Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

I noticed there are two sides boxing heads take when it comes to iron mike. We either think hes the greatest most unbeatable heavyweight ever or a completely overrated puncher. Let me make a case for why some of us say the former.

The argument for him being average usually goes something like this
1. He lost most of his meaningful fights
2. Most of his losses were stoppages

While this maybe be true the guys that rate him in the upper echelon are those that know in his prime he would demolish anyone of the guys he lost too, he had speed, he had power, he had defense, and yes, he had a tremendous chin. Sure his losses were mostly stoppages but they were stoppages due to pure exhaustion from lack of training. So on paper he is not THE greatest, purely because the greatest intangible in a great is discipline, and without cus he didn't have it, but sheer skill and tenacity in the ring was something the heavyweights haven't seen up to that point, haven't seen since, and probably will never see again. Mike in his prime, and the potential he had if he kept developing is unrivaled, only heavyweight in history who would give him trouble is Ali, they're strangely tailor made for each other which is why i think it would be the most interesting fight in boxing history , but that's besides the point, thoughts?

ALL of his losses were stoppages....bar the DQ

I don't think Mike Tyson was the greatest ever, but I don't think he was a bum either. Sure he had a weaker era than most but he did dominate it pretty decently for a while. Also after a layoff from fighting to serve time he did come back and was able to recapture pieces of the title.

I do think that people make the biggest mistake thinking if Cus would have lived longer/if Rooney was kept as trainer Tyson would have been undefeated forever :rolleyes:

Let's be clear, Mike Tyson was a pressure fighter, he had huge power for a pressure fighter, but pressure fighters peak out EARLY. You don't see 30 year old pressure fighters having much success. Pressure fighters reach their peaks earlier than most and then start to decline by their early/mid twenties. Even the GREAT pressure fighters get worn down early.

All this said, I think Mike Tyson missed some very good opportunities to show how class he was by just missing the chance to fight: Riddick Bowe, Tommy Morrison, Ray Mercer, Shannon Briggs, Hasim Rahman, Chris Byrd, George Foreman, The Klitschko's, David Tua, John Ruiz, Nicolay Valuev, Ruslan Chagaev, etc....given the dates those fights could have happened Tyson's chances of winning would have been very good, but due to the lackluster competition he fought after Lennox Lewis I don't know how he would have done.

Also every fight he lost he was the overwhelming favorite. Holyfield was a 20-1 underdog a week before their first fight....ooooh Tyson vs Moorer might have been something. Sure Moorer didn't have the greatest of chins, but the Moorer that beat Holyfield would have been an interesting fight given Teddy Atlas being his trainer and all.

I believe the release of Rooney as trainer had an effect.

I think he would have won the bigger fights vs Holyfield and Lewis had all his focus stayed on boxing.

But after Rooney, fight by fight he lost something, even in his wins.



Tyson is no doubt the best heavyweight puncher in history, fast hands, incredibly accurate combos, that alone is excellence, then you add the brute power and you've got a monster.

He isn't the best of all time, but he had the potential to be the best.

Unfortunately his naïveté and life style caught up with him.

The problem Tyson had- all D'Amato and Rooney fighters had- is that their style is reflex based. Jose Torres got around this by retiring early. Floyd Patterson quit using the 'peek-a-boo' after the first Johannsson fight; indeed, he'd already started to phase it out. With that style, you constantly have to react to straight punches, always be slipping jabs and right hands. And you are vulnerable to uppercuts. A good fighter- or Buster Douglas on a good night- will land that jab, then he'll start to feint it, to make you react, and look to land something meaningful off your reaction to the feint.
What happened to Tyson was, he slowed down a little bit, probably due to not training as hard initially. And then he had that bad cut in sparring and started sparring in full head gear, which got him in the habit of standing up straight. (to see under the head gear, a pretty common problem.) Then he was just a short, short-armed fighter with some quickness and a big punch. Some guys he could makes a move on, get in and do damage, others, not so much.

I don't think Tyson would have ever beaten Holyfield the style matchup was awful for Tyson. Tyson needed to be able to move on the inside and Evander's huge noggin kept crashing in on him. I think James Toney would have been a bad matchup for Tyson as well...not that their careers at heavyweight ever intersected.

Tyson maybe 2 out of 10 times could have gotten to Lennox Lewis when Lennox was younger, but once Lennox had Manny in his corner he was hard to catch unless he took his eye off the ball in training.

Under Rooney's training Tyson did move his hands better, he did jab more, he did move his head better, but again that style does have its weak points. If the fighter isn't letting his hands go he's a sitting duck, if the fighter is being tied up or leaned on he'll lose energy, if the fighter isn't moving his head he won't be able to get in range....look at Liston vs Patterson 1 & 2. Patterson was trained by Cus and Patterson got steamrolled twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

The problem Tyson had- all D'Amato and Rooney fighters had- is that their style is reflex based. Jose Torres got around this by retiring early. Floyd Patterson quit using the 'peek-a-boo' after the first Johannsson fight; indeed, he'd already started to phase it out. With that style, you constantly have to react to straight punches, always be slipping jabs and right hands. And you are vulnerable to uppercuts. A good fighter- or Buster Douglas on a good night- will land that jab, then he'll start to feint it, to make you react, and look to land something meaningful off your reaction to the feint.
What happened to Tyson was, he slowed down a little bit, probably due to not training as hard initially. And then he had that bad cut in sparring and started sparring in full head gear, which got him in the habit of standing up straight. (to see under the head gear, a pretty common problem.) Then he was just a short, short-armed fighter with some quickness and a big punch. Some guys he could makes a move on, get in and do damage, others, not so much.

---

Also if you could catch him coming in then you could really put him in danger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

The problem Tyson had- all D'Amato and Rooney fighters had- is that their style is reflex based. Jose Torres got around this by retiring early. Floyd Patterson quit using the 'peek-a-boo' after the first Johannsson fight; indeed, he'd already started to phase it out. With that style, you constantly have to react to straight punches, always be slipping jabs and right hands. And you are vulnerable to uppercuts. A good fighter- or Buster Douglas on a good night- will land that jab, then he'll start to feint it, to make you react, and look to land something meaningful off your reaction to the feint.
What happened to Tyson was, he slowed down a little bit, probably due to not training as hard initially. And then he had that bad cut in sparring and started sparring in full head gear, which got him in the habit of standing up straight. (to see under the head gear, a pretty common problem.) Then he was just a short, short-armed fighter with some quickness and a big punch. Some guys he could makes a move on, get in and do damage, others, not so much.

---

Also if you could catch him coming in then you could really put him in danger

---

Yeah, because it would make him thoughtful. Then he'd stand back, straight up, and ponder his next move.

The problem of course will always be that Mike left so many questions in his career. And you're 100% right, it seems like people either act like he's a god, or act like he's an overrated bum.

To me, Tyson will always belong in any discussion about HW greats. A lot of attributes he had, like his combination of speed and power, was unprecendented and still hasn't been matched today. He had great talent and skill to go along with his brutal power. Mike was truely a great HW, and I think his era was a lot better than people give it credit for. I'm more impressed by Tyson's opposition then I am with a lot of other HW greats like Joe Louis', Marciano's, and a few others.

I notice people pointing out that all of his losses were stoppages... well, 4/5 of Tommy Hearn's losses were stoppages. Was he not a great fighter?

Tyson could have lasted longer and be managed better but ultimately he was to blame for it imploding earlier than it should have. I think he was spoilt by Cuts too much and did not learn to be a respectful human being.

Mike Tyson did enough to warrant a Top 10 All-Time Heavyweight ranking:

-Youngest guy in history to win a version of the World Heavyweight Title.
-Unified all 3 Titles.
-Destroyed an undefeated Michael Spinks for the mythical Man-Who-Beat-The-Man designation.
-Was rated Pound-for-Pound #1 in 1989, (Julio Cesar Chavez #2, Whitaker #3, Nunn #4, Meldrick Taylor #6, Azumah Nelson #7.)
-Was a dominant Heavyweight Champion for a few years in a worldwide talent field of over 1 thousand licensed professional Heavyweight Boxers.

His achievements merit a Top 10 All-Time Ranking. Other men are there with less. I don't think Tyson warrants a Top 5 though.
He didn't have longevity. When the going got tough in a deep fight, he didn't show that Champion's ability to turn the fight around to achieve victory; he got frustrated and went to pieces instead.

In his prime, circa 1986 to 1988, Mike Tyson was absolutely phenomenal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendettos

I believe the release of Rooney as trainer had an effect.

I think he would have won the bigger fights vs Holyfield and Lewis had all his focus stayed on boxing.

But after Rooney, fight by fight he lost something, even in his wins.



Tyson is no doubt the best heavyweight puncher in history, fast hands, incredibly accurate combos, that alone is excellence, then you add the brute power and you've got a monster.

He isn't the best of all time, but he had the potential to be the best.

Unfortunately his naïveté and life style caught up with him.

---

I think your last sentence sums it up for Tyson. When you can add could have been to a great fighter it is scary. Funny how we as humans can be so strong and so weak. Tyson is an extreme example of that.

Mike Tyson almost gets the Ike Ibeabuchi treatment from his supporters. There's constant "If only Tyson would have ______", "Tyson was negatively affected by ______", "Tyson should have _____".......all fighters great and poor deal with those kinds of things and true champions find a way to survive the adversity. People ignore the weaknesses of his style, they just choose not to see it...yes he was a great boxer but he was never unbeatable, no one is.

Mike Tyson was a great heavyweight, is he top 10...maybe, if not he's very close to it. I respect his skill and all he achieved but I never view him as this unbeatable indestructible God of a fighter...he's just a man always has been....where are the accolades for guys like Joe Louis who suffered a much more tormented time in the spotlight but successfully defended his title 25 times in a row or a guy like Rocky Marciano who retired undefeated?

Let's clear up the Cus D'Amato thing too where people say Tyson would've gone further if only Cus didn't die...

19 year old Mike Tyson had been a professional for only 8 months when Cus D'Amato died in Nov 1985.
At the time of Cus' death, Tyson was still fightin' no-hopers and never-wases with not a single ranked fighter on his entire 11 fight resume.

Tyson won a version of the title in Nov 1986, but many point to the 1988 Spinks fight as Tyson's peak when he won the LINEAL title.
1988 is a long ways from Cus' death in 1985 in fighter years and development.


The first time I ever saw Mike Tyson was on tv the month AFTER Cus died, Dec 1985, the Sam Scaff fight, and Tyson looked amazing.
Yeah, when Tyson the contender was just getting known, the old man had already passed by then. Tyson looked better AFTER Cus was gone, and against better competition too.

Tyson was good , not great

Why not great? Youngest HW champ, champ for 4 years, most famous HW outside of Ali, world class skill, world class power and speed, solid chin... if Tyson wasn't a great HW, who was a great HW besides Ali?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradlee180

Let's clear up the Cus D'Amato thing too where people say Tyson would've gone further if only Cus didn't die...

19 year old Mike Tyson had been a professional for only 8 months when Cus D'Amato died in Nov 1985.
At the time of Cus' death, Tyson was still fightin' no-hopers and never-wases with not a single ranked fighter on his entire 11 fight resume.

Tyson won a version of the title in Nov 1986, but many point to the 1988 Spinks fight as Tyson's peak when he won the LINEAL title.
1988 is a long ways from Cus' death in 1985 in fighter years and development.


The first time I ever saw Mike Tyson was on tv the month AFTER Cus died, Dec 1985, the Sam Scaff fight, and Tyson looked amazing.
Yeah, when Tyson the contender was just getting known, the old man had already passed by then. Tyson looked better AFTER Cus was gone, and against better competition too.

---

And then Rooney getting fired and Jim Jacobs dying are the other excuses. And of course the marriage to Robin Givens is also blamed and Don King and jail, yada yada yada....Champions get the limelight treatment some of them are negatively affected by that others aren't, it's just part of being a champion. People dying is just a part of being a human, all humans regardless of what they do go through adversity.

I think part of what gets the Tyson fans upset is that guys like Holyfield & Lewis had more lasting careers due to their style and when they turned pro (AFTER Tyson's major successes). Tyson like many heavyweights didn't have his Joe Frazier and George Foreman...he had guys who were good but not great Frank Bruno, Donovan Rudduck, those guys he had closer and better fights with rather than Holyfield and Lewis, but that's my opinion. Tyson did demolish the old guard though in Holmes, Berbick, and Spinks....he tore through those guys.

I don't think it should be looked at as an excuse for Tyson either. People say "oh what if what if". When evaluating a champ, you have to look at the WHOLE picture, and if Tyson couldn't handle himself properly without Cus, or fucked up and went to jail and got rusty, then that's on HIM and detracts from his legacy IMO.

On the subject of beating old fighters:

A prime Mike Tyson demolished a 38 year old Larry Holmes in 4 rds in 1988.
About a year-and-a-half earlier in 1986, Larry had fought the rematch with Spinks for the Title.

..and in 1992, 4 years after the Tyson fight, Larry went on to defeat a prime Merciless Ray Mercer, and also win quite a few rds against a prime Holyfield in their 12 rd Title fight. That should be considered...

One of the things that is most intriguing about Tyson is the style matchup he creates. The power punching pressure fighter style doesn't come around all that often especially with the kind of power Tyson had.

I think a Brownsville, NYC showdown of 'Iron' Mike Tyson vs Riddick 'Big Daddy' Bowe would have been EPIC. How would you guys see that fight unfolding? I'll give you 3 scenarios 2 hypothetical and 1 when the fight could have actually happened.

1. Prime vs Prime

2. 1992 right after Bowe beat Holyfield given the hypothetical that Tyson didn't go to prison after the Ruddock fights

3. 1996 before Bowe fought Golota and after Tyson was finally back in the swing of things in his career around the time he fought Bruno II & Seldon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradlee180

A prime Mike Tyson demolished a 38 year old Larry Holmes in 4 rds in 1988.
About a year-and-a-half earlier in 1986, Larry had fought the rematch with Spinks for the Title.

..and in 1992, 4 years after the Tyson fight, Larry went on to defeat a prime Merciless Ray Mercer, and also win quite a few rds against a prime Holyfield in their 12 rd Title fight. That should be considered...

---

That's a good point too. People talk like, because it wasn't exactly prime Holmes, that it was a walk in the park for anyone. At that point, Holmes had only lost the two controversial decisions to Spinks. We're talking about a world champ who had never been destroyed by anyone, even in the 14 years he fought after the Tyson fight.

Tyson was the only guy to really beat the shit out of Larry Holmes. Was it prime Holmes? Hell no. He was a good 15lbs of fat bigger than his prime, but he was still a fantastic fighter at that point.

I still say prime Tyson beats prime Lewis and Holy field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

I still say prime Tyson beats prime Lewis and Holy field.

---

Holyfield yes
Lewis if its inside 6 rounds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

I still say prime Tyson beats prime Lewis and Holy field.

---

Holyfield yes
Lewis if its inside 6 rounds

---

Even passed six, lewis was very cautious and would have stayed that way if Tyson stayed aggressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Mike Tyson almost gets the Ike Ibeabuchi treatment from his supporters. There's constant "If only Tyson would have ______", "Tyson was negatively affected by ______", "Tyson should have _____".......all fighters great and poor deal with those kinds of things and true champions find a way to survive the adversity. People ignore the weaknesses of his style, they just choose not to see it...yes he was a great boxer but he was never unbeatable, no one is.

Mike Tyson was a great heavyweight, is he top 10...maybe, if not he's very close to it. I respect his skill and all he achieved but I never view him as this unbeatable indestructible God of a fighter...he's just a man always has been....where are the accolades for guys like Joe Louis who suffered a much more tormented time in the spotlight but successfully defended his title 25 times in a row or a guy like Rocky Marciano who retired undefeated?

---

Did the Rock ever have a world title fight against anyone under 40 years old? Just the luck of who's around at the time. Fighters like Ken Norton were just in the age group where they had a selection of 'greats' active at the time, for me Ken Norton beats Mike Tyson any day of the week.

Ken Norton was destroyed by punchers- guess what Tyson was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Ken Norton was destroyed by punchers- guess what Tyson was?

---

Yes, a puncher against never wasers or over the hillers, punch deserted him against Evander did it? Twice? A Cruiserweight? The Real Deal? Man had no bottle, Ken Norton did, Evander did, end of.

some important things to remember about Ken Norton he had a very good jab, he was extremely strong, and he utilized the cross block defense which is something Tyson hadn't really dealt with but if Foreman could find an opening Tyson probably could.

I don't consider Tyson the best ever, but I do consider him at least top 10. The thing with Tyson was the fear factor. I don't know of any other HW in memory who instilled the pure fear in opponents that Tyson did. Maybe Foreman. And I know some opponents have gone in scared shitless against Wlad, but I don't fully understand that, given that Wlad is not the hellbent attacker Tyson was.

But Tyson was a fire hydrant of a man. Short, squat, focused on nothing but creating mayhem. Opponents were scared shitless of his flying left hooks which lifted him clear off the ground. He threw murderous punches with both hands. There was no "feeling out" process with Tyson at his peak. He came out bobbing and weaving and throwing bombs designed to decapitate a human being.

I've never seen a HW take a shameful dive like Bruce Seldon did against Tyson. He saw some missiles whizzing by, and started looking for a soft spot to land. The "punch" that knocked him out was actually the breeze from a missed shot. People at ringside must've detected a foul smell coming from Seldon's trunks.

Other guys came in with fancy robes and music. Tyson came in with a towel with a cutout for his head. No fancy trunks either... just basic black.

Ali didn't scare people like that. Neither did Lewis, Holmes, Frazier. Well... there's Liston. But Liston, like Foreman was a plodder in comparison. You could dance around a bit and delay the inevitable. Tyson was like a rabid pitbull.... practically running after you to knock your head into the seats.

Oh well..... it's too bad he self-destructed. He could've accomplished more than he actually did.

If you think chinny, crab defense-using Ken Norton beats Mike Tyson, you are completely insane. I'd be amazed if he made it out of the 1st round. Mike Tyson is absolute poison for guys like him and Joe Frazier.

But you know who I think beats prime Tyson? This will piss off the Tyson lovers no doubt.... prime Klitschkos (yes, both of them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

If you think chinny, crab defense-using Ken Norton beats Mike Tyson, you are completely insane. I'd be amazed if he made it out of the 1st round. Mike Tyson is absolute poison for guys like him and Joe Frazier.

But you know who I think beats prime Tyson? This will piss off the Tyson lovers no doubt.... prime Klitschkos (yes, both of them).

---

I am not Beanflicker nor did I have anything to do with that post......buuuuuut now that someone mentions it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

If you think chinny, crab defense-using Ken Norton beats Mike Tyson, you are completely insane. I'd be amazed if he made it out of the 1st round. Mike Tyson is absolute poison for guys like him and Joe Frazier.

But you know who I think beats prime Tyson? This will piss off the Tyson lovers no doubt.... prime Klitschkos (yes, both of them).

---

I am not Beanflicker nor did I have anything to do with that post......buuuuuut now that someone mentions it ;)

---

Admit it, you are one of the same poster. :)

Two HUGE guys with mega-reach, QUICK hands, big power and are world class at controlling range and holding/leaning on guys when they get inside. That kind of style has given Mike problems in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Two HUGE guys with mega-reach, QUICK hands, big power and are world class at controlling range and holding/leaning on guys when they get inside. That kind of style has given Mike problems in the past.

---

Vitali does not have quick hands he is very slow but has a good chin.

Wlad is better boxer and has quality but chin not the best.

A combination of the best of the 2 would beat Tyson but not as individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

A combination of the best of the 2 would beat Tyson but not as individuals.

---

I disagree, but I lack the time machine to prove you wrong :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Vitali does not have quick hands he is very slow but has a good chin.

Wlad is better boxer and has quality but chin not the best.

A combination of the best of the 2 would beat Tyson but not as individuals.

---

Vitali and Wlad are hard to hit they just are. If working on the inside and getting punches off vs them was easy everyone would do it....it's not for lack of trying that fighters can't do that.

Vitali has one extremely dangerous weapon, his right cross and he feints so well with his jab that he can land lead rights all day long and he upper body movement is so good he's terribly hard to hit.

Wladimir has a more by the book technical style of fighting and if Lennox Lewis could handle Tyson then so could Wladimir. Wlad is more athletic than Lennox and Tyson would have to work extremely hard to stalk him down and by about round 4 the tide would start turning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Vitali does not have quick hands he is very slow but has a good chin.

Wlad is better boxer and has quality but chin not the best.

A combination of the best of the 2 would beat Tyson but not as individuals.

---

Vitali and Wlad are hard to hit they just are. If working on the inside and getting punches off vs them was easy everyone would do it....it's not for lack of trying that fighters can't do that.

Vitali has one extremely dangerous weapon, his right cross and he feints so well with his jab that he can land lead rights all day long and he upper body movement is so good he's terribly hard to hit.

Wladimir has a more by the book technical style of fighting and if Lennox Lewis could handle Tyson then so could Wladimir. Wlad is more athletic than Lennox and Tyson would have to work extremely hard to stalk him down and by about round 4 the tide would start turning.

---

Lennox fought an old shell of a fighter so that is not a fair comparison. Vitali is slow and almost glumsy and
Tyson would have little trouble getting in and getting his punches off.

Wlad would be harder and has perfected his style but Tyson just has to get lucky once inside and the fight will be over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Lennox fought an old shell of a fighter so that is not a fair comparison. Vitali is slow and almost glumsy and
Tyson would have little trouble getting in and getting his punches off.

Wlad would be harder and has perfected his style but Tyson just has to get lucky once inside and the fight will be over.

---

Clumsy LIKE A FOX! Vitali is an awkward fighter always has been, but I'll be damned if he hasn't been highly effective. He's only lost twice and only due to some freak injuries.

Think about this for a second Vitali is 6'8.....Mike Tyson would have a difficult time getting to him just based on how Tyson was effective. Tyson fought out of a crouch meaning he would have a looooong way to go a lot of space to cover before getting close with his punches. The time it would take Tyson to get from Point A to Point B would give Vitali an eternity to dodge punches or stick and move.

Tyson would have to be lucky more than once vs Wlad. Once might put Wlad down or hurt him but it wouldn't keep Wlad down....and how many times did 'Iron' Mike get off the canvas to come back and win fights??? 0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Lennox fought an old shell of a fighter so that is not a fair comparison. Vitali is slow and almost glumsy and
Tyson would have little trouble getting in and getting his punches off.

---

I agree that Tyson vs Lewis is no fair comparison, because Tyson by that point was a ghost of his original form.

But Tyson did have occasional trouble getting off on big tall guys when they tied him up on the inside right away. Even bums like Mike Jameson had success in stifling Tyson's offense by tying him up and leaning on him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Lennox fought an old shell of a fighter so that is not a fair comparison. Vitali is slow and almost glumsy and
Tyson would have little trouble getting in and getting his punches off.

---

I agree that Tyson vs Lewis is no fair comparison, because Tyson by that point was a ghost of his original form.

But Tyson did have occasional trouble getting off on big tall guys when they tied him up on the inside right away. Even bums like Mike Jameson had success in stifling Tyson's offense by tying him up and leaning on him.

---

The thing about Tyson, he wasn't a real strong inside fighter, not ever. And that is odd, considering his stature, reach, etc...But, then again, it isn't really uncommon.
Tyson did his damage coming in; he'd slip a punch, duck, what ever, and counter, then he'd fall in and let himself get tied up. He certainly was a formidable body puncher, but it was the same sort of thing. He wasn't the type of fighter to get close and really work in the trenches.
Marciano was the same way, early in his career, fighting at a distance and closing ground behind the right hand, then getting tied up inside. Charley Goldman taught him to fight inside, shortened his stance to enable him to punch in close and so on. I don't think that the people around Tyson, not at any point in his career, were as boxing smart as Charley Goldman. So Tyson remained the guy that had to pot-shot you on the way in or lose the opportunity.