Tyson

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

If this is the fight I am thinking of, it was ruled a DQ at the time. Then it was after changed to a TKO.

- Appears the ref ruled DQ, and the NY Commish overruled to TKO, but basically Ferg was a prime age heavy with a good record that included a win over Buster Douglas who got beat up and quit.

Mike only 19 years old showed good stamina and steady technique including inside fighting that the usual ninnies say he didn't have while delivering a rock solid beating. I remember when the same ninnies like the OP bloviating, hoisting themselves on their own petart how he couldn't KO longtime contender, the cagey Quick Tillis, so he must be worthless.

All Mike did was usher in the New Age of Dempsey recreated by Mike and Cus by making Boxing the Natural Spectacle Sport it is with the right fighters that spiked purses and public interest. At age 21 he already held the all time record for every Purse record that existed including lifetime. Lessers like Field and Light in the loafers Lewis financially benefitted by orbiting around his sphere when he was long past his best as a mentally ill victim of DKing and Robin Givens exploitation that left him doing time in jail while his $50Mil Retirement Annuity was looted by King.

And we would've never had the comeback of Big George without Mike to drive him back into a boxing career that even sparked the Communist Chinese to make them their $20+Mil offer that got shot down in the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The Tyson Era is spectacular Boxing History never to be replicated, the best any boxer can do in their own time.

[Caractacus]

however it was his comment in the Ferguson post-fight interview is what may have made Tyson really infamous"

[Caractacus]

Tyson vrs Ferguson in February 1986 may have been Tyson's first National television exposure as a pro,
but this may have been his first National exposure as a amateur boxer.
-August 1984-

[apollo creed]

Mike fought some ol good stiffs and tomato cans. Buster busted him big time. Holy and Lennox did it too.

Now old Mike wants to get in a circus boxing fight with Jake.

[Caractacus]

-1987-

[NazNaci1]

Not sure why this insistence that Mike was hype. Was he a great fighter, yes. An ATG, well, certainly in the top 15-20 Heavyweights. His resume is solid and obliterates modern day Heavyweights.

Jesse Ferguson (fought a lot of contenders and beat Ray Mercer).
Jose Ribalta (fought all the the top contenders)
James Smith (ex WBA Champ and one of the few to KO Witherspoon).
Pinklon Thomas (ex WBC Champ fought some good fighters)
Tony Tucker (ex IBF Champ,fought some good opponents and gave Bowe a tough fight)
Tyrell Biggs (Olympic Gold medalist who gave Bowe a very tough fight)
Larry Holmes (old, yes, but still had some fine wins and performances at his advanced age).
Tony Tubbs (ex WBA Champ, fought a lot contenders)
Michael Spinks ( ex LH and IBF Champ)
Frank Bruno x 2 (ex WBC Champ and fought some decent contenders)
Alex Stewart (fought a lot of contenders and gave Big George all he could handle)
Donovan Ruddock x 2,
Bruce Seldon (ex WBA Champ)
Frans Botha (ex IBF Champ)
Orlin Norris (ex WBO Champ)
Andrew Golota,(battered Bowe twice).

Yes, he lost to 'Vander, Douglas, Lewis and some others. The only defeats that were anywhere near his prime were the Douglas and Holyfield I fights. All the others were when he was nowhere near what he was. That is a fact.

Do some overinflate his standing? Yes. Do others downplay his resume and skills? Definitely.

Holyfield was a great fighter but just too small for Bowe and Lewis but fought and had some great wins.

Then you look at Bowe, ran away from Lewis, literally, went 2-1 vs the much smaller (albeit, great Holyfield) and got pummelled by Golata twice and that's it.

Lewis was a dominant Champ, although suffered a couple of blips. The Klitschko's, although also dominant, their resumes do not compare.

....and then you look at Fury and, laughably, Wilder's resume.....and people think Mike was hype?

[Caractacus]

early during Tyson's pro career,Jim Jacobs and Bill Cayton use to send VHS copies of Tyson's knock-outs to TV stations and sports writers around the country, and try and have them show some of them on the Sports section on the local TV news across the country.

James "Quick"Tillis and Jose Ribalta where Tyson's 2 toughest tests prior to fighting for the HW Championship.
So who was his toughest test before Tillis ?

[Caractacus]

here was another early TV fight of Tyson's that got a lot of media attention
( I think this may have been on USA Network Thursday Night Fights)
September.5.1985
Mike Tyson him-self particularly enjoyed this knock-out.
( 8th pro fight)

[apollo creed]

not sure why people are defending him for being a hyped fighter? Tucker and Ruddock are Mike's best wins. Buster, Holy and Lennox stopped him. Mike was a hyped money machine for the boxing industry.

[NazNaci1]

Not really defending him.

Resume is solid, won titles, was exciting and skilled and would pulverise everything after Lennox Lewis's era.

Not the greatest or anything but a great fighter who fought decent men, was undisputed champ and lost some. That is it, really.

We can disagree, which is fine.

[apollo creed]

Not really defending him.

Resume is solid, won titles, was exciting and skilled and would pulverise everything after Lennox Lewis's era.

Not the greatest or anything but a great fighter who fought decent men, was undisputed champ and lost some. That is it, really.

We can disagree, which is fine.

[Caractacus]

actually I think this may have been Mike Tyson's debut ( first appearence) on ESPN (as an amateur)
Teddy Atlas was still his trainer.
a record knock-out in 8 seconds.
(I think Tyson was still mugging people when he went back to Brownsville at this point)
-November 1981-

[Caractacus]

a documentary produced for German television
- 1983-

[Caractacus]

Some of the television hype even before he became A HW Champion
-1986-

[Jakub079]

Not sure why this insistence that Mike was hype. Was he a great fighter, yes. An ATG, well, certainly in the top 15-20 Heavyweights. His resume is solid and obliterates modern day Heavyweights.

Jesse Ferguson (fought a lot of contenders and beat Ray Mercer).
Jose Ribalta (fought all the the top contenders)
James Smith (ex WBA Champ and one of the few to KO Witherspoon).
Pinklon Thomas (ex WBC Champ fought some good fighters)
Tony Tucker (ex IBF Champ,fought some good opponents and gave Bowe a tough fight)
Tyrell Biggs (Olympic Gold medalist who gave Bowe a very tough fight)
Larry Holmes (old, yes, but still had some fine wins and performances at his advanced age).
Tony Tubbs (ex WBA Champ, fought a lot contenders)
Michael Spinks ( ex LH and IBF Champ)
Frank Bruno x 2 (ex WBC Champ and fought some decent contenders)
Alex Stewart (fought a lot of contenders and gave Big George all he could handle)
Donovan Ruddock x 2,
Bruce Seldon (ex WBA Champ)
Frans Botha (ex IBF Champ)
Orlin Norris (ex WBO Champ)
Andrew Golota,(battered Bowe twice).

Yes, he lost to 'Vander, Douglas, Lewis and some others. The only defeats that were anywhere near his prime were the Douglas and Holyfield I fights. All the others were when he was nowhere near what he was. That is a fact.

Do some overinflate his standing? Yes. Do others downplay his resume and skills? Definitely.

Holyfield was a great fighter but just too small for Bowe and Lewis but fought and had some great wins.

Then you look at Bowe, ran away from Lewis, literally, went 2-1 vs the much smaller (albeit, great Holyfield) and got pummelled by Golata twice and that's it.

Lewis was a dominant Champ, although suffered a couple of blips. The Klitschko's, although also dominant, their resumes do not compare.

....and then you look at Fury and, laughably, Wilder's resume.....and people think Mike was hype?

Really? Have you thought this through? Don't get me wrong, it may seem like that but... I have been analyzing the careers of heavyweight fighters for many years, from various angles. And I know how much marketing, circumstances, various aspects mean... in my opinion, Tyson is hugely underrated today. Realistically, it could be the top 3-5 when it comes to HW ever. I don't mean H2H, just real achievements. Of course, it is largely a matter of interpretation and a matter of convention, but if I didn't exercise my mind, it would be impossible to objectively throw it out of the top 5, but of course I respect every substantive opinion. Tyson's assessment is difficult because he had several stages. In the last one he was a ypurneyman, although in terms of marketing he was a star. I suspect that the author of the post is confusing these concepts and Tyson after 1995 is someone on the level of Jesse Ferguson 1986, but the hype is huge, Tyson from 2002 is a fighter who would have no chance against Alex Stewart and yet he received 20 million for the fight. However, nothing happened without a reason.

[NazNaci1]

Really? Have you thought this through? Don't get me wrong, it may seem like that but... I have been analyzing the careers of heavyweight fighters for many years, from various angles. And I know how much marketing, circumstances, various aspects mean... in my opinion, Tyson is hugely underrated today. Realistically, it could be the top 3-5 when it comes to HW ever. I don't mean H2H, just real achievements. Of course, it is largely a matter of interpretation and a matter of convention, but if I didn't exercise my mind, it would be impossible to objectively throw it out of the top 5, but of course I respect every substantive opinion. Tyson's assessment is difficult because he had several stages. In the last one he was a ypurneyman, although in terms of marketing he was a star. I suspect that the author of the post is confusing these concepts and Tyson after 1995 is someone on the level of Jesse Ferguson 1986, but the hype is huge, Tyson from 2002 is a fighter who would have no chance against Alex Stewart and yet he received 20 million for the fight. However, nothing happened without a reason.

Correct, a lot is down to interpretation. Very marketable, the 'fear factor' and yes, hype.

Of course, as his career went on, it became less about his abilities and more of what he once was. Should that detract from his past accomplishments, I do not believe so. though the hype carried through.

I think its makes more sense to say 'a big example of great marketing and hype, post 1996' as prior to this, well circa 1986-1989, there is no doubt hype was there, as well as marketing but there is ability, performances and a resume to back this up. Throw in a decent run and list of opponents from 1990 - 1996, and although clearly not what he once was, his previous accomplishments and performances carried this. Mike Tyson is Mike Tyson and even today, he would be well paid as people still remember. This shouldn't reason alone to label him 'hype'.

Wilder is a much more recent example of trying to create 'hype and marketing'. Why? Because he has a big punch and people love KOs (his resume is awful, however). GGG was the same, to a degree. It is a blessing and curse, somewhat.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Really? Have you thought this through? Don't get me wrong, it may seem like that but... I have been analyzing the careers of heavyweight fighters for many years, from various angles. And I know how much marketing, circumstances, various aspects mean... in my opinion, Tyson is hugely underrated today. Realistically, it could be the top 3-5 when it comes to HW ever. I don't mean H2H, just real achievements. Of course, it is largely a matter of interpretation and a matter of convention, but if I didn't exercise my mind, it would be impossible to objectively throw it out of the top 5, but of course I respect every substantive opinion. Tyson's assessment is difficult because he had several stages. In the last one he was a ypurneyman, although in terms of marketing he was a star. I suspect that the author of the post is confusing these concepts and Tyson after 1995 is someone on the level of Jesse Ferguson 1986, but the hype is huge, Tyson from 2002 is a fighter who would have no chance against Alex Stewart and yet he received 20 million for the fight. However, nothing happened without a reason.

Correct, a lot is down to interpretation. Very marketable, the 'fear factor' and yes, hype.

Of course, as his career went on, it became less about his abilities and more of what he once was. Should that detract from his past accomplishments, I do not believe so. though the hype carried through.

I think its makes more sense to say 'a big example of great marketing and hype, post 1996' as prior to this, well circa 1986-1989, there is no doubt hype was there, as well as marketing but there is ability, performances and a resume to back this up. Throw in a decent run and list of opponents from 1990 - 1996, and although clearly not what he once was, his previous accomplishments and performances carried this. Mike Tyson is Mike Tyson and even today, he would be well paid as people still remember. This shouldn't reason alone to label him 'hype'.

Wilder is a much more recent example of trying to create 'hype and marketing'. Why? Because he has a big punch and people love KOs (his resume is awful, however). GGG was the same, to a degree. It is a blessing and curse, somewhat.

- Other factors of Mike's popularity beside the KO excitement was that he was record setting Heavy who was so young and well spoken, in particular to boxing history where he outstripped most all of the media airheads

Then a juvenile delinquent turning his life around, an All American Horatio Alger success that resulted in such a spectacular beginning that even the crusty old salts who seldom like newer generations were saying Mike might well be the best heavyweight ever. No 21 year old kid ever had that kind of respect. Ring's P4P Debut had Mike as #1, think about that.

His collapse starts with the deaths of his beloved mentors Jacobs and Cus. So vulturous DKing and Robin Givens and other greedy sycophants sank their greedy fangs into him where he ends up in prison while his $50Mil Retirement Annuity is sacked, yet even his slow motion trainwreck was a succession of huge media attentions.

Yet here he is back again after having managed to recreate himself yet again as a Businessman and Media Boxing Exhibition Bonanza.

Without Mike, nobody remembers that era they were so boring.

[Caractacus]

Mike Tyson said in his autobiography, that he helped usher in the era of Gansta rap,
Bling-Bling and that type of stuff when he became the youngest HW champ ever in 1986.
-1991-

[NazNaci1]

Really? Have you thought this through? Don't get me wrong, it may seem like that but... I have been analyzing the careers of heavyweight fighters for many years, from various angles. And I know how much marketing, circumstances, various aspects mean... in my opinion, Tyson is hugely underrated today. Realistically, it could be the top 3-5 when it comes to HW ever. I don't mean H2H, just real achievements. Of course, it is largely a matter of interpretation and a matter of convention, but if I didn't exercise my mind, it would be impossible to objectively throw it out of the top 5, but of course I respect every substantive opinion. Tyson's assessment is difficult because he had several stages. In the last one he was a ypurneyman, although in terms of marketing he was a star. I suspect that the author of the post is confusing these concepts and Tyson after 1995 is someone on the level of Jesse Ferguson 1986, but the hype is huge, Tyson from 2002 is a fighter who would have no chance against Alex Stewart and yet he received 20 million for the fight. However, nothing happened without a reason.

Correct, a lot is down to interpretation. Very marketable, the 'fear factor' and yes, hype.

Of course, as his career went on, it became less about his abilities and more of what he once was. Should that detract from his past accomplishments, I do not believe so. though the hype carried through.

I think its makes more sense to say 'a big example of great marketing and hype, post 1996' as prior to this, well circa 1986-1989, there is no doubt hype was there, as well as marketing but there is ability, performances and a resume to back this up. Throw in a decent run and list of opponents from 1990 - 1996, and although clearly not what he once was, his previous accomplishments and performances carried this. Mike Tyson is Mike Tyson and even today, he would be well paid as people still remember. This shouldn't reason alone to label him 'hype'.

Wilder is a much more recent example of trying to create 'hype and marketing'. Why? Because he has a big punch and people love KOs (his resume is awful, however). GGG was the same, to a degree. It is a blessing and curse, somewhat.

- Other factors of Mike's popularity beside the KO excitement was that he was record setting Heavy who was so young and well spoken, in particular to boxing history where he outstripped most all of the media airheads

Then a juvenile delinquent turning his life around, an All American Horatio Alger success that resulted in such a spectacular beginning that even the crusty old salts who seldom like newer generations were saying Mike might well be the best heavyweight ever. No 21 year old kid ever had that kind of respect. Ring's P4P Debut had Mike as #1, think about that.

His collapse starts with the deaths of his beloved mentors Jacobs and Cus. So vulturous DKing and Robin Givens and other greedy sycophants sank their greedy fangs into him where he ends up in prison while his $50Mil Retirement Annuity is sacked, yet even his slow motion trainwreck was a succession of huge media attentions.

Yet here he is back again after having managed to recreate himself yet again as a Businessman and Media Boxing Exhibition Bonanza.

Without Mike, nobody remembers that era they were so boring.

Have to agree, BRR

[Caractacus]

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Lennox lewis all marketing and hype

Lost to bums rahman and mccall by knockout
Struggled with old small holyfield (his best win)
Beat an old shot tyson
Arguably lost to ray mercer

You can do this with anyone.

[Ambling Alp II]

Totally agree. Of course, people naturally just look at the negatives f a guy that we don't like and mostly ignore the positives. The opposite is done with guys that like.

What we need to do is weigh the positives against the negatives when rating a particular fighter. Whether we like him or not.

Some people overrate Tyson. (They usually refer to him as Mike)
Some people underrate him.

He was probably just outside the top 10 heavyweights of all time. If someone has him just inside the top 10, Ok. But saying he is right at the top overrating him. If someone has him say #15, well Ok. But much lower it is obvious that they are underrating him.

[Jakub079]

I still think it's a solid top 3. Why? because no one below has such achievements - defeating 5 current world champions, outclassing 3 Olympic champions, outclassing a linear champion, defeating 5 former champions, the most brilliant series of victories over valuable rivals since 1986-1991, covering fights more or less from beating Ribalta to beating Razor , there are a dozen or so very valuable victories with one defeat. Larry Holmes was the only one in his 30-year career to knock out... thank you, that's enough. Someone may rate it top 15, I have no problem with that. Damn, if someone rates him lower than Kevin McBride and says Kevin was always out of reach, then so be it. 90% of people are fooled by appearances.

[Ambling Alp II]

Top 3 is way too high. You are only looking at good points and overrating it at that. He beat WBS Champions. Good fighters, none were close to being the best in the world. Beating Olympic Champions means next to nothing. Yes he stopped an ancient Larry Holmes. you can't count that and then ignore the McBride fight. (I ignore both)
he managed to lose to Buster Douglas.

He isn't close to Ali and Louis.
Ranking Holyfield #3 is a reach and Tyson was clearly not as good as him. Don't see how he can be higher than Holmes, Frazier, Lewis etc. either.

Again, you have to weigh the good against the bad.

[Jakub079]

due to the above mentioned. I think he can compete with Holyfield but with Lewis? Which victory is Lewis's best? And why are you ignoring Holmes? Tyson crushed him, Holy wasn't even close. It's the difference. Am I looking at the best? yes, I'm looking at real achievements. Wasn't Leon Spinks, who was a drug addict and after winning against Ali, descended to the level of yourneyman, a great player? Should we give him a win over The Greatest? pretend he wasn't there? Leon ended his career with a Yourneyman record, at one point he was knocked out by a debutant, but what does that change? If you want, you can do it, just like saying that Tyson couldn't beat Kevin McBride and ranking this guy higher than him... reminds me of the situation when the great Roy Jones came to Poland and fought against someone named Paweł Glazewski. everyone said --- wooow, the greatest fighter, a legend, a wizard is coming... and after the fight he should have lost they said - eeee, these boxers from overseas are overrated