Mike Tyson. Underrated or Overrated?

[DaxxKahn]

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

[ICB]

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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[sumkalambay]

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.

[ono]

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.

[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.

[DC Amateur Boxing]

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.

[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.

[generalbulldog]

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.

[Master]

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.

[hakkai619]

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.

[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.

[salty trunks]

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?

[erics44]

tyson was a phenonomon
phenonemon
phenominon
phenomenon

thats it

[The Fightfan]

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.