Mike Tyson vs Muhammad Ali

[QUOTE=bdreason]I was raised on Tyson, but he was never a complete fighter. He was a devastating puncher who could dispose of anyone who would stand in front of him... but his technical abilities and boxing IQ was average at best. If his career had taken a different path, maybe he could have become a complete fighter.[/QUOTE]

Go watch Tyson vs Ribalta. He went past the the 4th round for the very first time in his career I believe. Ribalata was a very good fighter and too bad how the fight ended but you can clearly see Tyson's skill as a technical fighter.

[QUOTE=plowking]Boxing has always been a longevity biased sport, and I'm fine with that, but to deny Mike being a very special fighter at his best is meh.
The way you've come to talk about Tyson in these discussions is bordering on the point of criminally underrating him. Not this particular post, but just in general.

He was a very special fighter at his best, and yes, it may have been short livem but its true.[/QUOTE]
It's not just about longevity. It's about the myriad of excuses we have to read about every time Tyson's name pops up in a discussion, which usually centers around how he'd theoretically do against a true all-time great when the reality is he had several chances against other greats of his own era in real life and he was summarily blown out of the water each time.

If any other fan of any other athlete in any sport posted the avalanche of excuses which routinely are accepted when it comes to Tyson, they'd be laughed off the board and out of the room.

And, calling Tyson maybe the third best fighter of his generation isn't underrating him, let alone "criminally" underrating him. I was/am a big fan of Tyson. I love watching his old fights. I grew up with him knocking guys out left and right. He was the guy my generation revered and feared as we were growing up. It was a lot of fun.

But, I have too much respect for the sport to turn a blind eye to the facts (like most people do when it comes to Tyson) in favor of continuing the myths about a guy who was a devastating puncher and a promising young champion, but ultimately does not have enough substance to warrant being brought up in any "all-time" conversations.

His greatest wins were against an overblown light heavyweight and a middle aged former champion who hadn't fought in several years. He had three fights against the other best heavyweights of his generation. He was TKOed and knocked out in two of those and he bit the guy's ear off to get the other one stopped prematurely. On top of that, he was the loser in arguably the biggest upset in boxing history.

I'd love to say Tyson stacks up against the best guys who ever laced them up in the division. His actual career accomplishments don't allow me to do so.

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]It's not just about longevity. It's about the myriad of excuses we have to read about every time Tyson's name pops up in a discussion, which usually centers around how he'd theoretically do against a true all-time great when the reality is he had several chances against other greats of his own era in real life and he was summarily blown out of the water each time.

If any other fan of any other athlete in any sport posted the avalanche of excuses which routinely are accepted when it comes to Tyson, they'd be laughed off the board and out of the room.

And, calling Tyson maybe the third best fighter of his generation isn't underrating him, let alone "criminally" underrating him. I was/am a big fan of Tyson. I love watching his old fights. I grew up with him knocking guys out left and right. He was the guy my generation revered and feared as we were growing up. It was a lot of fun.

But, I have too much respect for the sport to turn a blind eye to the facts (like most people do when it comes to Tyson) in favor of continuing the myths about a guy who was a devastating puncher and a promising young champion, but ultimately does not have enough substance to warrant being brought up in any "all-time" conversations.

His greatest wins were against an overblown light heavyweight and a middle aged former champion who hadn't fought in several years. He had three fights against the other best heavyweights of his generation. He was TKOed and knocked out in two of those and he bit the guy's ear off to get the other one stopped prematurely. On top of that, he was the loser in arguably the biggest upset in boxing history.

I'd love to say Tyson stacks up against the best guys who ever laced them up in the division. His actual career accomplishments don't allow me to do so.[/QUOTE]

:facepalm

It comes as no surprise to hear you say these things about Mike Tyson when I have heard you say some outrageous things praising Mayweather.

Stick to MMA.

:facepalm

[QUOTE=iamgine]Riddick Bowe[/QUOTE]

Funny you mention him seeing as he avoided Lennox like the plague. Did not want the fight. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=plowking]Funny you mention him seeing as he avoided Lennox like the plague. Did not want the fight. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
He tried very hard dodging Lewis but that's a big mistake because I think he would have won. He was that good.

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]
I'd love to say Tyson stacks up against the best guys who ever laced them up in the division. His actual career accomplishments don't allow me to do so.[/QUOTE]

That just sums up what I said.

I don't consider Tyson one of the best ever, and I don't ever put him anywhere near the top. And I never said anything about your previous post, or that calling him the 3rd best of his time was underrating him. I'm talking in general, your opinions about him.

Once again, he was a very special fighter, and a great young champion. I couldn't give a damn what happened in the Evander fights. If you actually believe Holyfield would stand a chance against Mike back in his prime, then good for you, but you need to reevaluate your passion and knowledge of boxing. I have no doubt Lennox beats Tyson at any point in his career, but Evander vs Tyson, both at their best, its not close.

And speaking of overrated fighters, Evander is very close to the top of that list.

interesting arguments. so i'm much more of an MMA guy, but for all the accurate critique of tyson, isn't there another way of looking at him? i.e., as two separate fighters?

meaning, one guy who fought with the fury of the gods to make his surrogate father happy? and another guy, sometime after cus' death, who fought with wandering focus and little motivation from then on?

tyson #1's career had a shortish lifespan, but he did pretty much wreck everyone placed in front of him IIRC. that's all he could really do, right?

if he had merely been killed in a plane crash and not fallen apart after his father figure died, we wouldn't hold that against him, would we? we wouldn't say that tyson #2 was a disappointing fighter, therefore the greatness of tyson #1 was diminished by association?

would we?

[QUOTE=GOBB]Ali could go 15 rounds. Could Tyson?[/QUOTE]

1986 Tyson? Easily

People are using past prime arguments to make a case against prime Mike Tyson

[QUOTE=9erempiree]Go watch Tyson vs Ribalta. He went past the the 4th round for the very first time in his career I believe. Ribalata was a very good fighter and too bad how the fight ended but you can clearly see Tyson's skill as a technical fighter.[/QUOTE]

Tyson's defense and instincts are criminally overlooked. He was an absolute master of the science. He studied tape religiously at Cus's house and was as technically sound as any fighter in the history of the sport

[QUOTE=plowking]

There isn't a heavyweight I'd take over Lennox to win a single fight apart from maybe Foreman.[/QUOTE]

You're joking right? Ali would murder Lewis

you have Paul Malignaggi in your avi :lol

Ranking Tyson as the 3rd best hw of his era might actually be generous. Lewis and Holyfield are obviously ahead of him, but bowe has a solid argument too(though he has the same longevity issue that Tyson has)

[QUOTE=raiderfan19]Ranking Tyson as the 3rd best hw of his era might actually be generous. Lewis and Holyfield are obviously ahead of him, but bowe has a solid argument too(though he has the same longevity issue that Tyson has)[/QUOTE]

Lewis and Holyfield are the 90's. Tyson is the 80's. They are not of the same era. Lewis and Holyfield entered their primes in their 30's. Tyson hit his prime in his late teens.

[QUOTE=kNicKz]Lewis and Holyfield are the 90's. Tyson is the 80's. They are not of the same era. Lewis and Holyfield entered their primes in their 30's. Tyson hit his prime in his late teens.[/QUOTE]
You realize that both Lewis and Holyfield are older than Tyson right???

So his era in your opinion is from 1986 to 1989????

Tyson might not have been the best HW in his era, but he was who everybody wanted to see. Same with Pacquiao, they are so popular because they were very fan friendly fighters. Tyson fought a lot of bums in his career but people didnt care. They just wanted to see somebody's head get knocked off. And that is what Tyson gave the fans.

You don't see many fighters, strike fear in their opponents like Tyson did. Some fights, he didnt even come to the ring with entrance music. But with horror movie sounds, which I thought was hilarious. :oldlol: