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

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 03 Jul 2007, 18:18

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?

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 03 Jul 2007, 21:04

i'll be the first to admit that i thought tyson was over rated.
too many people were calling him one of the greatest heavyweights who ever lived when he just beat berbick.
i will also be the first to admit that i lost $200 on the spinks fight.
why i picked michael i'll never know.

Flump · Post by **Flump** » 04 Jul 2007, 07:33

At the time he seemed like a monster, it wasn't so much who he was demolishing as the way he was doing it, back then the sky seemed the limit. You'll get virtually everybody on this topic saying how they knew he was overated etc but in that 86-89 period he looked unbeatable.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 04 Jul 2007, 10:09

difference between overrated in a current era sense and overrated in an ATG sense.... Tyson was overrated in terms of the span of history, but in his era nearly untouchable....

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 04 Jul 2007, 11:02

Tyson was indeed a very special fighter during his prime. Can you imagine if Tyson was fighting today? He would crush the fighters in the HW division today!

I do feel Tyson is one of the best HW's ever. However, when all the talk of him being unbeatable, invincible etc, well, that was just stupid, because no-one merits such accolades.

I do feel Mike was did start to believe in all that hype to a certain extent. I figure that's why he neglected his training, took some fighters lightly such as Douglas etc, & paid the price.

We should remember, when Tyson was at his best, he was not only the best HW, but the best fighter, P4P in the world.

I think we can all agree that a peak Tyson would have been competetive with nay HW in history, no matter how good they may have been.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 04 Jul 2007, 18:24

Say this site was around in 1989. Tyson was 37-0 (33 ko's) with 29 of those ko's ending in 5 rounds or less. He has defended his title 9 times and is the youngest ever and undisputed heavyweight champion. A fighter with possibly the fastest hands ever seen in a heavyweight, crunching power with both fists and a real menace about him.

He has flattened fighters like Tubbs, Spinks, Holmes, Berbick, Williams and looks unstoppable.

If you were on this site back then, and a Tyson hater, what would you be saying about him as to why you think he is overated or not that special?

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 04 Jul 2007, 19:56

Decagon wrote:
Rocky Balboa wrote:We should remember, when Tyson was at his best, he was not only the best HW, but the best fighter, P4P in the world.
Not over Chavez and Whitaker.

I believe Ring had him ranked #1 p4p in the late 80s.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 04 Jul 2007, 22:19

Regardless of what Ring said, Chavez was obviously above Tyson. Whitaker was still building his record, but he was on his way.

Tyson's opposition was weak, that would basically be my argument for him being overrated. Not in the sense that he wasn't the best Heavyweight in the world, just in terms of the hype about him being the GOAT. There would be no reason to rank him over Larry Holmes at that stage, who had beaten opponents as good or better than Tyson's, but had gotten up to 20 defenses. I wouldn't have said before the Douglas fight that Tyson wasn't great or didn't have a chance to be rated as a top 5 all time Heavyweight, but he certainly wasn't there yet, calling him the best Heavyweight or even the best fighter of all time at that point is nonsense.

Even if he theoretically beats Douglas and Holyfield, he would likely be a top 5-10 all time Heavyweight, but I still wouldn't call him the best Heavyweight of all time on that basis, let alone P4P all time. If he had cleaned out the 90's division with the Bowe's and the Lewis' and the Foreman's, then you can start arguing for him as the best Heavyweight.

Tyson did not have the fastest hands of any Heavyweight champion. Ali, Patterson, Louis had faster hands.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 04 Jul 2007, 23:20

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 Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 05 Jul 2007, 01:55

You don't agree that Holmes in his prime was faster than Tyson?

As for Holyfield, its just a suggestion, but I think it can be argued.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Jul 2007, 04:35

I was so excited by Tyson as a kid. Holmes was already champion by the time I became a boxing obsessive. I read all about Holmes and loved the fighter but Tyson was going to be the great champion who was for my generation. I’d seen nearly all his fights and had seen him come through the ranks.

You also have to remember that the alpha belts changed hands all the time. Just when you thought Pinklon Thomas was going to establish himself he lost, same with Witherspoon, Page, etc… They all wanted Holmes but they all lost in fights to guys they really should have beaten. Most of these fights were long drawn out affairs, suddenly Tyson comes along and starts blowing away what seemed to be durable opponents.

What always struck me with American sports journalism was that they concept of greatness was much more defined than in British sports journalism. I used to devour The Ring, KO, World Boxing, etc… during the 1980s and reading these publications I knew that greatness was always truly tested and established through adversity. Sometimes this meant turning a fight around, winning those important rounds, other times it meant coming back from defeats and re-establishing your career.

Tyson’s loss to Douglas was just one defeat. I was sure that he would rise again and take back the division as his own. This would be the proof. I thought Holyfield was a great fighter but too small to fight the giants in the HW division. I imagined he would be hyped up as a threat but would be dismantled by Tyson.

Tyson had the supporting cast to have been able to claim the right to be considered the greatest of all-time. He had the good fighters from the end of the Holmes era (Witherspoon, Dokes, Page, Thomas, Berbick) and the new generation of fighters coming through (Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield) to put on his resume.

He had the power and the speed but in the end he lacked the mental strength. The first time it was really tested he lost. The second time it was tested he lost again. The third time he just quit.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 05 Jul 2007, 10:21

You were just a kid when Tyson fought? now I feel old.

Anyway, as for the original question, at the time I didn't really know how great Tyson was in the late 1980's.

He certainly had some awesome knockouts. However, he did have a few less than impressive performances as well (Ferguson, Tillis before winning the title and then Smith,and Tucker). A lot of people seemed to be ignoring these performances and were just drooling over his knockouts against Berbick,Tubbs, etc.

I also thought that he may get better in his late 20's. You never know when someone is that good when they are that younger how much better they are going to get. Some guys get even better, while others don't.

I just didn't know. It was sort of like early in college football season when a team is blowing out bad teams by scores like 56-0 and haven't played a great team yet. To a lesser extent, this is what was happening with Tyson.
It wasn't like Tyson was fighting bad fighters, they were good but not great. (Not that this was Tyson's fault. He wasn't ducking people).

Some of them were clearly intimidated by Tyson and didn't give Tyson any trouble at all when they should have been at least somewhat competitive. (Even after Tyson lost to Douglas, look how he intimidated Alex Stewart.)

I did think that when a talented fighter would come along that wasn't afraid of Tyson he would have a good chance of beating Tyson. I was very impressed by Holyfield's fights when he first became a heavyweight and thought he might be the guy. I certainly didn't think that it would be Buster Douglas.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Jul 2007, 10:29

Apologies, Alp...

I guess in response to the question of the thread... I considered Tyson to be a great fighter who still had his greatness to prove and his biggest challenges ahead of him. In the end I don't think he quite proved it.

Rocky Balboa · Post by **Rocky Balboa** » 05 Jul 2007, 11:05

Decagon wrote:Over Chavez? What month? He was never ranked #1 at the end of any of the calendar years, and I remember him being at the #2 spot forever.

At the end of 1988, Tyson was ranked P4P, NO.1, by Ring magazine. People can have their own opinions of who should have been rakned as the best fighter in world at the time, but fact is, Tyson WAS ranked as the best, P4P.

I still have rankings from the Ring, KO & Boxing Illustrated in 1988/89. Tyson is NO.1 on the P4P list.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 05 Jul 2007, 11:53

Rocky Balboa wrote:
Decagon wrote:Over Chavez? What month? He was never ranked #1 at the end of any of the calendar years, and I remember him being at the #2 spot forever.
At the end of 1988, Tyson was ranked P4P, NO.1, by Ring magazine. People can have their own opinions of who should have been rakned as the best fighter in world at the time, but fact is, Tyson WAS ranked as the best, P4P.

I still have rankings from the Ring, KO & Boxing Illustrated in 1988/89. Tyson is NO.1 on the P4P list.

Named The Ring magazine Prospect of the Year in 1985.
Named Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year in 1986 and 1988.

The Ring magazine's "Fighter of the Year" Award is a gold and silver medal given to the boxer, who, during the year previous, has by his conduct and fighting qualities "earned the esteem of the sports public." The four points which originally governed the award were:

1) He must be foremost in his contribution to the skill and the science of boxing and he need not be a champion.
2) The recipient must combine with his high place in the ranking of fighters a similar position as a sportsman.
3) He must associate with the abilities as a fighter good public relations and a reputation for clean and moral living.
4) The boxer receiving the award must be recognized as an example to the growing American youth.

RING RATINGS 86, Tyson 1st, behind Champ M Spinks
87 Same
88 Tyson Champion, Holyfield 1st
89 Title Vacant, Tyson 1st
90 Title Vacant, Holyfield 1st, Tyson 2nd

p4p began in 1989, Tyson 1st, 1990 Tyson 7th

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Jul 2007, 12:01

I didn't realise these criteria were a part of the decision maiking process. It's not just about boxing ability/achievement then... It is also slanted towards American fighters.

funso banjo baby · Post by **funso banjo baby** » 07 Jul 2007, 09:14

lets face it, we were replaying our videos to watch tony tucker, bonecrusher and bruno landing ONE punch on tyson

he was awsome at the time ..no question

Paul1960s · Post by **Paul1960s** » 22 Jul 2007, 08:29

Everyone is an expert now, but from what I remember everyone rated Tyson when he was unbeaten, that is I can't remember one person saying he was overrated. I do, however, remember Emanuel Stewart arguing that while Spinks had no chance, the then cruiserweight champ Holyfield had the right tools to trouble him. I for one thought he was going to reign forever and you have to admit he had great hand speed and incredible power. He was very dangerous early for anyone

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 22 Jul 2007, 13:23

I wouldn't say that there was no skepticism of Tyson. But it is true that if you go back and listen to guys like Lampley and Merchant talk about Tyson in 86-89, and listen to how they talk about him in later years, it is sort of funny the 180 that they make on him.

funso banjo baby · Post by **funso banjo baby** » 22 Jul 2007, 14:32

we were living in an age of plodding heavyweights...and the sight of young Mike destroying Berbick and sending him reeling around like a ragdoll was something we hadnt seen for a long long time.

he was awsome then

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 23 Jul 2007, 08:08

Paul1960s wrote:Everyone is an expert now, but from what I remember everyone rated Tyson when he was unbeaten, that is I can't remember one person saying he was overrated. I do, however, remember Emanuel Stewart arguing that while Spinks had no chance, the then cruiserweight champ Holyfield had the right tools to trouble him. I for one thought he was going to reign forever and you have to admit he had great hand speed and incredible power. He was very dangerous early for anyone

Yeah that was my point of the post, everyones an expert now, slagging off Tyson, saying he was a bully, one dimensial etc..etc.. but I can't remember ONE person in the press or boxing fans saying they didn't rate him. Everyone loved watching him fight and were in awe of his ko's.

It makes me smile now when you get people slagging him off because I bet at the time those people were the same ones raving about him

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 24 Jul 2007, 08:41

Rocky Balboa wrote:
Decagon wrote:Over Chavez? What month? He was never ranked #1 at the end of any of the calendar years, and I remember him being at the #2 spot forever.
At the end of 1988, Tyson was ranked P4P, NO.1, by Ring magazine. People can have their own opinions of who should have been rakned as the best fighter in world at the time, but fact is, Tyson WAS ranked as the best, P4P.

I still have rankings from the Ring, KO & Boxing Illustrated in 1988/89. Tyson is NO.1 on the P4P list.

I think Tyson was number 1 pound per pound since 1987. When he lost to Douglas, his pound per pound crown was replaced by Julio Cesar Chavez in 1990. But from 1987 to 1989, Tyson was the man.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Jul 2007, 08:59

Don't really get the point of this thread. Tyson looked great on top but once his aura went and his opponents fought back he wasn't as great.

Are we supposed to criticise people for changing their minds simply because they got it wrong at first? Or should we pretend that Tyson really beat Holyfield?

Of course many on here have been doing this anyway.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 24 Jul 2007, 10:53

Ezzard wrote:Don't really get the point of this thread. Tyson looked great on top but once his aura went and his opponents fought back he wasn't as great.

Are we supposed to criticise people for changing their minds simply because they got it wrong at first? Or should we pretend that Tyson really beat Holyfield?

Of course many on here have been doing this anyway.

I was trying to find out who didn't rate Tyson when he was still unbeaten....mainly from the now Tyson haters. Did they think he was overrated when he was undefeated, and if so why?

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 24 Jul 2007, 11:30

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.