Mike Tyson. Underrated or Overrated?

[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.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

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