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.