Mike Tyson one of the most overrated boxers?

Rudeboyben84 said:
Pillow fists is harsh. His KO % gives the illusion of a puncher but I could count the clean one shot KOs I've seen him dish out one hand... Still decent power and the agression to keep the pressure on when he hurt his man (something his brother seriously lacked)

Agree, I named him because the size means we would need to see a lot of vintage Tyson bodywork for him to win. Headhunting would be a death sentience for Mike. I'd back Vitali to break him in later rounds or run away with the scoring in the later half of the fight.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I don't hate Tyson. He was brutal at his peak. Vitali used his size advantage well, that would've been a fantastic fight and I would favor tyson.
 
randomg1t said:
yeah, youngest heavyweight to ever win a world title is overrated.
Click to expand...

That's like saying yeah tallest left handed world champion ever is underrated, pfft. One has nothing to do with the other.
 
stuff jones said:
That;s like saying yeah tallest left hand world champion ever is underrated, pfft. One has nothing to do with the other.
Click to expand...
Marvin hagler is putting you back to bed. Left hand breaking your chin only.
 
Rudeboyben84 said:
Frazier moved the same but was 10x tougher. He didn't have the same physicality or power in both hands but other Fraziers bob and weave looked very similar and he beat Ali (nearly twice)
Click to expand...

I don’t know man I love joe but Tyson had by far superior speed when weaving or so I thought, I’m not disputing Frazier to be thougher of course he was.
 
Sunfish said:
Oh yeah, I don't hate Tyson. He was brutal at his peak. Vitali used his size advantage well, that would've been a fantastic fight and I would favor tyson.
Click to expand...

Damn thought you had my back! Lol.

Vitali had most of the tools Lewis had (less power in the straight and worse jab) but much tougher.

Where do you rank Tyson?

Reckon he beats Wlad in his prime? He learned to cover that chin under manny Stewart and has better than Vitali technically? Quicker and hit harder?

Reckon Tyson breaks if he can't find that chin in 6 rounds?
 
Oscaraps said:
I don’t know man I love joe but Tyson had by far superior speed when weaving or so I thought, I’m not disputing Frazier to be thougher of course he was.
Click to expand...

Probably my two favourite heavies to watch, as a shortarse I always looked to bob and weave like these guys in the ring.

Frazier survived what? 5 knockdowns form Forman when he was older. His toughness and stamina is what I think would see him to a win.

Agree, everything he did Tyson did quicker and better and with power in both hands but Tyson wilted in later rounds, joe would literally have fight in him to the end, one of the biggest hearts and best recovery I've ever seen in Hw boxing.

People always talk about Tyson vs Ali but Tyson vs Frazier would have been the superfight I'd want to see. Power and speed vs grit and toughness, tougher doesn't always look better on a highlight reel but it can win fights all the same
 
It kinda depends how you rate him.

He had a short run of dominance
He never really beat a great heavyweight in their prime
He lost to the biggest underdog in the history of sports

But still he was a great fighter. I personally don't have him in my top ten hws in terms of resume but thats just me

Hes a tricky one forsure. Its hard to look at his resume and not be unimpressed by it tbh
 
Rudeboyben84 said:
Seems the usual "he was past his peak" at 25 I for a heavyweight I don't buy past his peak. Most other heavies aren't even in their prime yet. Maybe he looked less defensive and patient because the level of fighter changed. Everyone seems ready to make excuses for Tyson as it nearly always comes down to "past his best" physically no man can be past his best in his 20's.

99% of pro Tyson arguments come down to this mythical prime until you have to state who he was demolishing when looking this good.

Doesn't feel good to criticise Tyson, my childhood hero and the most entertaining style to watch but no one can put forward a legit case for him to be top 10 without saying at 22 he COULD have beat any man alive ever.

Holyfield and Lewis should be ranked ahead of him. Given how he looked against Holyfield who was a natural cruiser, put him in witb Vitali, just as tough but half a foot taller, more KO power, and 30lbs heavier and I don't see a different result (other than his ears being out of reach)
Click to expand...

I don't really see the point in making a top 10 argument here, but I think you are trying to see two points as being mutually exclusive. You say that Tyson was exposed by better fighters (which happened to come along in the 90's) and by virtue of this his defense which was at its best in the 1980's, must therefore have been flawed. The truth is that his defense was THAT GOOD. It was exceptional. He was really hard to hit cleanly. You take away that active defense, and you get the plodder we all know when he stopped training as studiously. Had he trained as feverishly in the 90's as he did in the 80's you would have a very interesting fighter. One that might have had to fight 3 fights with Holyfield to split the difference. I'm not saying a peak Tyson would walk through Holyfield or Lewis, but I am saying that the guys he fought after his prime had the advantage of beating a guy that wasn't at his best. Hey, listen, Tunney, beat Dempsey, but also, Dempsey was three years rusted and getting up there for an active pressure fighter. These things happen.

It's important to recognize that in Tyson's prime he had exceptional defense, and when he fought top tier guys later on, he wasn't at his best anymore.
 
If you aren't giving me parameters, Tyson in his prime was brutal. If you want to include him when he blew his knee out it obviously changes. Tyson isn't the goat, and I don't think he's overrated, he's in the top ten easily.
 
I dont buy the whole tyson was past his peak at 25 either tbh

You train like an idiot, your fighting suffers
Simple equation

Doesn't mean your not in your prime though
 
wilddeuces said:
I don't really see the point in making a top 10 argument here, but I think you are trying to see two points as being mutually exclusive. You say that Tyson was exposed by better fighters (which happened to come along in the 90's) and by virtue of this his defense which was at its best in the 1980's, must therefore have been flawed. The truth is that his defense was THAT GOOD. It was exceptional. He was really hard to hit cleanly. You take away that active defense, and you get the plodder we all know when he stopped training as studiously. Had he trained as feverishly in the 90's as he did in the 80's you would have a very interesting fighter. One that might have had to fight 3 fights with Holyfield to split the difference. I'm not saying a peak Tyson would walk through Holyfield or Lewis, but I am saying that the guys he fought after his prime had the advantage of beating a guy that wasn't at his best. Hey, listen, Tunney, beat Dempsey, but also, Dempsey was three years rusted and getting up there for an active pressure fighter. These things happen.

It's important to recognize that in Tyson's prime he had exceptional defense, and when he fought top tier guys later on, he wasn't at his best anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that's, but it's still ranking Tyson on "what if's"

Sure he looked better technically in the 80s. Defence was tight as fuck and his body work was on point but it was against poor opposition for the most part.
 
Rudeboyben84 said:
I don't disagree with any of that's, but it's still ranking Tyson on "what if's"

Sure he looked better technically in the 80s. Defence was tight as fuck and his body work was on point but it was against poor opposition for the most part.
Click to expand...

Sure.

A few things though. Firstly, "poor" is harsh. I don't the think 80's HW's were anything great, but those "poors" are legit "B's" and there are whole different shades of talent between the two. Also, Spinks was on a tear when Tyson blasted him out. That's a good win. And Holmes went on to be competitive against guys years after that Tyson loss (even against Holyfield, I think he went the distance). Let's be respectful of those guys. It's like calling a fighter a "bum". I'm very reluctant to do that. They get in the ring. How many in the population do that? Still though, I see your point about the quality. Secondly, we can expect that impressive defense will be there. If it's good, it's good. That doesn't mean he sails into a win, but it does contribute to my next point. Any time - and the moments were brief - where Tyson put his shots together, or moved his head, he was having success against Holyfield. Tyson's problem was that he wasn't consistent, and didn't put forth a sustained effort. Those brief moments tell me that a Tyson that was at his best would have looked better. That's all I'm saying. He would have done way better, and while the 25:1 odds in their first fight were absurd, I think the fight against Evander is about even if they fought when Tyson was capable of putting forth his best effort.
 
stuff jones said:
That's like saying yeah tallest left handed world champion ever is underrated, pfft. One has nothing to do with the other.
Click to expand...

it does when you're trying to discredit the guy's career. i'm not saying mike is the greatest boxer to ever walk the earth, i'm saying that accomplishment alone shits all over TS's premise.
 
Spinks was an undefeated champion and gold medalist. That is a great win.
Flattening Larry Holmes is a great win. Excuses for Holmes aside, he was never manhandled like that even years later.
Beating guys like Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Biggs, Bonecrusher, Bruno, Ruddock etc are very good wins. They may not have the all timer status that some others have, but to say that some of the guys who Ali, Louis, Marciano, Holmes etc beat were far better is simply not true.
Tyson did damage to his career with his poor choices and has nobody to blame but himself. That does not mean he was a shit fighter. If you go by career accomplishments, I'd put him in the lower top 10 for all time HW's.
If you rate all fighters at their absolute best and compare them head to head, Tyson is top 3. Only guys I'd favor over him at everyone's peak is Lennox Lewis and maybe Ali.
 
Hagler said:
To me he was a better Anna Kournikova and not much more. To each his own, I guess.
Click to expand...
Hang on, he isn't better than Anna kournikova. Which one do you kick out of your bedroom and have sexy happy time with the other?
 
Sunfish said:
Hang on, he isn't better than Anna kournikova. Which one do you kick out of your bedroom and have sexy happy time with the other?
Click to expand...

Don't judge me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,984
Messages
55,459,345
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top