Prime Tyson overrated.

people who keep talking about how mike lost to holyfield and therefore isn't an all time great are hilarious to me.

who is good, then?

holyfield? he lost to fucking valuev, ha ha! lennox? KO'd by mccall for fuck's sake. shavers? losses to literal nobodies. foreman? couldn't even beat ali. ali? leon spinks was 6-0 when he beat him, ridiculous.

there isn't a fighter in the history of the world whose career i can't tear apart if i try my hardest to be an ignorant fucking fool.
Isn't boxing more about who you beat than who you lost to? Tyson's problem is that he never beat really great heavyweights in his prime. I dont think Shavers belongs at this level, but Foreman, Ali, Holyfield, and Lewis all beat much better guys than Tyson.

Ali lost to Leon Spinks for the same reason Tyson lost to Jake Paul.
 
We just lost Val Kilmer and you guys are arguing over Mike Tyson? Moment of silence please. Alright then, carry on.
 
Isn't boxing more about who you beat than who you lost to? Tyson's problem is that he never beat really great heavyweights in his prime. I dont think Shavers belongs at this level, but Foreman, Ali, Holyfield, and Lewis all beat much better guys than Tyson.

Ali lost to Leon Spinks for the same reason Tyson lost to Jake Paul.
Ha ha ha.
Jake Paul is nerd. Tyson was old and lazy uncle version lurking for paycheck.
Holmes vs Tyson was uncle from retirement...while Holmes had corpse of money hungry Ali.
Ofc before this Frazier for a reason had processed cocky Ali brains enough and Don managed to avoid rematch vs Foreman, nice Lecture from Norton corrected with clauses and ...nice brain massage from supposed bum in Shawers....

Nice stuff.
 
Jake paul is entertanment industry nerd for mainstram public. Thus far not capable beat top 10 CW boxer...
28.y.o

Mike is 58 y.o lazy uncle version.

So we get real life vs nerd dreams.
 
Last edited:
Isn't boxing more about who you beat than who you lost to? Tyson's problem is that he never beat really great heavyweights in his prime. I dont think Shavers belongs at this level, but Foreman, Ali, Holyfield, and Lewis all beat much better guys than Tyson.
right, but he did beat the best that was available to him while he was in his prime. he beat all the champions, and all the contenders, and he did it by splattering them all over the ring.

you can't criticize a man for being head and shoulders above everyone else in his division.

in reality, he was the victim of his own success in more ways than one. first, by absolutely demolishing everyone while on his rise, so people assume those guys were no good... and secondly, by losing his head and running into far too many problems outside the ring.

Ali lost to Leon Spinks for the same reason Tyson lost to Jake Paul.
is that the only part that you found disingenuous about the whole post? i mean the entire thing was intentionally absurd.
 
Heat is a really fine and sensual piece of art. A lot of people misjudge it and think it's a pure action flick, although there's merely one scene with gunfire.

Val Kilmer was an interesting cat. I can imagine a really young Kilmer, like early 20s, playing an all-american boy in a show like BH90219. But he was also capable of being in big movies and holding his own alongside big actors.
 
The Douglas upset was embarrassing but realistically we've seen bigger upsets in heavyweight history even if it was statistically the most significant. I never agreed with the odds in the first place. Mike was ridiculously overpriced. Nobody should be a 42-1 underdog especially in a division where a single punch can change everything.
but Deontay Wilder is overrated?
Mike is the youngest heavyweight champion, his ratio and skill are to be appreciated, but is overrated based on his results, lost all big fights.
 
but Deontay Wilder is overrated?
Mike is the youngest heavyweight champion, his ratio and skill are to be appreciated, but is overrated based on his results, lost all big fights.
What exactly are you disagreeing with in my post? Yes, Mike is the youngest heavyweight champion in history and he was skilled and a very explosive athlete. As for your last claim if he really did lose all of his big fights then he never would've been the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. He was the first heavyweight to unify all 3 titles (WBA, WBC & IBF) and subsequently made a half-dozen consecutive defenses of the undisputed title. That's a significant accomplishment.
 
right, but he did beat the best that was available to him while he was in his prime. he beat all the champions, and all the contenders, and he did it by splattering them all over the ring.

you can't criticize a man for being head and shoulders above everyone else in his division.

in reality, he was the victim of his own success in more ways than one. first, by absolutely demolishing everyone while on his rise, so people assume those guys were no good... and secondly, by losing his head and running into far too many problems outside the ring.
But Mike Tyson didn't beat everyone. I don't know what you mean by prime, Mike Tyson lost to Buster Douglas. When was his prime?

It's the second time you said people think the guys he beat sucked because Tyson beat them, but that seems rather baseless. I've never seen someone say Frank Bruno sucks because Mike Tyson beat him before. Those guys were not considered some all time greats before Mike Tyson beat them.
is that the only part that you found disingenuous about the whole post? i mean the entire thing was intentionally absurd.
I picked one because it would be redundant to do every single thing you said.



What did Mike Tyson do to separate himself from other HW champions? Beating top guys is what you're supposed to do when you're the champion.
 
What did Mike Tyson do to separate himself from other HW champions? Beating top guys is what you're supposed to do when you're the champion.
the youngest to win the belt, unified all the belts at HW for the first time in history, defended the unified title 6 (or 7?) times.

he was, by definition, the best in the world in that period. beat the shit out of all the other champions, and all the contenders.

the wheels came off pretty quickly in his career, and it wasn't your typical growing old situation. his prime was cut short by drugs and a prison sentence. people will point to the buster loss as if it has no context, but we know about the shit that was going on, he was obviously not the same guy anymore.

i don't think the two of us disagree on much here. i'm not saying mike is the GOAT and his career was flawless. i just disagree with people who claim his potential was wasted, when he literally had first-in-history achievements, while becoming a global icon. i can't dismiss what he accomplished with "he could have done more", because it's never enough, everyone in history could have potentially done more.
 
Mike tysons prime was wasted on drugs booze women and prison. Basically his sun burnt by the time he was 23yrs and that cancer of a manager attaching himself to him. He went into douglas fight after a month of partying and no training. That was the end of elite tyson. Everything after was subpar mike. Yea, he is not touching top 5 due to a deep tailspin. How would have tyson faired against lennox, holyfield at his best? Id say he would stand a very good shot of beating both. However, thats just conjecture on my part; we have what we have.
 
Somehow Larry Holmes who was washed when Tyson beat him went 13-1 after that on route to fighting for the strap 7 years later.

Lot of people have Holmes in the HW top 5.

Holmes first title win was 78, his last was 85. 7 years

Mike first title win 86.. last 96 10 years (9 years 10mo)


Feel free to give me a list of champs who won major HW titles ten years apart. I'm guessing it is approximately Joe Louis and Ali, maybe Wlad pretty damn esteemed company.
... George Formen.



He gets graded on a curve because of his popularity.

When he beats Spinks Spinks is small but Mike was 5'10 218 in his first run.

If Spinks is undersized and doesn't count as a heavyweight than Mike was beating guys who had huge physical advantages over him his whole career. Pick one. You can't have it both ways.

If Holmes is a worthy contender when he went 13-1 AFTER Mike then he is a legit win when Mike beat him before that streak only 18 months after Holmes went to a SD for the title.

The truth is Mike forgot half of what made him great and still unified 2 of the 3 major belts, he only lost to all time greats Lennox (top 3 imo) and Holyfield (4x HW champ) in his first 56 fights and dropped a fight he should have won but didn't train and stayed up all night smashing groupies.

He was probably the 2nd most famous person in the world to Michael Jackson and went off the rails. His father figure died and he went from a broke ass kid mugging strangers to the most famous athlete in the world relatively overnight. Youngest HW champ ever and he still is 37 years later.


Mike is appropriately ranked at somewhere between #6-8 all time HW imo. And if you look up the most important metrics that is where you will find him, give or take. Most title fight wins, most champs defeated, duration between first and last title wins, lo gest consecutive title reign, wins as unified champ, etc.
 
Last edited:
He was a naturally gifted specimen with a ferocity of spirit that was unmatched. He was very dangerous and very good at one stage but was he truly in the greats of the greats? My counter argument is that every time in the ring that Tyson was truly tested he never really rose to the occasion like others in the top ten list have. He either gave in to the way the fight was going and quit or looked for a way out like the ear biting incident . He looked like an unstoppable force when monstering folks but very human when tested. No come from behind victories like Ali for example. Every time he had his heart truly tested he folded. We can talk about what ifs with his trainer till we are blue in the face but still a borderline top 10. A great fighter yes, but a rung or two down from the true heavyweight kings.

I'm a huge Tyson fan but this is how I see it as well.

Technically/physically/athletically, one of the best ever, at any weight class. Tremendous speed, power, timing, great defense, great chin.

But he was severely lacking in the heart and game plan departments. If he didn't completely overwhelm his opponents, he struggled. Complete domination was his plan A, B, and C. He didn't do well when faced with adversity and when he had to dig deep.
 
We should do a big yearly “Mike Tyson: Overrated?” Thread as like a census of the boxings forum to see who’s still with us and who was a bot all along?
 
Somehow Larry Holmes who was washed when Tyson beat him went 13-1 after that on route to fighting for the strap 7 years later.

Lot of people have Holmes in the HW top 5.

Holmes first title win was 78, his last was 85. 7 years

Mike first title win 86.. last 96 10 years (9 years 10mo)


Feel free to give me a list of champs who won major HW titles ten years apart. I'm guessing it is approximately Joe Louis and Ali, maybe Wlad pretty damn esteemed company.
... George Formen.



He gets graded on a curve because of his popularity.

When he beats Spinks Spinks is small but Mike was 5'10 218 in his first run.

If Spinks is undersized and doesn't count as a heavyweight than Mike was beating guys who had huge physical advantages over him his whole career. Pick one. You can't have it both ways.

If Holmes is a worthy contender when he went 13-1 AFTER Mike then he is a legit win when Mike beat him before that streak only 18 months after Holmes went to a SD for the title.

The truth is Mike forgot half of what made him great and still unified 2 of the 3 major belts, he only lost to all time greats Lennox (top 3 imo) and Holyfield (4x HW champ) in his first 56 fights and dropped a fight he should have won but didn't train and stayed up all night smashing groupies.

He was probably the 2nd most famous person in the world to Michael Jackson and went off the rails. His father figure died and he went from a broke ass kid mugging strangers to the most famous athlete in the world relatively overnight. Youngest HW champ ever and he still is 37 years later.


Mike is appropriately ranked at somewhere between #6-8 all time HW imo. And if you look up the most important metrics that is where you will find him, give or take. Most title fight wins, most champs defeated, duration between first and last title wins, lo gest consecutive title reign, wins as unified champ, etc.

He’s arguably top 10, but his value is so hard to judge. He beat only 2 great fighters, one a 37 year old Larry Holmes, and the other was Michael Spinks, a guy who was a naturally smaller fighter (he’d won his Olympic gold medal at middleweight).

The thing about Mike is that he dominated the division in arguably the weakest era ever. He was not doing what Deontay Wilder did for so long and refusing to fight any top ranked fighters in the division, Mike never held the belts hostage.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top