Who didn't rate Mike Tyson when he was still unbeaten?

[markl]

Everyone thought he was much better then he actually was. I never thought he would beat Holyfield. But I certainly thought he was going to walk through Douglas before Evander handed him his head.

Kind of a silly thread to be honest.

Who didn't rate Donald Curry before he lost to Honeygahn? Nobody

[Controversial]

I guess what I don't understand is what do you mean by "rated"?
Do you mean did we "rate" him at the time as the best heavyweight of all time, "rate" him as one the best, or what?

Some people did think that Tyson was awesome at one time.
Others of us took a wait and see approach. We wanted to see how Tyson would do when he would finally go up against a really good heavyweight.

I didn't mean 'rate' as in rankings, I meant who didn't think he was a good fighter. There must have been people who didn't think Tyson was a good fighter even when he was 37-0.

By your response of the 'wait and see approach' I'm assuming you still had your doubts about Tyson even when he was 37-0 (33 kos)? What were your reasons for having those doubts, considering he was only 23 years old, undisputed champ and had easily disposed of Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks etc...

[dempseyfire]

I guess what I don't understand is what do you mean by "rated"?
Do you mean did we "rate" him at the time as the best heavyweight of all time, "rate" him as one the best, or what?

Some people did think that Tyson was awesome at one time.
Others of us took a wait and see approach. We wanted to see how Tyson would do when he would finally go up against a really good heavyweight.

I didn't mean 'rate' as in rankings, I meant who didn't think he was a good fighter. There must have been people who didn't think Tyson was a good fighter even when he was 37-0.

By your response of the 'wait and see approach' I'm assuming you still had your doubts about Tyson even when he was 37-0 (33 kos)? What were your reasons for having those doubts, considering he was only 23 years old, undisputed champ and had easily disposed of Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks etc...

I thought he was a great fighter but I still never saw any of his pre-Douglas opponents and said "now that's an excellent fighter"
Thomas looked awful, Tubbs was chubby, Holmes way past it and had come out of retirement, Bruno was Bruno . . . .I did think when he eventually found that opponent who took him to the brink, he'd prove himself.
Then Douglas and later Holyfield came and he showed himself to be quite the front runner . . .still a HOF calbire fighter, but he never showed the ability to come back in a fight when things wern't going his way. The true all-time greats always did.

[Ambling Alp]

Tyson had certainly proved that he was a good fighter. However, how good was the question. Was he going to be great fighter, even a legend?
There certainly was some doubt, at the time. He didn't steamroll his way over everyone. He didn't look that great against Ferguson and Tillis before he won the title and was having a lot of trouble with Tucker before Tucker hurt his hand and even then Tyson didn't dominate him.

Tyson did score some devastating knockouts and was exciting to watch. Things would have been boring for a few years if it wasn't for him. Most of the time when the "alphabet soup" boys like Page,Tubbs,Thomas, etc fought each other it was a boring fight. Most of these guys would show flashes of greatness, but couldn't put it together consistently.

Tyson certainly had proved that he was better than these guys. Still, there were questions:
We didn't know how good of a chin he had, his stamina was still a question mark, and perhaps mostly importantly, if he had the toughness that is necessary when things didn't go smoothly against against a tough opponent.

[Ezzard]

Pretty much agree with Dempsey and Alp.

Tyson looked excellent. He looked like he had it all. We were just waiting for the big test.

[Klee Gluckman]

Tyson was also had perfect timing to be a superstar.

He was pre-internet. He was the perfect product for the 80's.

He and Jordan were the most famous athletes in the world.

Bowe, Holyfield and Lewis were never able to match his fame for varying reasons. If Tyson had come 10 years later he would not have been as big as he was.

Wlad reigned for 11 years but never matched Tyson's mainstream fame.

[Controversial]

Tyson was also had perfect timing to be a superstar.

He was pre-internet. He was the perfect product for the 80's.

He and Jordan were the most famous athletes in the world.

Bowe, Holyfield and Lewis were never able to match his fame for varying reasons. If Tyson had come 10 years later he would not have been as big as he was.

Wlad reigned for 11 years but never matched Tyson's mainstream fame.

Only took you 19 years to reply to this thread

[margaret thatcher]

I guess it s pretty close. Louis did have fast hands. I think its good to remember that Tyson in his prime, and even in the 90's had fast hands, but I think its going a bit far to say he had the fastest hands of any Heavyweight. Holmes at his best was probably a little faster in terms of hand speed as well.

Going back to the pound for pound question, you could also argue that pound for pound Holyfield could be ahead of Tyson even at that stage, lets say right before Tyson lost to Douglas. Considering he was a Cruiserweight. He dominated that division and had five defenses. Then he moved up and beat Thomas and Tillis who were two Tyson opponents. Dokes was still decent, about as good as some of Mike's title challengers. And when taking acount that Evander did that coming up in weight, I think Evander could be ahead of Mike pound for pound.

i disagree completely, tyson was clearly faster handed than louis. louis was arguably the sharpest ever hw puncher, very accurate and with loads of power in both hands. excellent punch mechanics, so he didnt telegraph or use excess space throwing his punches. but tyson's hands moved faster,

i would only rate ali as faster handed than tyson among elite heavies. ali and tyson had that speed where at times they were so fast you'd have to watch a slow mo replay back to see what shot they threw

now holmes moved more fluidly than tyson, but again, for raw hand speed, it's tyson

[gilgamesh]

I guess it s pretty close. Louis did have fast hands. I think its good to remember that Tyson in his prime, and even in the 90's had fast hands, but I think its going a bit far to say he had the fastest hands of any Heavyweight. Holmes at his best was probably a little faster in terms of hand speed as well.

Going back to the pound for pound question, you could also argue that pound for pound Holyfield could be ahead of Tyson even at that stage, lets say right before Tyson lost to Douglas. Considering he was a Cruiserweight. He dominated that division and had five defenses. Then he moved up and beat Thomas and Tillis who were two Tyson opponents. Dokes was still decent, about as good as some of Mike's title challengers. And when taking acount that Evander did that coming up in weight, I think Evander could be ahead of Mike pound for pound.

i disagree completely, tyson was clearly faster handed than louis. louis was arguably the sharpest ever hw puncher, very accurate and with loads of power in both hands. excellent punch mechanics, so he didnt telegraph or use excess space throwing his punches. but tyson's hands moved faster,

i would only rate ali as faster handed than tyson among elite heavies. ali and tyson had that speed where at times they were so fast you'd have to watch a slow mo replay back to see what shot they threw

now holmes moved more fluidly than tyson, but again, for raw hand speed, it's tyson

Possibly Patterson as well. Patterson was fast as sh*t.

[570295]

The discourse around Tyson has changed since this thread was first posted. It was en vogue to hate on him in the earlier days of boxing message boards.

[gilgamesh]

Maybe everyone just needed to see him lose one more time to stop hating on him. In my case I just watched all of his fights while also watching all of the available fights of the other heavyweight noteworthys throughout history and saw that he really was a standout talent in comparison to most Champions.

[margaret thatcher]

even beating on cans it's obvious tyson was a special fighter offensively. absolutely stupidly fast hands and advanced combination punching rarely seen among big guys. aside from ali, who at times could punch so fast you could barely see his hands move, theres no other heavyweight that has made me say 'holy sh!t' as much as tyson did.

because tyson was such a mainstream figure, he was prone to being overrated by casuals, and that then led some hardcore fans to compensate by underrating him. but theres no doubt he was far above average as a heavyweight champ, and a serious contender for top 10 all time, albeit at the lower end.

[overhand_right]

It's become de rigueur to denigrate Tyson. It's ridiculous. He was the most spectacular looking heavyweight champion ever. His 80s fights are like something out of a video game. He lost a step when he dumped Rooney, Douglas caught him on an off day and Holyfield got to him after years of decline in prison. These three points are irrefutable and if you say otherwise you're a word I can't say on Boxrec.

In his prime he would have wrecked most heavyweights in history.

[Cojimar 1946]

Lots of people now dismiss Tyson as an overated fighter, a bully, someone who fought in a weak era etc..etc...

But honestly, how many of you thought Mike Tyson was overated when he was 37-0 (33 ko's)?

If you thought he was overated then, what made you think that?

I don't see why he would rate ahead of Naseem Hamed who also had a great run prior to his first loss.

But these days Hamed is widely viewed as a hypehob

[gilgamesh]

Lots of people now dismiss Tyson as an overated fighter, a bully, someone who fought in a weak era etc..etc...

But honestly, how many of you thought Mike Tyson was overated when he was 37-0 (33 ko's)?

If you thought he was overated then, what made you think that?

I don't see why he would rate ahead of Naseem Hamed who also had a great run prior to his first loss.

But these days Hamed is widely viewed as a hypehob

Tyson and Hamed's career overall had similar levels of in ring achievement to me, but Tyson made more of an impact, and has some bigger wins than Naz had.

[cfang]

I was a teen when Tyson came on the scene. Absolutely loved him because it was like when Joe Louis was as coming up. He was fighting all the time and knocking everyone out. The heavyweight scene was tubby guys out pointing each other then this killer comes on the scene. Was fabulous.

I thought he was unstoppable and everyone else pretty much did too. We thought the only guys who went the distance with him were boxing negatively and those who took him on ended up knocked out.

He has been exposed for what he was since tho. The 90s a much much stronger era and the two Holyfield fights really showed that Mike wasn’t the fighter we thought he was. In 1988 I’d have put him top 2/3 of all time heavys. Now about 10.

[gilgamesh]

In all fairness. Anybody who has achieved Undisputed status and made 10 title defenses in their early 20's is going to have people thinking they're looking at one of the all time greats.

There still hasn't been a Heavyweight to have accomplished so much, so fast as Mike.

[overhand_right]

I was a teen when Tyson came on the scene. Absolutely loved him because it was like when Joe Louis was as coming up. He was fighting all the time and knocking everyone out. The heavyweight scene was tubby guys out pointing each other then this killer comes on the scene. Was fabulous.

I thought he was unstoppable and everyone else pretty much did too. We thought the only guys who went the distance with him were boxing negatively and those who took him on ended up knocked out.

He has been exposed for what he was since tho. The 90s a much much stronger era and the two Holyfield fights really showed that Mike wasn’t the fighter we thought he was. In 1988 I’d have put him top 2/3 of all time heavys. Now about 10.

You think perhaps 4 years in prison might have diminished him somehow? He lost to Holyfield in 96 and 97 -- 8 and 9 years after 1988!

If Cleveland Williams was Ali's peak then that period of time elapsing is him versus Jimmy Young. If Ken Norton was Larry Holmes' peak that period of time is him eking past Carl Williams and losing to Spinks. How was Joe Frazier looking 8,9 years after Ali in 71? Oh that's right he was retired.

Some people on boxing forums really can't wrap their head around the passage of time.

[gilgamesh]

I was a teen when Tyson came on the scene. Absolutely loved him because it was like when Joe Louis was as coming up. He was fighting all the time and knocking everyone out. The heavyweight scene was tubby guys out pointing each other then this killer comes on the scene. Was fabulous.

I thought he was unstoppable and everyone else pretty much did too. We thought the only guys who went the distance with him were boxing negatively and those who took him on ended up knocked out.

He has been exposed for what he was since tho. The 90s a much much stronger era and the two Holyfield fights really showed that Mike wasn’t the fighter we thought he was. In 1988 I’d have put him top 2/3 of all time heavys. Now about 10.

You think perhaps 4 years in prison might have diminished him somehow? He lost to Holyfield in 96 and 97 -- 8 and 9 years after 1988!

If Cleveland Williams was Ali's peak then that period of time elapsing is him versus Jimmy Young. If Ken Norton was Larry Holmes' peak that period of time is him eking past Carl Williams and losing to Spinks. How was Joe Frazier looking 8,9 years after Ali in 71? Oh that's right he was retired.

Some people on boxing forums really can't wrap their head around the passage of time.

Tyson was the younger man than Holyfield. Holyfield was being written off as an old man with a bad heart (literally. Like a heart condition and medical issues).

Don't make excuses for Mike losing to Holyfield. He lost to Holyfield because Holyfield is better than him. Period.

Mike was the 25 to 1 betting favorite entering their 1st fight.

[570295]

Lots of people now dismiss Tyson as an overated fighter, a bully, someone who fought in a weak era etc..etc...

But honestly, how many of you thought Mike Tyson was overated when he was 37-0 (33 ko's)?

If you thought he was overated then, what made you think that?

I don't see why he would rate ahead of Naseem Hamed who also had a great run prior to his first loss.

But these days Hamed is widely viewed as a hypehob

Now we're just getting silly.

For one, Tyson was undisputed. Hamed wasn't. In fact, most of his "reign" was spent defending his WBO belt, which wasn't even recognized as a legitimate title at the time. Secondly, Tyson actually had a career after his first loss, albeit a spotty one. Hamed didn't.

[Controversial]

I was a teen when Tyson came on the scene. Absolutely loved him because it was like when Joe Louis was as coming up. He was fighting all the time and knocking everyone out. The heavyweight scene was tubby guys out pointing each other then this killer comes on the scene. Was fabulous.

I thought he was unstoppable and everyone else pretty much did too. We thought the only guys who went the distance with him were boxing negatively and those who took him on ended up knocked out.

He has been exposed for what he was since tho. The 90s a much much stronger era and the two Holyfield fights really showed that Mike wasn’t the fighter we thought he was. In 1988 I’d have put him top 2/3 of all time heavys. Now about 10.

You think perhaps 4 years in prison might have diminished him somehow? He lost to Holyfield in 96 and 97 -- 8 and 9 years after 1988!

If Cleveland Williams was Ali's peak then that period of time elapsing is him versus Jimmy Young. If Ken Norton was Larry Holmes' peak that period of time is him eking past Carl Williams and losing to Spinks. How was Joe Frazier looking 8,9 years after Ali in 71? Oh that's right he was retired.

Some people on boxing forums really can't wrap their head around the passage of time.

Tyson was the younger man than Holyfield. Holyfield was being written off as an old man with a bad heart (literally. Like a heart condition and medical issues).

Don't make excuses for Mike losing to Holyfield. He lost to Holyfield because Holyfield is better than him. Period.

Mike was the 25 to 1 betting favorite entering their 1st fight.

Tyson was still a force when he fought Holyfield but I don’t think he was as good as he was in his earlier years. Most people also question how “natural” Holyfield was, if he was juiced as many people think then that gives an advantage. But saying all this even in his younger years I think Holyfield would’ve been his nemesis, he wasn’t scared of him like so many were and his skillset gave Tyson problems other fighters didn’t. Tyson’s boxing style and lifestyle didn’t lend itself to a long career at the very top.

[gilgamesh]

Up until Holyfield beat him Tyson had only lost once. Holyfield had been beaten 3 times. So if Holyfield was fresher somehow, that's only because he was always better. He had taken more punishment than Mike. He had had a tougher schedule of bouts than Mike. He was older than Mike.

Mike should've had every advantage in the fight. He didn't because Holyfield was better than him, and there just wasn't anything that was gonna change that.

[Controversial]

Up until Holyfield beat him Tyson had only lost once. Holyfield had been beaten 3 times. So if Holyfield was fresher somehow, that's only because he was always better. He had taken more punishment than Mike. He had had a tougher schedule of bouts than Mike. He was older than Mike.

Mike should've had every advantage in the fight. He didn't because Holyfield was better than him, and there just wasn't anything that was gonna change that.

I don’t think you can compare fighters like that, every fighter is different, some can have loads of fights and still be good in later years, others are shot after 25 fights at a younger age. Too many variables involved. But yes Holyfield was seen as being on the decline, Bowe had stopped him and he looked far from good vs Czyz, I for one thought Mike would win even with Tyson only having a few rounds in the bank since being out the ring for over 4 years.

[overhand_right]

I was a teen when Tyson came on the scene. Absolutely loved him because it was like when Joe Louis was as coming up. He was fighting all the time and knocking everyone out. The heavyweight scene was tubby guys out pointing each other then this killer comes on the scene. Was fabulous.

I thought he was unstoppable and everyone else pretty much did too. We thought the only guys who went the distance with him were boxing negatively and those who took him on ended up knocked out.

He has been exposed for what he was since tho. The 90s a much much stronger era and the two Holyfield fights really showed that Mike wasn’t the fighter we thought he was. In 1988 I’d have put him top 2/3 of all time heavys. Now about 10.

You think perhaps 4 years in prison might have diminished him somehow? He lost to Holyfield in 96 and 97 -- 8 and 9 years after 1988!

If Cleveland Williams was Ali's peak then that period of time elapsing is him versus Jimmy Young. If Ken Norton was Larry Holmes' peak that period of time is him eking past Carl Williams and losing to Spinks. How was Joe Frazier looking 8,9 years after Ali in 71? Oh that's right he was retired.

Some people on boxing forums really can't wrap their head around the passage of time.

Tyson was the younger man than Holyfield. Holyfield was being written off as an old man with a bad heart (literally. Like a heart condition and medical issues).

Don't make excuses for Mike losing to Holyfield. He lost to Holyfield because Holyfield is better than him. Period.

Mike was the 25 to 1 betting favorite entering their 1st fight.

You can argue that Holyfield was better than Tyson, that's a defensible position, but your reasons are specious in the extreme.

Re: age. All fighters are different and have different primes, some styles age better than others, plus there are a thousand-and-one other variables: ringwear, lifestyle, lay offs, injuries, professionalism etc. Seriously Gilgamesh. I don't mean to be rude but this is stuff you learn in your first year following boxing.

The heart issue was a misdiagnosis. It was debunked in 1994.

Yes Holyfield was perceived as being used up and a sacrificial lamb, and it turned out everyone, including Tyson, underestimated him. That does not prove he was always the better fighter.

Tyson spent four years out of the ring, in prison. To pretend that wouldn't have a hugely deleterious effect on the performance of an athlete at elite level is, at best, inconceivably naive.

[gilgamesh]

Mike Tyson only ever fought 1 way. He was coming at you. Guns blazing going for the KO. Once people began to figure out his style, and once he began to lose a step it wasn't as effective. Holyfield was able to make adjustments to different kinds of styles as opposed to simply always relying on imposing the same style on people the way Tyson did.

It usually worked for Tyson to his credit. It just didn't work against a fighter the caliber of Evander Holyfield.

If he could've beaten Holyfield in 1989 then he should've. I remember him in interviews being dismissive of Holyfield as if he posed no threat to him, but that ain't the way the cookie crumbled in the end. Holyfield was already as credible a contender as any of the people he was fighting in 1989, but Tyson wasn't in any hurry to fight him. I doubt he would've been all that willing to fight him in 1996 either if not for the perception that he was a used up old fighter who wasn't what he used to be.