ali would have had him jogging to keep up. I do think he would have killed Joe Frazier, though.

when tyson was on his role he was rated number 1 in the world at his weight. what more can i say he was a world champ and ranked number 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cressa121

Its difficult to say really. I'm a huge Tyson fan, but he tends to be overrated somewhat. I disagree with those that say he was past his prime when he lost to Douglas, he didn't take the fight seriously and barely trained for it. I think he would steam through any of today's heavyweights when he was at his best, because although his opposition wasn't the strongest, he was the closest i've seen to an invincible fighter, it just didn't seemlike it was possible to beat him to me. In terms of achievement i wouldn't say he's one of the best ever, but he was an animal in those early years.

---

I agree totally about the Douglas comments

Mike was not past his prime when he fought Douglas he was under trained over confident and believed in his power too much to think Douglas had a remote chance at beating him....Foolishness cost him...

Kind of Like Lennox Lewis losing to Rahman...he took Rahman the same as Tyson took Douglas and it cost him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut

He is generally over rated by younger or new fans.

Although Tyson is tough to rate. He absolutely destroyed mediocre opposition.

There is sort of the same problem with Rocky Marciano- being dominant in a weak era.

The only difference between Rocky and Tyson are that Tyson kept fighting after his decline, where as Rocky quit before it.

Imagine if Tyson retired in 1989 at 37-0

---

Well said and though many will disagree with your comparison between him and Marciano it is a good one...

Both fought their primes in weak eras of great former champions on the decline and a mediocre division at best they were surrounded by....Hard to judge exactly what each man had because there was nothing to really test them to the fullest..

Though like you said Marciano retired before he was slipping Tyson stayed around hurting his legacy

I think a bit of both, i think Mike Tyson fans overrate how good he could do vs ATG fighters. And overrate his ability because he looked unbeatable against 2nd tier fighters.

But he's also underrated in other ways like his toughness for example, i think Mike Tyson's chin is the most underrated attribute of his. He took hammering shots off a huge puncher like Razor Ruddock, without showing any real ill effects.

But in the end he did clear out the Heavyweight division, and he did bring excitement to the Heavyweight division when it really needed it.

And whether you love him or hate him, i think he did do alot for the sport and he will never be forgotten.

He's always going to be a bit of both. He was a devistating puncher and an exciting fighter in a pretty weak division, I mean it wasn't until the early to mid 1990's when Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Mercer, Morrison, Foreman, Ruddock, Moorer et al became prominent in the division when the division became competitive again.

Tyson's era is just about comparable to today's era, only Tyson blasted out his competition in the early rounds whereas the Klitschko's pace themselves more like Larry Holmes did (another fighter with a weaker division).

As I say whenever anyone disses Marciano or Louis, you cannot judge a fighter based soley on the fighters he fought. It's not Tyson's fault that he had a weak era, but that being said I don't rate his chances vs most of the All-Time Greats.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon09

There is always the woulda coulda shoulda thing with Tyson, Cus this and Kevin Rooney that to prison to wrong people in his life blah blah blah. Every fighter has those instances to Bowe and his diet to to Ali and his exile etc. Every person in Saddo has those same scenarios in their life that coulda defined them but they took different paths. Bottom line; I think he was a good heavyweight champion, but not great. He had intimidation going for him just like certain fighters of today have before they get beat, Sam Peter comes to mind and when they find opponents that can overcome that aura and fight back this is when it matters most and Tyson never showed that he had what it took to dig deep for greatness but he sure new how to sell it like he did.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut

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.

---

Did not know that, Thought these fights were PPV but maybe that was a new concept then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon09

There is always the woulda coulda shoulda thing with Tyson, Cus this and Kevin Rooney that to prison to wrong people in his life blah blah blah. Every fighter has those instances to Bowe and his diet to to Ali and his exile etc. Every person in Saddo has those same scenarios in their life that coulda defined them but they took different paths. Bottom line; I think he was a good heavyweight champion, but not great. He had intimidation going for him just like certain fighters of today have before they get beat, Sam Peter comes to mind and when they find opponents that can overcome that aura and fight back this is when it matters most and Tyson never showed that he had what it took to dig deep for greatness but he sure new how to sell it like he did.

---

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 DC Amateur Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon09

There is always the woulda coulda shoulda thing with Tyson, Cus this and Kevin Rooney that to prison to wrong people in his life blah blah blah. Every fighter has those instances to Bowe and his diet to to Ali and his exile etc. Every person in Saddo has those same scenarios in their life that coulda defined them but they took different paths. Bottom line; I think he was a good heavyweight champion, but not great. He had intimidation going for him just like certain fighters of today have before they get beat, Sam Peter comes to mind and when they find opponents that can overcome that aura and fight back this is when it matters most and Tyson never showed that he had what it took to dig deep for greatness but he sure new how to sell it like he did.

---

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.

---

Good post.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

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.

Not saying it's the exact same circumstances, just making the point that we only got a glimpse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DC Amateur Boxing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nameless

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.

Not saying it's the exact same circumstances, just making the point that we only got a glimpse.

---

The Tyson Documentary was great!
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.

Quote:

---

Seems like there are 2 camps when it comes to evaluating Mike Tyson, the ones who thought he was overrated and the ones who thought he was underrated.

---

I think today he is underated. Not even Lennox Lewis who was the last dominant champion dominated comparable or worse competition better

Quote:

---

When your biggest wins are against an 38 year old Holmes, an blown up LHW in Spinks (who beat an 36 year old Holmes and got a gift decision in the 2nd fight), weak contenders/paper champions like Seldon, Bruno, Biggs, Williams, Marvis Frazier, Berbick, then that's a pretty weak resume. He looked spectacular fighting weak contenders and knocking them out.

---

Your forgetting, Tucker, Smith, Tubbs, Ruddock, and Thomas who were all solid contenders. Add those to the list and you have a pretty solid resume for Tyson.

Quote:

---

And 1 funny thing, Mike Tyson fans claim Mike was in his prime in the late 80s, it's really funny that Mike was past his prime when Buster Douglass beats him in 1990. I keep hearing that.

---

Tyson was a young man. He was certainly still in his prime, although after the Spinks fight, getting away from training and away from the people that made him successful was certainly the beginning of the end for Tyson which ultimately put him behind bars.

Quote:

---

So can anyone tell me how can a 23 year old undefeated, supposedly invincible HW champion without that much wear and tear be past his prime in the Douglas fight?

---

He wasnt, but he wasnt doing the things that made him great anymore.

Quote:

---

Yeah he was exciting knocking out tomato cans, bums, old ass Larry Holmes, blown up LHW in Spinks, etc. But put me in the overrated camp.

---

I think this is a little ridiculous

Quote:

---

And no way does he even beat an Ali if both were in their prime. I keep hearing that. Ali would just have made fun of his voice and then proceed to give him a beating in the ring.

---

He would have given Ali hell at his best and even Ali has acknowledged it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimmy G-Force

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.

---

Were Marciano and Holmes in stronger eras?

tyson was a phenonomon
phenonemon
phenominon
phenomenon

thats it

Most overrated fighter of all time. Fought in the weakest era of all time, the late 80's. Only fought two good fighters his entire career and was KTFO by both. Not to mention the numerous tomato cans that knocked him out.

Count me in the overrated camp. While I think he was a good fighter with a very entertaining style, I can't agree that he was great. Tyson fans will be quick to come up with 101 excuses for the Douglas fight, but there are always excuses. The fact is that a young fighter with little wear and tear was beaten by stellar opposition in Douglas - another decent heavyweight, but by no means great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBranMan

Count me in the overrated camp. While I think he was a good fighter with a very entertaining style, I can't agree that he was great. Tyson fans will be quick to come up with 101 excuses for the Douglas fight, but there are always excuses. The fact is that a young fighter with little wear and tear was beaten by stellar opposition in Douglas - another decent heavyweight, but by no means great.

---

Exactly how I feel. You wouldn't believe how many of his defenders come up with excuses for the Buster fight. He undertrained, he was past his prime (at 23), he didn't have Rooney, it was Don King's fault, it was Robin Givens fault, cus damato died too early, his corner didn't have an enswell, oh yeah and I can't forget the long count excuse, etc.

The truth of the matter was it was Mike and Mike alone that failed himself, his best wins were against an 38 year old Holmes, and a blown up LHW in Spinks and countless tomato cans like Tony Tubbs, Pinklon Thomas, Tyrell Biggs, etc. And yet this is the guy that his fans say will KO Ali if they fought prime for prime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaxxKahn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cressa121

Its difficult to say really. I'm a huge Tyson fan, but he tends to be overrated somewhat. I disagree with those that say he was past his prime when he lost to Douglas, he didn't take the fight seriously and barely trained for it. I think he would steam through any of today's heavyweights when he was at his best, because although his opposition wasn't the strongest, he was the closest i've seen to an invincible fighter, it just didn't seemlike it was possible to beat him to me. In terms of achievement i wouldn't say he's one of the best ever, but he was an animal in those early years.

---

I agree totally about the Douglas comments

Mike was not past his prime when he fought Douglas he was under trained over confident and believed in his power too much to think Douglas had a remote chance at beating him....Foolishness cost him...

Kind of Like Lennox Lewis losing to Rahman...he took Rahman the same as Tyson took Douglas and it cost him

---

Douglas also got saved by the bell and after feeling the worse of what Mike could hand out, went back out there ,upped it another gear and said lets give it our all. It was a good fight then.


Mentally Mike was overrated by other fighters.

Funny thing mentioning Spinks Holmes 2 .

I just watched it yesterday and counted the clean blows and had Spinks winning it in a real close fight.

The 14th is what had the public stirred,that and Spinks fighting fighting off the backfoot and countering not taking the initiative as the Champ.

In the 14th I had Spinks ahead by 7 clear shots until he got caught. But it wasnt a knock down,he did not get counted so his glove or knee couldnt of touched as he took off; he got wobbled and got hit hard and clean again after that, but Michael even got Larry with more shots than Larry hit him with between the wobble and the final bell .

But everyone emotionally gave that round to Larry.maybe rightly I dont know. Not on clear shots though.

Now days if Spinks had touched canvas and got counted and we were forced to give a 10/8 round ,it would have been LArrys fight, thats how close I had it anyway. I think punch stat ended up 40% Holmes 43% Spinks.