THE MIKE TYSON DEBATE

[El Titere********]

Mike Tyson came along when BOXING rained supreme in combat sports and when it's HEAVYWEIGHT title was considered the single greatest sporting title in the world. A time when boxing fans hadn't seen or rather couldn't remember as freshly a fighter with the sheer ferocity, speed, power, punch combinations and unique defense as Tyson, as well he had a very marketable look....a look that spoke ''yes this man could f8@k me up''.

Carefully selected opponents that would only showcase his strengths and awesome skill set. His first 35 fights were fought in a time span from 1985 - 1988 which kept in consistent public view for his unheard of KO ratio, coupled with mainstream TV ads and appearances as well as his own video game. Throw in the mounting ''bad behavior'' reports and Mike Tyson had secured himself as not only a new boxing king but an 80's icon.

The next half of Mike Tyson's boxing carer was of course less impressive but his highly public downward spiral outside of the ring kept him front page news. His jail stint for rape, his comeback, his ''classic'' pre- fight and post fight interviews not to mention having bitten off part of Holyfields ear and sporting a new face tattoo gave birth to the larger then life legend of Mike Tyson. Which is why there are still so many threads and posts about him by the boxing novice to the boxing expert to this day.

I doubt if Mike had fought the best at that time in the latter part of the first part of his carer we would have the legend that we do today. Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe would have been to much for him and a case could be made for one or two others. This is not to try and diminish Tysons accomplishments but more to put them in perspective. At the end of the day when he fought the best from his own period he fell short, debates of course can and will always be made to argue ones own views on the subject.

A prime Tyson vs a prime Toney is just as ridicules as a prime Tyson vs a prime Bruce Lee question, of the countless Tyson vs this UFC fighter or that UFC fighter. Though for fun...why not debate right...

If a ''fantasy'' question is to be asked it, for me it would be how would a prime Mike Tyson have done in the 70's HW division where he would of faced a then fading Ali as well as Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Norton, Quarry and Lyle ?

Mike Tyson was a very entertaining fighter to watch who came along at the right time to become a star and his skill set is unquestionably great...however he is not one of the all time greats...more one of the all time most entertaining.

 

[airic_15]

I think his size and reach limited him from being an all time great, when he matched guys with similar skills but had huge disadvantages in size he couldnt overcome it.
Just my IMO, and im not a huge boxing fan, just my observation.

Edit and i made a new av and wanted to show it off


Tyson 5'10, 71 inch reach

Douglas 6'3, 83 inch reach

Holyfield 6'2, 78 inch reach

Lewis 6'5 84 inch reach

 

[nac386]

Height and reach are advantages, but so are speed and elusiveness. There have always been big guys who get knocked out by smaller guys throughout boxing history.

Lewis was knocked dead by a guy who was 6'2. Klitschko was knocked out by 2 smaller men as well.

5'10 is unusually short for a heavyweight, but Tyson was unusually fast and powerful. He may have lost to Lewis if they had fought, but he undoubtedly had the ability to beat Lewis, or even knock him out. I mean, let's face it, we watched Baltimore's own Hasim Rahman knock him out cold. Tyson specialized in the ability to land that kind of shot.

 

[airic_15]

Oh I agree I just think Tyson can be considered a great because he was so much different then the other hw's physically and fighting style. Who knows if he would have been better if he was taller, longer reach, more patient, but what we do know is he couldn't have been more exciting in his prime, that's gotta count for something

 

[Diamond Jim]

"Fading Ali"? Who wants to wonder about Tyson beating Ali to a pulp?

All the other guys you mentioned would give Tyson trouble, but he could certainly beat them also. 70's Holmes jab would give Tyson fits, but I could see him timing one and putting Holmes on his ass.

 

[Cracky]

Nope.. Tyson is, without doubt, one of the all time greats... I believe he is the best heavyweight ever.... for the first 5 rounds...

He had his limitations, but I think he presents a legit threat to anyone that has ever fought..

 

[Lanx]

Tyson + Cus and/or Kevin Rooney = unstoppable.

 

[Mr2urbo]

Being the youngest (21) heavyweight champ has to count for something, with that said...

hstorically the heavyweight division always held a lot of luster and excitement in boxing, he was different from Ali, 21, quiet and fought different than Ali, so I agree he was very entertaining in that aspect, he brought KO's and flashed his toys and money and people bought it

As far as competition, he did what he was supposed to right? Same with Roy Jones, lack of real challenges but destroyed everything in front of them

With all due respect Azumah Nelson was around during a good time as well but didnt look nearly as indestructible as Tyson and is already considered by some as an ATG

 

[ssx]

Tyson at his all time best head to head vs the HW all timers is top 3. An in-shape Tyson with his head screwed on straight "could" beat anyone. I think Ali, Holmes and Lennox may be slightly favored, but would not be surprised if Tyson KO'ed them either. He had a lot of ups and downs in his career, and he has nobody to blame but himself, but people criminally underestimate him nowadays.

 

[caged_mma]

In my humble opinion, intangibles have a lot to do with it too. What if Cus D'Amato had a hand in Mike's later career? If not D'Amato, what about anyone with controlling interest other than Don King?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember watching a Tyson fight where his reach held him back. Tyson's head movement, his elusiveness was incredible, especially for a heavyweight. I really believe that Mike Tyson put his natural talents to work most every time he fought. He was able to hit harder, get those H-Bomb punches to break through defenses and definitively stop fights.

There are a lot of courses that Tyson's career could have taken differently that would lead to a multitude of different conversations. What if Tyson had made the Olympic team? What if he had his head on right when he fought Buster Douglas? What if he had been on parole instead of going to prison?

[DISCLAIMER: This user is a boxing novice; any opinion that this user may state is one of a novice. Thank you in advance for your patience & understanding while this user absorbs & understands the sport of boxing.]

 

[PUO3]

I think people have ridiculous standards of what a "all time greats" are.

How many heavyweight boxers have there been? How many of those have exceeded Tyson's career?

 

[El Titere********]

Well I guess I define greatness in boxing somewhat different then most of you. For me it is about taking a fighter in question and looking at :

1) The division/divisions in which they fought throughout their carer and who were the other best fighters of that division/time period. Once that has been established lets then look at who on that list our fighter has fought and the results.

2) If the fighter in question has tasted defeat how he came back from such, did he come back having learned something, did he move forward with his carer and did he continue to face quality opponents. We can also include personal struggles in this outside of the ring, such as being drafted, legal issues, family tragedy, etc... etc...

Now using the above take a good look at Mike Tyson, then compare his carer using the above with that of fellow Heavyweights :

Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
Larry Holmes
Jack Johnson
George Foreman
Joe Fraizer
Jack Dempsey
Lennox Lewis
Evander Holyfield
Vitali Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko

If greatness was defined by knocking out B level fighters then surly Deontay Wilder is on the path to greatness. Yes it could be argued that Tyson had far better skills then some on the above list but skill alone is not the measure of true greatness. Again this is not to try and discredit Mike Tyson, it is just my thoughts...nothing more.

 

[PUO3]

By your own criteria neither Klits is a great either.

 

[Uncle Termite]

All time great is not a skill thats a subjective opinion .What you fail to realise is Tyson in the 70's with Cus and for the most part fighting more brawler type boxers than he did in the 80's would have a field day and easier time because he would do less chasing .He would have been the dominant era champion just like he was in the 80's ,nothing would change except we would probably see a better version under Cus and also a more motivated Tyson with less distractions around him .You say b rated fighters yet Tubbs past his prime took Bowe the distance and Tucker took Lewis the distance ,and im pretty sure 38 year old Holmes is better than 43 year old Holmes who took Holyfield the distance .You can spin the thread any which way you like but using popularity as your main angle will always fail.

In short many of the guys you listed fought even poorer competition than Tyson ,who exactly did guys like Louis beat? How long do you think anyone under 200 pounds would last in real life with Tyson? How is JJ exactly remotely compared to him ,did you not see his resume ? I dont get it .....Dempsey a better career ?.Foreman ?..lol Razor Ruddock was a bigger stronger version of Foreman by 20 pounds who was also technical so that shuts down that whole myth of how Foreman would lsy waste to him ,nonsense! Tyson simply would be the T rex in thst period !

 

[El Titere********]

By your own criteria neither Klits is a great either.

Now how in the name of God did you come up with that one. You must be a casual boxing fan at best ? RE-READ the criteria. Both brothers fought THE BEST fighters of THEIR TIME PERIOD. Just because the names are not house hold names to the mainstream is redundant. Not only did they face the best, they came out with a W more times then not. Also look at the length of time each was a force in the HW division at the elite level.

So please explain to me how they do not meet my criteria ?

 

[BisexualMMA]

"Fading Ali"? Who wants to wonder about Tyson beating Ali to a pulp?

All the other guys you mentioned would give Tyson trouble, but he could certainly beat them also. 70's Holmes jab would give Tyson fits, but I could see him timing one and putting Holmes on his ass.

I think Jerry Quarry would have gotten murdered by Tyson 100 times out of 100.

 

[El Titere********]

This is actually a fairly documented and well written piece on the subject :

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...tyson-is-not-a-top-10-heavyweight-of-all-time

 

[PUO3]

Now how in the name of God did you come up with that one. You must be a casual boxing fan at best ? RE-READ the criteria. Both brothers fought THE BEST fighters of THEIR TIME PERIOD. Just because the names are not house hold names to the mainstream is redundant. Not only did they face the best, they came out with a W more times then not. Also look at the length of time each was a force in the HW division at the elite level.

So please explain to me how they do not meet my criteria ?

Thats cute.

 

[El Titere********]

All time great is not a skill thats a subjective opinion .What you fail to realise is Tyson in the 70's with Cus and for the most part fighting more brawler type boxers than he did in the 80's would have a field day and easier time because he would do less chasing .He would have been the dominant era champion just like he was in the 80's ,nothing would change except we would probably see a better version under Cus and also a more motivated Tyson with less distractions around him .You say b rated fighters yet Tubbs past his prime took Bowe the distance and Tucker took Lewis the distance ,and im pretty sure 38 year old Holmes is better than 43 year old Holmes who took Holyfield the distance .You can spin the thread any which way you like but using popularity as your main angle will always fail.

In short many of the guys you listed fought even poorer competition than Tyson ,who exactly did guys like Louis beat? How long do you think anyone under 200 pounds would last in real life with Tyson? How is JJ exactly remotely compared to him ,did you not see his resume ? I dont get it .....Dempsey a better career ?.Foreman ?..lol Razor Ruddock was a bigger stronger version of Foreman by 20 pounds who was also technical so that shuts down that whole myth of how Foreman would lsy waste to him ,nonsense! Tyson simply would be the T rex in thst period !

Joe Louis pretty much cleaned out his division on his way to his his first championship. Louis beat 6 former HW champions and 2 of the best LHW of the time period. He was champion for just under 12 years, he defended his title 25 times.
If you are inclined to read this it answers on Jack Johnson better then anything I could write: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/johnson.html
A lot can be said for Jack Dempsey's boxing carer but to keep it short he made many a title defense and 4 of whom were against what many boxing historians consider among the very best of the time in Miske, Carpentier, Fripo and Gibbson . Take who you consider to be the four best title defenses that Tyson made...would anyone truly consider them the best of that time period ?
The George Foreman comment does not even deserve a reply.

 

[Uncle Termite]

Joe Louis pretty much cleaned out his division on his way to his his first championship. Louis beat 6 former HW champions and 2 of the best LHW of the time period. He was champion for just under 12 years, he defended his title 25 times.
If you are inclined to read this it answers on Jack Johnson better then anything I could write: http://coxscorner.tripod.com/johnson.html
A lot can be said for Jack Dempsey's boxing carer but to keep it short he made many a title defense and 4 of whom were against what many boxing historians consider among the very best of the time in Miske, Carpentier, Fripo and Gibbson . Take who you consider to be the four best title defenses that Tyson made...would anyone truly consider them the best of that time period ?
The George Foreman comment does not even deserve a reply.

Joe Louis won his championship from a guy with about 20 losses......sure he cleaned it up....he also was ouutboxed by a former 140 pounder and k.o'd by an aging 190 pounder......end game concerning Louis


The other guys you stated Never fought all the best guys including Dempsey...Tyson cleaned out the 80's so not sure what youre talking about.! In your world Foreman who loses to little J. young and saved by the bell vs a stiff Lyle is better than a dominant Tyson who actually fought good boxers...but this is typical to the Tyson was not a great posts b/c you got your ideas on someone elses article on bleacher report...FAIL ...."A GREAT" compared to others?.....lmao