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]

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.

[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

[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.

[Beanflicker]

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?

[Master]

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.

[bradlee180]

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...

[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?

[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.

[Dark Lord Al]

Tyson was good , not great