BoxRec

So be honest now, who here didn't rate Tyson when he was first world champ? Did anyone actually think he was overrated at the time? For those who dislike Tyson now was it more to do with his character, personal life etc.. or as simple as not liking him as a fighter?

I assume you mean rate him in the all time Heayweight standings. I really can't comment on all of that, as the first time I saw Mike Tyson in my lifetime was when he smoked Julius Francis.

I do think he's either in the Top 10 Heavyweights of all time list or just outside of it, and I would favor him to beat a couple of the guys I would rate ahead of him.

gilgamesh wrote:I assume you mean rate him in the all time Heayweight standings.

No I meant who didn't think he was a good fighter. Lots of haters of Tyson now who think he could be beaten by anyone with a good jab and a confident attitude when at his peak he was beating these type of guys with ease.

So did anyone actually watch the early Tyson and think, "he aint all that"?

Maybe a better way of putting it, who has never liked Tyson?

Did I think he was a great fighter? Yes, I still do.

Did I think he would murder any Heavyweight in history? Ummm, no. I always had Holyfield over him, while I thought he would steamroll Douglas I couldn't have been more confident that he was going to lose his next fight.

i honestly don't believe anyone that says they see his rise (at the time not 10 years later on tape) thought tyson was anything other than unstoppable before he lost to douglas . it does wind me up a bit when people that never see a young tyson bring up the lewis fight as if it was the real tyson . the holyfield loses to me was more about styles just as norton handled ali but no one says ali was overated .

gilgamesh wrote:I assume you mean rate him in the all time Heayweight standings. I really can't comment on all of that, as the first time I saw Mike Tyson in my lifetime was when he smoked Julius Francis.

I do think he's either in the Top 10 Heavyweights of all time list or just outside of it, and I would favor him to beat a couple of the guys I would rate ahead of him.

this is what i don't understand how can you rate someone above tyson if you think tyson would beat them . i rate boxers on who i think would beat who ,it amazes me that many would have say jack johnson above tyson but beleive tyson would win .

Because fighters should be rated on what they achieved, not what you think they would do. How many fights do you pick wrong? I'm wrong every week, so while I'd favor Tyson to beat Marciano convincingly; I'm not comfortable going by my own faulty opinions for an all time list.

Although Tyson is one guy I always had pegged pretty well, the only fights I picked wrong in his career were Douglas & Botha.

H2H opinion is the faultiest way to try and make an all time list. You seriously go through the top 100 and pluck out all the winners and create tiebreakers for when fighter A beat fighter B who beat fighter Z but lost to fighter M?

If Roy Jones would have retired after the first Tarver fight, nobody would have said Antonio could beat him. Giving away wins is what leads to the truly bizarre lists.

This is the part that someone says that styles makes fights. A fighter can lose to a fighter rated below them because the lesser fighter happens to have the style to beat the better fighter, but would lose to more other fighters than the superior fighter.

Though this done way too often, there is of course some truth to it. Like in other sports, the lesser fighter (or team) may happen to excel in one or two things that happens to be the one or two things that the better fighter (or team) has trouble handling. If the lesser fighter (or team) is smart enough to exploit this, they have a chance.

If you don't think people think Ali is overrated, you have not read many posts on this forum. He has been getting ripped literally everyday for several years.

As for Tyson being unstoppable, many people thought he was. A few thought he was overrated. I myself, and others, took a wait and see approach. He was still early in his career.

It is worth noting that Tyson did not always steamroll his opponents before he fought Douglas. Of course he did several times. He struggled with James Tillis and to some extent with Tony Tucker. He didn't blow away Smith and Thomas held his own for awhile.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Because fighters should be rated on what they achieved, not what you think they would do. How many fights do you pick wrong? I'm wrong every week, so while I'd favor Tyson to beat Marciano convincingly; I'm not comfortable going by my own faulty opinions for an all time list.

Although Tyson is one guy I always had pegged pretty well, the only fights I picked wrong in his career were Douglas & Botha.

H2H opinion is the faultiest way to try and make an all time list. You seriously go through the top 100 and pluck out all the winners and create tiebreakers for when fighter A beat fighter B who beat fighter Z but lost to fighter M?

If Roy Jones would have retired after the first Tarver fight, nobody would have said Antonio could beat him. Giving away wins is what leads to the truly bizarre lists.

i understand rating fighters on achievment of course i do BUT i don't down grade someone to much if they had say a shortish career , barry mcguigan is a good example i think he won 3 world title fights not that many but i'd say he was a better fighter than that or you could take hopkins without doubt a great boxer but more to do with his longevity than his skills . i just can't rate dempsey above tyson because tyson would crush him .

To be fair Tyson was 19 when he beat Tillis. It's pretty amazing that an inexperienced teenager was knocking fully grown, experienced men over so easily. Tillis was a very experienced old pro with a good chin. No fighter in history beats everyone convincingly, even the top ATGs. Smith and Tucker both fought to survive.

stevedoc wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Because fighters should be rated on what they achieved, not what you think they would do. How many fights do you pick wrong? I'm wrong every week, so while I'd favor Tyson to beat Marciano convincingly; I'm not comfortable going by my own faulty opinions for an all time list.

Although Tyson is one guy I always had pegged pretty well, the only fights I picked wrong in his career were Douglas & Botha.

H2H opinion is the faultiest way to try and make an all time list. You seriously go through the top 100 and pluck out all the winners and create tiebreakers for when fighter A beat fighter B who beat fighter Z but lost to fighter M?

If Roy Jones would have retired after the first Tarver fight, nobody would have said Antonio could beat him. Giving away wins is what leads to the truly bizarre lists.

i understand rating fighters on achievment of course i do BUT i don't down grade someone to much if they had say a shortish career , barry mcguigan is a good example i think he won 3 world title fights not that many but i'd say he was a better fighter than that or you could take hopkins without doubt a great boxer but more to do with his longevity than his skills . i just can't rate dempsey above tyson because tyson would crush him .

I don't rate Dempsey above Tyson either, their resumes are similar. H2H is fine there. Someone like Holyfield is just outside of Tyson's grasp in every conceivable way and I see people rate Mike over him all the time because of some fantasy that he could have beaten him.

Controversial wrote: Smith and Tucker both fought to survive.

If Mike knew how to fight on the inside they wouldn't have been able to. Mike was a happy clincher where he should have been a monster.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

stevedoc wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Because fighters should be rated on what they achieved, not what you think they would do. How many fights do you pick wrong? I'm wrong every week, so while I'd favor Tyson to beat Marciano convincingly; I'm not comfortable going by my own faulty opinions for an all time list.

Although Tyson is one guy I always had pegged pretty well, the only fights I picked wrong in his career were Douglas & Botha.

H2H opinion is the faultiest way to try and make an all time list. You seriously go through the top 100 and pluck out all the winners and create tiebreakers for when fighter A beat fighter B who beat fighter Z but lost to fighter M?

If Roy Jones would have retired after the first Tarver fight, nobody would have said Antonio could beat him. Giving away wins is what leads to the truly bizarre lists.

i understand rating fighters on achievment of course i do BUT i don't down grade someone to much if they had say a shortish career , barry mcguigan is a good example i think he won 3 world title fights not that many but i'd say he was a better fighter than that or you could take hopkins without doubt a great boxer but more to do with his longevity than his skills . i just can't rate dempsey above tyson because tyson would crush him .

I don't rate Dempsey above Tyson either, their resumes are similar. H2H is fine there. Someone like Holyfield is just outside of Tyson's grasp in every conceivable way and I see people rate Mike over him all the time because of some fantasy that he could have beaten him.

i bet on holyfield to beat tyson and holy was always going to give tyson trouble because he boxed like a light heavy weight not a heavy weight with plenty of combo's not the normal jab right hand that heavy weights fought like then . and i rate holy higher because he was a small guy fighting giants and for what he did at cruiser as well

He was stronger than Tyson and he was technically superior to him as well. Mike had nothing for Holyfield.

I rated him…but I knew that the very, very best prove they’re elite fighters by how the deal with defeat…and how they turn losing performances into winning ones.

So, like Alp says, I was waiting for the defining moment. The Holyfield defeats were his defining moments.

I thought Tyson was blow Holy away…

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Because fighters should be rated on what they achieved, not what you think they would do. How many fights do you pick wrong? I'm wrong every week, so while I'd favor Tyson to beat Marciano convincingly; I'm not comfortable going by my own faulty opinions for an all time list.

Although Tyson is one guy I always had pegged pretty well, the only fights I picked wrong in his career were Douglas & Botha.

H2H opinion is the faultiest way to try and make an all time list. You seriously go through the top 100 and pluck out all the winners and create tiebreakers for when fighter A beat fighter B who beat fighter Z but lost to fighter M?

If Roy Jones would have retired after the first Tarver fight, nobody would have said Antonio could beat him. Giving away wins is what leads to the truly bizarre lists.

You do mean before the first Tarver fight, don't you? A lot of people thought Tarver should have got the decision in the first fight; it was very close. It was not surprising after the first fight that Tarver could beat Jones.

No, I meant after. Obviously it would be even more extreme before so that would read better. Roy's fans are quite a group. Maybe not quite as fanatical as Tyson's, but close.

Ambling Alp II wrote:You do mean before the first Tarver fight, don't you? A lot of people thought Tarver should have got the decision in the first fight; it was very close. It was not surprising after the first fight that Tarver could beat Jones.

Roy beat Tarver the first time. Of the 3 official cards, the draw was the best case scenario for Tarver. 115-113 Jones was the correct score that night.

Many people in the late 80s, THE CASUAL BOXING FAN, thought that he was the best thing that ever happened on Earth. I remember those people. They said that nobody could beat him, that he was better than the great Muhammad Ali or any other heavyweight champion before or after put together. That he was also INVINCIBLE IN THEIR EYES.

And for a moment and time, HE LOOKED INVINCIBLE. HE CLEANED UP THE DIVISION when dethroned the great Michael Spinks. Let's give him credit for that. After he dismissed Spinks in 91 seconds, many people believed that he was the greatest fighter ever. And that NOBODY has done the 91 seconds thing before. Then came Buster Douglas. Then came the EXCUSES.

Is the great Mike Tyson a top 10 heavyweight great? To me, he is not. And if he were, he would be in the slots from 8 to 10. He would not be higher than 8 if he were in the top 10. I have him rated at #13 to #15 at Heavyweight and at #94 to #100 in pound per pound all time. He was a great fighter.

I always wonder when people say someone "cleaned out" the division. What does that really mean? Tyson had not yet fought Holyfield. Actually he had not (and never did) fight Dokes, Page and Witherspoon either.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I always wonder when people say someone "cleaned out" the division. What does that really mean? Tyson had not yet fought Holyfield. Actually he had not (and never did) fight Dokes, Page and Witherspoon either.

Its a phrase, there will always be top 10 ranked fighters that never fight for the title. He pretty much beat all those available/eligible to fight him. Tyson fought the winner of Smith vs. Witherspoon (Smith won) and Holyfield was meant to be his next fight after Douglas. To be fair I don't see Dokes or Page lasting too long against him.

Lots of people say Holyfield would have always beaten Tyson but I don't think Tyson was as good in 1996 and 1997 as he was in 1987 and 1988.

Tyson did cleaned up the division. He did it when he destroyed the great Michael Spinks in 91 seconds on June 27, 1988. The great Evander Holyfield was not relevant at the time until he fought Michael Dokes in '89

Ok, so Tyson "cleaned up the division", after defeating Spinks and before Holyfield established himself as a top heavyweight?

I agree that Tyson was unquestionably the best heavyweight in the world after defeating Spinks.
I have heard the term "cleaned up the division" before and had thought that it meant that a fighter had beaten literally every contender, which is next to impossible.