Lets end the Mike Tyson debate

[Boxer4life]

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?

[El Kabong]

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

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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[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.

[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.

[El Kabong]

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

[El Kabong]

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.

[walrus]

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.

[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?

[BIG H]

Sure he had a weaker era than most done.

Did he?

Weaker than Dempsey's Louis' Marciano's Liston's Holmes', Wlad's?

[bradlee180]

That weak era talk is basically bull$#!t...

The ones not suited to be professional boxers are weeded out all along, and never make it to the world stage.
Most people don't even consider being boxers; they're weeded out immediately.

Would-be tough guys with no training who think they can fight because they won a few bar brawls against other non-trained drunken guys never even have the interest nor discipline to set foot in a gym and see what real fighting is all about.

Beginning the 1st day a young interested guy sets foot in the gym, the weeding out process continues as most quickly quit the gym when they see it's not like the Rocky films. Most never have a single amateur bout before they quit.
The tougher ones spend years in the unpaid amateur ranks among about 54 thousand other amateur fighters. It's a world-sports. In 2008, 77 countries sent teams to the Olympics. The weeding out continues.

There's approximately 16 thousand licensed professional boxers right now.

In a single weight class like Heavyweight for example, you've got about a thousand licensed professional Heavyweight fighters, and the brass ring at the top is 8 million up to 46 million per fight, you're gonna get the cream of the crop, the best the world has to offer. Weak era, my rosy red rectum. The money and the competition have ALWAYS been there in open-world wide competition designed to reveal the best.

If a Heavyweight Champion doesn't have a style or charisma that galvanizes the fans, so what? It doesn't take away from the fact that he must be pretty damn good to be #1, the King of All Boxing because none of these other 15 lighter weight classes can f*<k with the Heavyweight Champ of the World.

[bradlee180]

^ See? Guys like this get weeded out. And too many guys imagine they look like Tyson hitting the bag when in reality, they appear to others more like this unfortunate soul in the clip...

[Mr140]

You know people saying that Rudduck was better choice then Foreman i dont really understand because it is not like Rudduck beat anyone of note. As for Moorer he hit like a truck and was fast as fuck and Foreman still pulled it off i don't care how Tyson takes a punch Foreman lays one on him good enough Foreman wins the fight. As for a younger Foreman losing to Ali no way in hell Tyson pulls that off he was a dumb fighter but gifted psychically. Foreman has beat some one at least close to Tyson has Tyson fought any one or thing like a Foreman and won tell me because i cant think of one.

[El Kabong]

Sure he had a weaker era than most done.

Did he?

Weaker than Dempsey's Louis' Marciano's Liston's Holmes', Wlad's?

His best foes before he tangled with Holyfield and Lewis in "their era" were a light heavyweight Michael Spinks, an older faded champion in Larry Holmes, and 2 guys who were just solid contenders but never really got the most out of their ability in Bruno & Ruddock.

Dempsey fought Gene Tunney who was one of the best p4p fighters to ever live...as a champion he was lazy something like 5 title defenses or so...the good life got to him.

Louis had 25 successful title defenses and that could have been more had the war not cost him a few years.

Marciano wasn't even really a heavyweight but he was undefeated as one, undefeated vs some very good albeit older fighters

Liston meh his era was weak

Holmes had a lot of good young fighters in his era and they just tried for too much too quickly and also there was a horrible drug epidemic sweeping the lower levels of society at that time as well so a lot of those guys didn't reach their potential.

Wlad's era isn't the best but like Louis he's just going to have to make the best of it and go for quantity. However he does have some younger guys that could offer some interesting matchups, we'll just have to see how they pan out.

[Boxer4life]

Sure he had a weaker era than most done.

Did he?

Weaker than Dempsey's Louis' Marciano's Liston's Holmes', Wlad's?

His best foes before he tangled with Holyfield and Lewis in "their era" were a light heavyweight Michael Spinks, an older faded champion in Larry Holmes, and 2 guys who were just solid contenders but never really got the most out of their ability in Bruno & Ruddock.

Dempsey fought Gene Tunney who was one of the best p4p fighters to ever live...as a champion he was lazy something like 5 title defenses or so...the good life got to him.

Louis had 25 successful title defenses and that could have been more had the war not cost him a few years.

Marciano wasn't even really a heavyweight but he was undefeated as one, undefeated vs some very good albeit older fighters

Liston meh his era was weak

Holmes had a lot of good young fighters in his era and they just tried for too much too quickly and also there was a horrible drug epidemic sweeping the lower levels of society at that time as well so a lot of those guys didn't reach their potential.

Wlad's era isn't the best but like Louis he's just going to have to make the best of it and go for quantity. However he does have some younger guys that could offer some interesting matchups, we'll just have to see how they pan out.

On paper, Tysons resume wasn't impressive compared to some of the greater champions, but god dammit we saw what the man can do, and he would fare prett damn great against anyone in any era, thats what the debate really comes down to, is more skill, not so much resume of opponents, accomplishments. etc..