Mike Tyson-Who Has He Beat?

[addi]

tyson in his day was a bit special the speed, power and ferocity of the like i'd never seen a heavyweight come into the ring before or since with. but a great no chance, he did fight the best around but there wasn't much about, but they said the same about holmes and the klitchkos now. and it's not his fault. hollyfield was in the more exciting fights but as stated in previous posts hollyfield stuggled with fighters i think tyson would have walked through, lewis is the more accomplished of the two but he picked the right time to fight them both and on a number of occasions took pay off money and that for me puts a big ? against him. however i loved watching tyson more. but i would say both lennox and holyfield achieved more because you have to look at a fighters career as a hole and not just the good bits. after all it's no one else fault that tyson didn't put the work in after 88.

[Goodnight, Irene]

If I am not mistaken weren't the odds under 2-1 by fight time? I seem to remember Larry Merchant mentioning it during the pre-fight.

I agree with someone else on here. They said something to the effect that if Mike had gone 5-6 rounds with Spinks and dominated him, people would see it as a better win. By being so dominate, and Spinks looking so scared, it lowers the win value on people's radar, whether fairly or not.

IMHO the nature of the result of Tyson - Spinks improves the win's value.

We agree completely. But I have heard plenty of people give him very little credit for the Spinks win and the Holmes win as well., and the only reason I can think of is because it looked so easy. Like Irene said earlier...who else destroyed Holmes? Nobody. Even if he wasn't ready for the fight, Holmes just doesn't get blasted like that at any age.

Tyson is bother better than the haters give him credit for and not as good as his jock riders give him credit for. He was very very good in a poor era.

This, I am comfortable with.

[ThatOne]

I'll play devil's advocate

Who else destroyed Sugar Ray Leonard like Hector Camacho? Nobody. Even if he wasn't ready for the fight,Sugar Ray Leonard just doesn't get blasted like that at any age.

And unlike Larry Holmes, Sugar Ray Leonard was the favorite in that fight. The so called experts said the light hitting former lightweight was a "safe" opponent for Sugar Ray.

I should give Hector Camacho more credit for blowing out Ray Leonard than Mike Tyson for blowing out Larry Holmes.

[jrc26]

I'll play devil's advocate

Who else destroyed Sugar Ray Leonard like Hector Camacho? Nobody. Even if he wasn't ready for the fight,Sugar Ray Leonard just doesn't get blasted like that at any age.

And unlike Larry Holmes, Sugar Ray Leonard was the favorite in that fight. The so called experts said the light hitting former lightweight was a "safe" opponent for Sugar Ray.

I should give Hector Camacho more credit for blowing out Ray Leonard than Mike Tyson for blowing out Larry Holmes.

I did not realize he was a favorite in that fight. I have only watched a couple of minutes of that and the Norris fight because Leonard wasn't Leonard anymore.

I can see your point, but I think you are right (whether sarcastic or not) that Camacho should get plenty of credit for that win. A shot Leonard was still better than 98% of guys out there, as was a shot Holmes.

If a guy chooses to fight on beyond his prime, then those losses should count just the same on his legacy in my opinion. If Danny Williams had went down and Tyson didn't have a meltdown against McBride, then those wins would count. He probably would have been a fight away from a title shot again just because of his name. So I am of the opinion that they all count. I do see Tyson, Ali, Holmes and Leonard as a little bit different then say Roy Jones or Holyfield. The first 4 I mentioned basically had 2 careers with their long layoffs, where as Roy and Holyfield pretty much fought continuously. But like I said, if Tyson had landed a lucky bomb against Lewis his legacy would be amped up 10X, so getting killed counts just the same even if it was Mike Tyson 2.0...or 3.0...

Although Holmes with 3 more months notice and a tune up fight would have been a lot more fun to watch against Tyson. I think he may have lasted the distance. Agree?

[ThatOne]

I'll play devil's advocate

Who else destroyed Sugar Ray Leonard like Hector Camacho? Nobody. Even if he wasn't ready for the fight,Sugar Ray Leonard just doesn't get blasted like that at any age.

And unlike Larry Holmes, Sugar Ray Leonard was the favorite in that fight. The so called experts said the light hitting former lightweight was a "safe" opponent for Sugar Ray.

I should give Hector Camacho more credit for blowing out Ray Leonard than Mike Tyson for blowing out Larry Holmes.

I did not realize he was a favorite in that fight. I have only watched a couple of minutes of that and the Norris fight because Leonard wasn't Leonard anymore.

I can see your point, but I think you are right (whether sarcastic or not) that Camacho should get plenty of credit for that win. A shot Leonard was still better than 98% of guys out there, as was a shot Holmes.

If a guy chooses to fight on beyond his prime, then those losses should count just the same on his legacy in my opinion. If Danny Williams had went down and Tyson didn't have a meltdown against McBride, then those wins would count. He probably would have been a fight away from a title shot again just because of his name. So I am of the opinion that they all count. I do see Tyson, Ali, Holmes and Leonard as a little bit different then say Roy Jones or Holyfield. The first 4 I mentioned basically had 2 careers with their long layoffs, where as Roy and Holyfield pretty much fought continuously. But like I said, if Tyson had landed a lucky bomb against Lewis his legacy would be amped up 10X, so getting killed counts just the same even if it was Mike Tyson 2.0...or 3.0...

Although Holmes with 3 more months notice and a tune up fight would have been a lot more fun to watch against Tyson. I think he may have lasted the distance. Agree?

Stylistically I think Tyson is always going to be a tough out for Holmes and Ali. They are fighting against a fighter who starts with a style advantage but I don't think Tyson's style advantage is enough to tip the scales in his favor. That being said, both gentlemen better be pretty close to being whole or in their prime to fight a pressure cooker like Tyson. Folks keep mentioning Holmes' post Tyson career , pointing to how good it was, to vindicate Tyson's win. But he never faced another fighter with Tyson's style during that period.

To your other point, I don't emphasize a fighter's or any other athlete's poor performance after his prime, which I agree is a somewhat subjective status, however I will give him points for great performances after his or her prime. Those seem to be the projection.

What motivated me to post the articles was not a hate for Tyson but for his fans who still state that he would walk through the ATG HWS like Ali, Foreman, and Frazier.

P.S. I can't hardly watch the Leonard-Camacho fight. Leonard was such a diminished fighter. You have Camacho openly showing disdain for him between rounds and then making him literally turn his back and cower on the ropes. It was more of a massacre , imho, than Tyson-Holmes, or Pacqaio- DelaHoya or Ali-Holmes. It's sad to se ATGs go out like that.

[leonardo]

tony tucker has been surely the best opponent that tyson have ever faced.
tucker was a very good fighter.
I think that mike tyson prime was one of the best heavyweights of all time , also if him ever defeated great name.
him was a boxer too much complete, great speed in hit,great power , good stamina,good tecnique, good chin and very aggressive.
the only her weak point was the shortness,him suffered very tall boxers, in spite of this defeated tucker.
according me he would befeat also lennox lewis,
lewis was a better boxer of tucker, but less elusive and with glass chin.
the only boxer that could defeat tyson prime is vitaly klitschko.

[ThatOne]

pinklon thomas, marvis frazier, trevor berbick, james "bonecrusher" smith, tony tucker, frank bruno (2x), donovan ruddock (2x), tony tubbs, michael spinks, carl williams

i'd say that's a pretty damn good list of beaten opponents

I can name twenty heavyweights that would be favored against all those fighters. That's what makes Tyson overrated.

[keithmoonhangover]

pinklon thomas, marvis frazier, trevor berbick, james "bonecrusher" smith, tony tucker, frank bruno (2x), donovan ruddock (2x), tony tubbs, michael spinks, carl williams

i'd say that's a pretty damn good list of beaten opponents

I can name twenty heavyweights that would be favored against all those fighters. That's what makes Tyson overrated.

No, that puts him in the top 21.

[ThatOne]

pinklon thomas, marvis frazier, trevor berbick, james "bonecrusher" smith, tony tucker, frank bruno (2x), donovan ruddock (2x), tony tubbs, michael spinks, carl williams

i'd say that's a pretty damn good list of beaten opponents

I can name twenty heavyweights that would be favored against all those fighters. That's what makes Tyson overrated.

bull shit. i rate larry holmes higher than mike tyson in all-time perspective but go and re-watch the larry holmes/carl williams fight and tell me how you holmes get a deserved W in that one.

also pinklon thomas & trevor berbick are some underrated heavies (on these boards) as far as i'm concerned.

thomas comfortably beat witherspoon (i scored it 8-4 for thomas). gave a prime coetzee all he could handle (i scored that 5-4-1 for coetzee but a draw is not undeserved). i even thought pinklon was winning at least 3-2 before tyson KO'd him in the 6th. thomas also took out weaver in '85 and weaver from '79-'85 was a damn good heavyweight (though it would have been more ideal if weaver could have had tougher opponents before facing thomas/after the second dokes fight).

trust me; overall i agree tyson is overrated. but i think amongst some "purists" that he's definitely underrated.

You made a list of boxers Mike Tyson beat. All I said is that I could name twenty fighters that could beat them. That's all. I will clarify my statement a bit so it isn't confusing. I can name twenty fighters that would have been favorites against the fighters you named at the time Tyson beat them.


Surely you don't think the list of boxers who would have beat pinklon thomas, marvis frazier, trevor berbick, james "bonecrusher" smith, tony tucker, frank bruno , donovan ruddock.tony tubbs, michael spinks, and carl williams is less than twenty.

[Rambo]

I can name twenty heavyweights that would be favored against all those fighters. That's what makes Tyson overrated.

Even if that were true, you can only beat whats put in front of you, how can Mike be overated because of the opposition at the time, what do you want him to do... ? If Ali was exactly the same fighter but thought in a bad era is he then overated?

[NazNaci1]

A good point Rambo. It is an argument that can levied at every modern great fighter.

If the opponents are not there to fight, do we penalise the fighter? Does it diminsh his standing?

Harsh as it may seem, I personally, would say yes, if he, as a great fighter, cannot define his career (which could constitute longevity, top quality opponents or coming back from the 'brink', for example) in a positive way, where does the blame lay?

Don't get me wrong, I am a big Tyson fan and he is often dismissed as a HW great, when his natural ability probably surpasses or, at the very least, matches the very best HW's ever. His achievements, considering his ability, are disappointing but nonetheless, he beat the best available, in his prime, fought the the best of the next era, when clearly in decline, taking his lumps and lastly suffered embarrassing defeats when not obviously motivated and visibly unfit fight on.

The way I would define Tyson's 3 careers:

- On the way up and winning his first titles - He loved boxing and that was his primary motivation, resulting some scintilating performances, truly jaw dropping.

- MK II, resumption of his career for, in my opinion, no other reason than 'it's what he does', not for the love for the sport. Motivation was different, so his willingness to seriously commit suffered, as did his performances and skills.

- MK III, motivation money, nothing else. Not fit enough, not too bothered about the sport, just fighting to make money to pay debts. Bad combination.

A definate great, based on ability, and if we take him at his prime and match him with another HW legend, in their prime, I would give Mike at the very least 50% chance against anyone.

Anything less than a prime 'Iron Mike', he could conceivably lose to pretty much most of the 'regular' Top 10-20 ATG HW's.

[fatcookie]

The way I would define Tyson's 3 careers:

- On the way up and winning his first titles - He loved boxing and that was his primary motivation, resulting some scintilating performances, truly jaw dropping.

- MK II, resumption of his career for, in my opinion, no other reason than 'it's what he does', not for the love for the sport. Motivation was different, so his willingness to seriously commit suffered, as did his performances and skills.

- MK III, motivation money, nothing else. Not fit enough, not too bothered about the sport, just fighting to make money to pay debts. Bad combination.

A definate great, based on ability, and if we take him at his prime and match him with another HW legend, in their prime, I would give Mike at the very least 50% chance against anyone.

Anything less than a prime 'Iron Mike', he could conceivably lose to pretty much most of the 'regular' Top 10-20 ATG HW's.

Agree with this 100%

[ryanst1982]

All good points and maybe its hard to place Iron mike in top 20 ATG HW (although I would) but im sure we can all agree that regardless of opponents, the early Mike was IMO the most exciting boxer I have seen in last 30 years. Incredible spped and power and all round bad ass, basically your worst nightmare. Not so good against skilled boxers and faded dramtically after Douglas fight, but 80's and early 90's. WOOOOOAHHH. Thanks for the memories

[ThatOne]

I can name twenty heavyweights that would be favored against all those fighters. That's what makes Tyson overrated.

Even if that were true, you can only beat whats put in front of you, how can Mike be overated because of the opposition at the time, what do you want him to do... ? If Ali was exactly the same fighter but thought in a bad era is he then overated?

Tyson didn't even beat the best boxers of his era. See Evander Holyfield and James Douglas.

And yeah, if Ali lost his all his fights to Frazier and Norton after the ban and lost to Foreman I nor most people would say he was an ATG. The fact he didn't lose makes him an ATG.

[ryanst1982]

I can name twenty heavyweights that would be favored against all those fighters. That's what makes Tyson overrated.

Even if that were true, you can only beat whats put in front of you, how can Mike be overated because of the opposition at the time, what do you want him to do... ? If Ali was exactly the same fighter but thought in a bad era is he then overated?

Tyson didn't even beat the best boxers of his era. See Evander Holyfield and James Douglas.

And yeah, if Ali lost his all his fights to Frazier and Norton after the ban and lost to Foreman I nor most people would say he was an ATG. The fact he didn't lose makes him an ATG.

This is true, but i feel had he fought these two in late 80's early 90's, he beats them both

[ThatOne]

Even if that were true, you can only beat whats put in front of you, how can Mike be overated because of the opposition at the time, what do you want him to do... ? If Ali was exactly the same fighter but thought in a bad era is he then overated?

Tyson didn't even beat the best boxers of his era. See Evander Holyfield and James Douglas.

And yeah, if Ali lost his all his fights to Frazier and Norton after the ban and lost to Foreman I nor most people would say he was an ATG. The fact he didn't lose makes him an ATG.

This is true, but i feel had he fought these two in late 80's early 90's, he beats them both

He was at the ripe old age of twenty four when James Douglas dropped him.

[ryanst1982]

Tyson didn't even beat the best boxers of his era. See Evander Holyfield and James Douglas.

And yeah, if Ali lost his all his fights to Frazier and Norton after the ban and lost to Foreman I nor most people would say he was an ATG. The fact he didn't lose makes him an ATG.

This is true, but i feel had he fought these two in late 80's early 90's, he beats them both

He was at the ripe old age of twenty four when James Douglas dropped him.

Yes he was and for most boxers we all know that should be them improving towards that mid to late twenties prime but Tyson was already, in my opinion past his prime by then. For what reasons I dont know, Cus dying, lifestyle, controversy, hangers on. Who knows but his performances dropped after destroying Williams for me. Its said his training dropped and certainly he didnt seem to care for boxing as he did in his early days.
For me his prime was erly 20's. Even the 4 fights after Douglas, although he won and impressed, he wasnt the same fighter. Didnt seem to care anymore. Tyson that destroyed Spinks and Berbick and first Bruno fight and Tucker and Tubbs. That was, unfortunately, his prime.

[ThatOne]

This is true, but i feel had he fought these two in late 80's early 90's, he beats them both

He was at the ripe old age of twenty four when James Douglas dropped him.

Yes he was and for most boxers we all know that should be them improving towards that mid to late twenties prime but Tyson was already, in my opinion past his prime by then. For what reasons I dont know, Cus dying, lifestyle, controversy, hangers on. Who knows but his performances dropped after destroying Williams for me. Its said his training dropped and certainly he didnt seem to care for boxing as he did in his early days.
For me his prime was erly 20's. Even the 4 fights after Douglas, although he won and impressed, he wasnt the same fighter. Didnt seem to care anymore. Tyson that destroyed Spinks and Berbick and first Bruno fight and Tucker and Tubbs. That was, unfortunately, his prime.

You seem to be making the argument that he was overrrated.

[ryanst1982]

Id say he probably was. Some put him in top 10 ATG, some even top 5, and that is ofcourse over rating him. He cant be put there when his best years were so short. But my original point was in those years he was as entertaining as ive seen and as ferocious and he certainly deserves credit for his good years he was awesome. But yes, whilst I feel some complete under rate how good he was based on his middle and end of career, he definately isnt a top 10 ATG for me, purely based on the fact he didnt perform to early standard for anywhere near long enough

[NazNaci1]

If Cus D'Amato and Jim Jacobs had been around longer, don't you agree that he would have continued to improve, stayed away from the immense personal distractions, Givens and Don King?

He would / could have beat Douglas, though on that night Douglas hit the heights of greatness, if for only one night.

If they were around for Holyfield, along with Rooney, don't you think he could have won?

His prime was not 24, he wa young, but his prime was effectively over. This is backed up by fact. Simply watch his early fights, his unifications and his defences. Then watch the Douglas and Holyfield fights.

At 24, he was past his best. Unusual to say the least but given his style, the people he lost, the controversy, Givens, Washington and DK, is it that much of a surprise?

As I said, prime for prime, he is more than a match for any HW past and present, anything other than that, he probably loses to most.

A great fighter? Yes. A great HW? Yes. ATG Top Ten 10? No. Not all that far off it, though. I certainly rate him higher than Lewis and Bowe.

[ryanst1982]

If Cus D'Amato and Jim Jacobs had been around longer, don't you agree that he would have continued to improve, stayed away from the immense personal distractions, Givens and Don King?

He would / could have beat Douglas, though on that night Douglas hit the heights of greatness, if for only one night.

If they were around for Holyfield, along with Rooney, don't you think he could have won?

His prime was not 24, he wa young, but his prime was effectively over. This is backed up by fact. Simply watch his early fights, his unifications and his defences. Then watch the Douglas and Holyfield fights.

At 24, he was past his best. Unusual to say the least but given his style, the people he lost, the controversy, Givens, Washington and DK, is it that much of a surprise?

As I said, prime for prime, he is more than a match for any HW past and present, anything other than that, he probably loses to most.

A great fighter? Yes. A great HW? Yes. ATG Top Ten 10? No. Not all that far off it, though. I certainly rate him higher than Lewis and Bowe.

Yeah agree that if he kept on his early past he could have been as good as any, but because he didnt there is no way I can put him above Lewis

[mrbassie]

He was at the ripe old age of twenty four when James Douglas dropped him.

True but you have to take extenuating circumstances into account. His original team was long gone and his corner were a few of his pals with a condom full of water, his personal life was in the toilet, he was partying before the fight and he didn't train for the fight. You want to see the difference between a fighter in tip top fighting shape and one who hasn't trained properly look no further than Douglas' first defence.

Tyson wasn't old/over the hill but to be a good fighter you need three things: Talent, dedication and a good team behind you. Take away two of these things like Tyson did and the result is inevitable.
A good parallel is Prince Naseem, a fighter whose bread and butter-just like Tyson-was elusiveness and combination punching. He also like Tyson was brought up in a gym where they teach a style that no'one else does or knows how to. Also like Tyson he dumped his team and hooked up with people who didn't understand the fighter they had and lost the attributes that got him where he was in the first place. Both guys ended up as simply punchers, always looking for a one shot ko.

[bollox]

I reckon Tyson could have been at his peak for a couple more years tops, even with D'amato / Rooney and without Givens and Don King. There were also numerous very early signs that he was going to self destruct. D'Amato would overlook a load of minor then not so minor indiscretions because of what he say in him as a fighter. Also for a HW to be at his peak so early he was always going to start going downhill at an early age. There are very few exceptions to this over-riding unwritten rule