Is Tyson overrated?

Yeah, he snapped, then snapped again, then when the ref STILL didn't stop it, he shoved and snapped again

 

Tyson is the most overrated HW in history.

That doesn't mean that he wasn't good, because he was. Early doors, he was very good indeed, and a very bad man to boot.

But according to some, he is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. Which is patently absurd.

IMO, he's behind both Lewis and Holyfield, to name just two. For someone to suggest that only Ali had more natural talent is, well, odd.

That said, he'd wipe his ASS with the crop of HW's 'fighting' today...

MTF

 

When people pick bum ass Wlad over him in a MM, then Tyson is UNDERRATED.

 

And even that is debatable. Sure, no denying that the skills early on were there....he just never proved them against top notch opposition. Not his fault, just that the division was weak then. If you are talking skills,...then Curry is an alltime great welter.

 

You think that Wlad wouldn't create problems for the smaller Tyson?? You think Buster Douglas is better than Wlad? Cmon now.

 

What kills me is that everyone said Naz was a bum. His competition was ten times more stellar than Tysons.

 

If we're going purely on talent; handspeed, footpeed, power, etc.

Tyson is the most talented HW ever. Now there are obviously disparities between talent and performance, but to suggest the 80's tyson was anything other than "incredibly gifted" would be a disservice to his memory

 

are you sure you didn't misspell "Russian" there

 

On that, we agree. :clap:

 

He sat on the canvas playing with his mouthpiece rather than try to beat the count.

So, yes.

 

He'd already knocked Douglas out.

Why should he have to beat him again.::

 

I think Mike is becoming UNderrated these days..

Buster beat Mike sure.. and it was the fight of his life for Buster and for Mike it was the beginning of the end. I do not believe for a second though anyone thinks that was Mike at his best, he was out partying in Japan, hardly trained at all and was TOTALLY not prepared, while Buster was prepared to fight the fight of his life.

Mike end IMO was not the fight with Buster, it was the party before the fight.. at some point before Buster Mike in his mind became invincible..
one of the things that made Mike great when he was younger was he was scared, as you all have probably read/seen.. Mike was scared and just tryed to KO people.. but his lack of confidence made him train hard as hell, and perfect his style with Cus and Kevin,

after losing Cus and later Kevin, he really just fell into the hype and felt like he was king of the world..

sometimes KO'ing people early is the worst thing for you..

I remember somthing Roy Jones Jr said after one of his fights (I think it was the Montel rematch)

Larry was givin Roy credit.. and you could see Roy felt bad..

He said "I didn't wanna have to do this.... I feel bad, the people didn't get their money's worth tonight because I had a bad attitude and Knocked this guy out"

Larry said something about that they DID get their money's worth and maybe we shoudl see "RJ" more often

Roy said something like "You think I'm gonna get credit for just going out there and knocking this guy out in 1, knock this guy out in 1?? " then he said somthing like
"Look what happened to Mike Tyson, when you knock everyone out in 1 you forget how to box"

I think that is true to a point.. Mike just KO'd people and got so SO much Hype.. he lost his fear or urgancy to train to be in top form

 

I dont think Buster Douglas was better than Wlad, however on the night he beat Tyson I think he had more HEART than Wlad. The two main keys needed to beat Tyson were A.) Not be intimidated and B. Not be afraid to fight him. I dont think Wlad would pass either of these tests. I think he'd be intimidated by Tyson before the opening bell, and when Tyson rushes him, instead of standing and fighting, I think Wlad would back up... which is suicide against a prime Mike.

What I DO know for a fact is.... Tyson was lightyears better than Ross Purity, Lamon Bumster, Corrie Sanders, and Peter.

 

Best points of the whole thread.

 

I wish prime Tyson would fight Peter. i'd love to see Sam splattered.

 

thats ludicrous.

the keys to beating Tyson are being physical and having the toughness to take what he dishes out.

 

Further reason why Wlad wouldnt win.

 

I would agree this point but I also agree that the 'intimidation' factor was also a critical one.

I know it was late on, but look at Frank Bruno prior to his second fight with Mike. He was terrified, absolutely terrified. That fight was over the second it was signed, and NOT just because Frank was pretty limited. Their first fight was a pretty good fight and Bruno acquitted himself pretty well, but he was just bombed out early the second time, even though Bruno was arguably no better or worse as a fighter whilst Tyson had clearly declined quite a bit.

Early Tyson (especially) had everyone literally shitting themselves before they got into the ring with him. Mentally, several of Mike's opponents were beaten before they even made their ring walk.

That was one of the main things Buster DIDN'T do. He wasn't afraid of Mike, and a poorly prepared Tyson was non-plussed when Buster didn't just fold up and lay down like the rest did.

You could also see this in reverse when Tyson finally fought Lennox. Once past the first round, Tyson was completely intimidated of Lennox. You could see it in his eyes. Lennox proceeded to hand out a terrible beating to Mike.

The 'intimidation' factor is a major part of boxing and was also an EXTREMELY large part of what made the early Tyson what he was, IMO.

MTF

 

This will never be resolved. Basically, there are only ever two positions in this argument, however people dress them up and circle round them.

A) Tyson declined allot between 88 and 90. ie - he was great but went down hill.
B) Tyson didn't decline very much between 88-90. ie he just lucked out early in his career that nobody good came along to stand up to him.

I take position A. I think 88 Mike beats Douglas (with ease) and Holyfield (with difficulty) and ranks among the top 5 or 6 heavyweights of all time. But ultimately how good he was during that time will always remain a mystery and is totally subjective and we'll get no closer to an answer if this thread went on for 100 pages.

 

:bears:

well said..

 

Mike was Toooooooooo Drunkenly HAZY to Even THINK about QUITTING...He was Dropped on his BACK, Rolled Over, Looked for his Mouthpiece, Put it In Anyway he Could & BARELY Missed the Count...

But even as he Rose, Mike was on VERY Unsteady Legs...

NO WAY did Tyson QUIT Against Douglas:nono: ...

Now Against Lennox, Mike Laid there w/CLEAR EYES & Took the Count...Ditto for the Danny Williams Fight...

Mike Tyson HAS QUIT on Several Occasions, but the Douglas Fight WASN'T 1 of them...He was CLEANLY KO'ed N that Bout...


REED

 

...88 Tyson unbeatable! ....89 Tyson not so good but still da best ...90 Tyson way past prime

 

a prime mike tyson is one of the most gifted fighters in history.

strictly in a head to head match-up sense, i definitely rate tyson as one of the best fighters ever.

he wasnt mentally built for success, he was very insecure when he was beating everybody he thought he was worse than they were (like LOK pointed out)

the second a team came in stroking his ego, getting him girls, etc. he began to lose his edge.and when you are undersized and IMO understrengthed, once the technique goes out the window you are fucked.

tyson's weakness was never his reach, or his heart. it lied in the clinch where he was consistently overpowered ever in his prime.

 

Wlad has heart he just has a weak chin.

 

Douglas' chin wasn't any better. :nono:

 

This kind of a post shows exactly why Tyson still is overrated.

Wlad could do basically anything Buster could do, but was much bigger and more able, and he was no more fragile (physically or mentally).

For anyone to suggest that Buster magically "grew" a heart and chin on the night he lost Tyson and then suddenly "lost" them again is laughable. Tyson simply was so impotent against Buster's style that he was only able to really test his heart/chin a few isolated moments late in the fight, and by then he was on the verge of quitting himself.

Yet somehow, Wlad absolutely, positively, has NO CHANCE against Tyson? :dunno:

 

Not at all.

Of course, you have to have the physical talent and tools to beat Tyson - no one is saying you can beat him by "not being intimidated" when you're a chinny, slow, wide-open 5'9" HWT with a 16-32-3 record. ::

But the fact is, to beat Tyson you had to get past his intimidation and ensure you were willing to tie him up, get physical and WALK HIM BACK, most importantly. Be rough, clinch, tie him up.

If you could do that; and lead and answer every shot with your own - you had a shot. Mike wasn't nearly the front-runner some make him out to be; but once you got past the early rounds he WAS more susceptible to being discouraged and lowering his performance and output.

There were plenty of quite talented guys who were intimidated by Tyson and fought differently and more defensively/negatively when they were in the ring with him (and for good reason; Tyson was intimidating).

But you had to have mental fortitude to beat Tyson and the desire to be aggressive and walk forward.

You could see glimpses of that in some of his early fights even when he won.

Douglas used some of that; Holyfield used it much more.

Wlad is a perfect case in point: he has all of the physical tools and style - but he'd likely try to fight very defensively and back up....and that is just not the right fight against a prime Tyson.

Peace.

 

Uppercuts are important against Tyson too.

Tyson always showed vulnerability to that punch, as you might expect due to his style/stature.

 

:bears: Great post

 

Keep in mind that we are talking about today's version of Wlad. A guy who realizes that he is vulnerable...and isn't above controlling with the jab, tying up and boxing cautiously.

I think today's Wlad would stand an awesome chance against Tyson. And I cannot stand Wlad.