Would Mike Tyson have had sustained success against today's Super Heavy weights?

badabing106

I know that alot of people will look back with rose tinted glasses and say he would have knocked out everyone today within 3 rounds, but I don't think he would

I'm not sure he would have had much success against the best biggest guys today. Not sustainable success

Sure he could knock them out if they make a mistake , but if he doesn't do it within the first few rounds. He's kind of absolutely shot, and in for a long beating

He would have no intimidation factor over today's Big heavyweights. I can't imagine Anthony joshua, Deontay Wilder or Tyson Fury quaking in their boots facing a 5 foot ten boxer? I think the blue print for defeating a much smaller heavyweight has been well and truely written?

thierry14

A focused and hungry Tyson would have no problems against today's heavies, madness to think otherwise

He gave Lewis problems in the first few rounds and was a decade past his best then.

A fat past prime Lewis tore the face off the best Heavy of the last 15 years in Vitali

Fury would have been tough for Mike, a bit tall and awkward, but would still be beatable

Joshua and Wilder would be easy, both very average,

Wlad would be tough to hit, if Mike did connect it's over

Vitali would beat Mike everytime too big and hard

badabing106

thierry14 wrote: »

A focused and hungry Tyson would have no problems against today's heavies, madness to think otherwise

I could say the same thing about Tyson Fury. If a disciplined and focused Tyson Fury fought a focused and hungry Mike Tyson. Tyson Fury would win

selectamatic

Prime Tyson would demolish wilder very early.
I'd be pretty confident of him getting the k/o on both AJ and wlad before the 6th.
In the case of fury it'd pretty much be over whenever Mike landed and to date nearly every fury opponent has landed something of note over the 12rds.

Also Prior to the Buster Douglas fight Mike's stamina was always pretty much grand he could and did go the distance on a number of occasions and also got a number of stoppages in the latter rounds so again I don't see the issue.

Anyone saying Mike can be competitive against today's heavies isn't looking through rose tinted glasses at all IMO, they're simply acknowledging how good he was.

And finally to think a Mike Tyson with a 35-0 win streak wouldn't be intimidating is quite a statement.

walshb

Just go watch the 1986/1987/1988 and 1989 tapes.

These threads pop up all the time.

Look at the best today. Are they really special? Can they be hurt? Absolutely, and with a peak Tyson who had a granite chin, very good fitness and the speed of feet and hands to get in and whack the bigger men, then the likes of AJ would be demolished in no time. He thinks that extended right hand that Wlad hit him with was heavy?

Tyson would absolutely rule today if he was at his best. Too good in all areas, and and areas that is sometimes overlooked is his boxing ability and defense.

Tyson Fury would likely be broken down with vicious body attacks. Seriously, does Tyson Fury land anything on a bobbing and weaving Tyson? And if he does, do they deter Tyson? No way. Plus, Tyson will be able to reach Fury's head. It's not an impossibility.

walshb

BTW, what SHs are out there today?

Wilder is not a SHW in the same sense that Bowe and Lewis were

AJ is a SHW, but really, so what. He is too hittable, and with Tyson connecting he gets decimated. Tyson fights to "kill," not to win.

Wlad has no hope against a prime Tyson

Vitali.....yes. Big, tough and can box and spoil. Still think he would need to be at his best. No way he just strolls in there and beats Tyson handy. But a few years retired now, so not relevant.

Who else today? Haye, Bellew, Parker.........what a joke.

titan18

Vitali at his best is the only one who beats Tyson imo, and even then that's not a guarantee, but I'd favour him. Anyone else over the last 10-15 years is blown out of there tbh

Phil.x

Anthony joshua!! Please, he'd be only cannon fodder to tyson.

thierry14

titan18 wrote: »

Vitali at his best is the only one who beats Tyson imo, and even then that's not a guarantee, but I'd favour him. Anyone else over the last 10-15 years is blown out of there tbh

That would be my feeling too

I don't give Mike any chance though, it's a bad much up for him, Vitali can take his shots and give it back

Vitali is a bad matchup for everyone

Vitali would beat Joshua and the likes today lol, don't rate any of them

Holyhead vs today's heavies would have been a better topic as he didn't have the power Mike had

walshb

Holyfield, like Mike would rule today. He's a different kind of operator, but his rhythm, fluidity, chin, combination punching, overall variety and game, as well as his indomitable spirit would see him carve up any HW today.

Watch the tapes from 1991-1992..he may not have had crippling one punch power, but he could hurt you, and more impressively was his follow up shots.

AJ is lauded as number 1 today. Barring a one shot KO he has no chance. Anyone doubting that go watch Bowe-Holyfield 1. Bowe for me clearly superior in every department compared to both AJ and Wlad.

Holyfield gets right through AJ and Wlad to land heavy and sustained combinations taking both out early to mid rds.

Fury offers nothing but height and awkwardness.

Wilder has only a punchers chance, and for me he won't do it.

badabing106

Wlad and fury would have stolen Mike's soul. The frustration of not being able to get near them. Getting peppered with shots, leaned on, man handled thrown to the floor. By the 4th or 5th with all his energy gone, his legs shot . quitting in the stool or getting disqualified is his only way out. Have we not seen this all before. Everyone wishes to imagine him highlight reel knocking out everyone like he was some cartoon character. The reality would be and was different

A prime Tyson lost to a gatekeeper. His cleverly crafted aura was gone. He was only 24 years old. Had he fought Holyfield after his loss to Douglas, he would have lost. Holyfield was a better fighter, and obviously better mentally.

walshb

Douglas was no gatekeeper. He was 6'4" and circa 230 lbs and in his prime against an underprepared Tyson. Douglas was ranked elite in 1990.

Simple. Tyson got to the chins of bigger men and knocked them out. Wlad's chin is far too vulnerable to have any confidence in it. Tyson will land on it and knock Wlad out.

Fury? Not even going to entertain that lump as having the remotest chance to survive, let alone beat a peak Tyson..

boxer.fan

Tyson was a different animal to any of those around these days. His bodywork was ferocious and his ability to get inside and create havoc was a joy to watch. He would make today's heavyweights look like plodders.
I can't see any way Wlad, AJ, Fury, Wilder or any of the other jokers would drag Tyson into later rounds.

Littlehorny

This debate is exactly why Tyson must be the most talked about fighter since Ali, he is a riddle wrapped in a puzzle. We all seen his highlight reels when he was young and in love with the sport, his speed, movement, power and ferocity has us lining up to watch his fights. Even if they only lasted a round!
But when you talk of Tyson you also have to be balanced in your analysis.
1. He beat good fighters, no greats, when he met the two best of his era (Holyfield and Lewis) he lost.
2. He never came from behind to win a real war in his career.
3. He was finished and "past it" at 24, no other fighter in the world gets to use this as an excuse, when i here the words "prime Tyson" it makes my teeth curl. What does it mean?
4. He was made to look human by a few lesser fighters in his early twenties (James Tillis, Mitch Green,Tony Tucker)
Saying that Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis would be competitive in any era and if they were around today we would be the better for it. The Klitchko's have done enough to be part of this debate but the rest have done fub all to convince me that Tyson wouldn't blow them away.

megadodge

Littlehorny wrote: »

This debate is exactly why Tyson must be the most talked about fighter since Ali, he is a riddle wrapped in a puzzle. We all seen his highlight reels when he was young and in love with the sport, his speed, movement, power and ferocity has us lining up to watch his fights. Even if they only lasted a round!
But when you talk of Tyson you also have to be balanced in your analysis.
1. He beat good fighters, no greats, when he met the two best of his era (Holyfield and Lewis) he lost.
2. He never came from behind to win a real war in his career.
3. He was finished and "past it" at 24, no other fighter in the world gets to use this as an excuse, when i here the words "prime Tyson" it makes my teeth curl. What does it mean?
4. He was made to look human by a few lesser fighters in his early twenties (James Tillis, Mitch Green,Tony Tucker)
Saying that Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis would be competitive in any era and if they were around today we would be the better for it. The Klitchko's have done enough to be part of this debate but the rest have done fub all to convince me that Tyson wouldn't blow them away.

Point 3 is a long standing bugbear of mine. I have mentioned here on a few occasions about how no other boxer in history would ever be allowed that as an excuse, but Tyson gets a free pass.

By the way, he was 23 in the Douglas fight. Worse again.

Too Tough To Die

The Gypsy King would've boxed his ears off.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Point 3 is a long standing bugbear of mine. I have mentioned here on a few occasions about how no other boxer in history would ever be allowed that as an excuse, but Tyson gets a free pass.

By the way, he was 23 in the Douglas fight. Worse again.

I don't think most people are saying he was finished and passed it by 24. I know I am not.

My point in the Tokyo loss was to do with Mike not being as prepared mentally and physically for that fight as he was when Rooney was his man.

Tyson's life was spiralling out of control, and this affected him in Tokyo. No doubt about it. There was a sharpness missing. Clear to me.

Is that an excuse? Yes, but not to say that he was finished or passed his best. Simply to say that he was not the same fighter that night that he was previously, particularly when Rooney was his man.

walshb

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

The Gypsy King would've boxed his ears off.

Until Mike hit him!

ThinkProgress

Littlehorny wrote: »

3. He was finished and "past it" at 24, no other fighter in the world gets to use this as an excuse, when i here the words "prime Tyson" it makes my teeth curl. What does it mean?

Because he was no ordinary heavyweight (in any sense of the word)

It is perfectly conceivable that a 5ft 10in heavyweight could very well be past their athletic prime by mid twenties... in an era of giants!

I think people underestimate just how physically incredible you need to be, in order to blitz through the HW division KO'ing everyone, when you are shorter than some middleweights!!

And also, just how clever your fighting style needs to be.

The very early mike tyson, is the only tyson that I personally rate. We got a small glimpse at something very special and unique... and then it was gone!

That version of tyson, could have given any HW in history a serious headache!!

Did Tyson ever fail a test for PEDs? or was it only for recreational drugs?

sReq | uTeK

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did Tyson ever fail a test for PEDs? or was it only for recreational drugs?

Fantastic contribution...lets muddy the waters for no reason other than to do so.

sReq | uTeK

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Fantastic contribution...lets muddy the waters for no reason other than to do so.

I am not trolling or anything. I honestly love Tyson, I am genuinely curious if he ever failed because of PEDs Tyson is a legend, the guy is amazing. The point of a forum is to ask questions and find out information, I thought this being the boxing forum, someone might know what I asked.

mfceiling

Lads Tyson would have eaten today's HW's no bother. The man was in a spiral of self abuse when he fought Douglas. If he had managed to keep his nose (literally) clean and stayed dedicated to boxing, he would have passed marciano's figure. He was a machine...every fighter he came up against was destroyed. His movement was unreal and his punching power was unsurpassed.

deadybai

Mike Tyson is a bit like Wayne Rooney in the soccer . One of the most gifted around but when it came to game day he underwhelmed.

Rooney is England an Man United's top scorer. Yet he probably would be lucky to make top ten greats for either of them.

Similar to rooney, Tyson has all the kos in the world but any of his biggest fights he was destroyed.

Its funny how sport can be like that.

i thinkTyson would be similar today if he was around. Hed beat the lesser fighters like Joshua but lose against the proven apponents like vitali.

normanoffside

The problem with all Tyson debates is his longevity. 'Prime' Tyson only lasted a few years in his early 20s and at that time his opposition wasn't great. Maybe this prime Tyson was TBE but who will ever know? Most TBE contenders hung around for a much longer period....

Tyson had potential to be the best ever but self discipline let him down.

walshb

normanoffside wrote: »

The problem with all Tyson debates is his longevity. 'Prime' Tyson only lasted a few years in his early 20s and at that time his opposition wasn't great. Maybe this prime Tyson was TBE but who will ever know? Most TBE contenders hung around for a much longer period....

Tyson had potential to be the best ever but self discipline let him down.

The thread is not asking about atg or tbe..

normanoffside

walshb wrote: »

The thread is not asking about atg or tbe..

Yeah but it's really hard to evaluate someone on such a limited timespan

walshb

normanoffside wrote: »

Yeah but it's really hard to evaluate someone on such a limited timespan

4 years he ruled..

He also had some real success post 1990.

Surely there is enough there to give a view on how he fares against the best of today.

robfowler78

The fact with Tyson is no one will every know how good he could have been. In his early career he was clearly unstoppable in his division. He had beaten everyone put up in front of him. He never really ducked anyone he just happened to go of the rails before he was to fight holyfield. After his release he still had enough to beat some of the heavy weights around including two champions. He was clearly not the same fighter he had no stamina and his movement was nonexistent. Yet he was able to go more then 10 rounds with Lewis and holyfield. I think that shows that even a bad Tyson was dangerous to today's heavyweights. Tyson biggest problem was money and yes men any boxing person can see he completely changed once he had money and fame.

walshb

deadybai wrote: »

Mike Tyson is a bit like Wayne Rooney in the soccer . One of the most gifted around but when it came to game day he underwhelmed.

Rooney is England an Man United's top scorer. Yet he probably would be lucky to make top ten greats for either of them.

Similar to rooney, Tyson has all the kos in the world but any of his biggest fights he was destroyed.

Its funny how sport can be like that.

i thinkTyson would be similar today if he was around. Hed beat the lesser fighters like Joshua but lose against the proven apponents like vitali.

So the ten or so championship fights that just happened to include unifying the championship in quite a dominant fashion, they weren't the game days, only the losses post prison when clearly past his best, they were the game days?

The selectivity here is bewildering.

Tyson accomplished more than enough in the 7-8 years of success for us to make an assessment of how he fares against the best around today.

1986-1990 is 5 calendar years. 1991 is one more year

1995 is another year. That is 7 calendar years with one single defeat, and circa 13 championship fights with 12 wins..and on game day he underwhelmed? Wtf...

1996 saw his 14th championship fight, and 2nd loss, that to Evander.

walshb

That Louis and Ali duo. Just couldn't perform on game days...that angle can be thrown at any fighter...

For the record. I am not saying this is true. Just pointing out the absurdity of it.

walshb

In relation to peak and prime, Tyson's 4 year prime for me was 1986-1989 inclusive.

Is this "short" span all that different than many other great champions?

Ali, for example had a prine of 4-5 years from 1964-1968 or so.

Yes, Vietnam got involved, but he was at his best in this years I felt.

Holmes was maybe 5-6 years from 1979-1984

I could list so many others across loads of divisions that were really only at prime for a few years..

Same with athletes in loads of sports. Their prime is usually only a few years.

ThinkProgress

When you talk about "prime" Tyson, you are not just talking about Mike... because you are also talking about the genius of Cus D'amato.

Cus turned what should have been a weakness (Tyson's small stature), into a devastating strength. His peek-a-boo strategy, essentially made Tyson into an aggressive pressure fighter, who was almost impossible for opponents to hit with a clean shot coming in!

Of course, that strategy was incredibly difficult to implement in the ring. Tyson was the perfect mixture of power, speed and aggression... combined with a very clever fight strategy. But under Cus, Tyson basically lived like a monk. His training regime was insane... (inhuman is another word you could use to describe it)

Cus's philosophy, was that "speed kills"... he focused on workouts that would build explosive speed, while also building endurance too. Tyson was almost never allowed to lift weights, because Cus believed that weights slowed you down. He did do massive amounts of calisthenics though... he was known for doing up to 2,000 sit-ups, 500 push-ups, 800 dips etc etc... (per day!!!)

But he also did a lot of road work and lots of sparring, heavy bag, skipping and endurance work on a stationary bike.

This meant Tyson had amazing power, but also the speed and stamina of a much smaller fighter!

Later in his career, after Cus had died... trainers had him doing more mainstream training methods (including lots of weight-lifting). This dramatically slowed him down, and made him much easier to hit. He also stopped using the strategy Cus had drilled into him... meaning he was often standing square on with much bigger guys, and trading shots with them.

You can look at Cus D'amato as being an old, out of touch dinosaur of the past... but I personally think the man was a genius. He turned a shy unconfident raw talent, into the youngest HW world champion in history. For me, he played a huge role in the Iron Mike we saw in those early years!! Tyson was his parting gift to the sport he loved. One last great masterpiece!

Plus he genuinely cared about the kid... Mike was like a lost soul for a long time after Cus died.

thierry14

robfowler78 wrote: »

The fact with Tyson is no one will every know how good he could have been. In his early career he was clearly unstoppable in his division. He had beaten everyone put up in front of him. He never really ducked anyone he just happened to go of the rails before he was to fight holyfield. After his release he still had enough to beat some of the heavy weights around including two champions. He was clearly not the same fighter he had no stamina and his movement was nonexistent. Yet he was able to go more then 10 rounds with Lewis and holyfield. I think that shows that even a bad Tyson was dangerous to today's heavyweights. Tyson biggest problem was money and yes men any boxing person can see he completely changed once he had money and fame.

That's why Mike deserves to be talked as a great

He was shot against Lewis etc but still gave him problems early on

The Ronaldinho of boxing 😉

robfowler78

thierry14 wrote: »

That's why Mike deserves to be talked as a great

He was shot against Lewis etc but still gave him problems early on

The Ronaldinho of boxing 😉

Exactly my point the Tyson after prison was still classed as a top ten heavyweight. He had lost at least 50% of what he was but could still beat alot of the heavyweights around .

walshb

Kevin Rooney was as much if not more influential in Mike's success/career than Cus. As soon as Rooney was fired, Mike noticeably declined bed.

Jimmy Jacobs another very important and guiding figure.

walshb

thierry14 wrote: »

That's why Mike deserves to be talked as a great

He was shot against Lewis etc but still gave him problems early on

The Ronaldinho of boxing ��

Absolutely shot, yet you will always get numpties using this loss as a reason why he wasn't all that great

Like me using Ali's Berbick loss in 1981 as a stick to beat him with.

For me a prime Tyson takes a prime Lewis 8-10 times, and by KO.

The Nal

walshb wrote: »

Absolutely shot, yet you will always get numpties using this loss as a reason why he wasn't all that great

Sensational fighter early in his career but he really only beat bums then. The HW division was in the bin when he started. Maybe with the exception of Spinks.

Lost to any good fighter he faced, got KO'd by James Buster Fúcking Douglas, never avenged any of his defeats, never got off the floor to win and was KO'd more times than any other heavyweight champion apart from Buster Douglas. Not close to the top 10 heavyweights ever never mind top boxers.

That said, a 1988/89 Kevin Rooney trained Tyson would stand up to anyone including the modern superheavyweights.

walshb

The Nal wrote: »

Sensational fighter early in his career but he really only beat bums then. The HW division was in the bin when he started. Maybe with the exception of Spinks.

Lost to any good fighter he faced, got KO'd by James Buster Fúcking Douglas, never avenged any of his defeats, never got off the floor to win and was KO'd more times than any other heavyweight champion apart from Buster Douglas. Not close to the top 10 heavyweights ever never mind top boxers.

That said, a 1988/89 Kevin Rooney trained Tyson would stand up to anyone including the modern superheavyweights.

Yet Spinks was his easiest night. Spinks was a small and weak HW.

Tyson had far tougher men to beat.

The whole bums thing is constantly rolled out. It's nonsense. He beat the best men on earth during a 4 year reign. A very dominant reign.

Anyway, at his best he would be a very successful and dominant champion today and recently...

I can only personally think of Vitali giving him real trouble....

Sweet Science

All i know for sure is there will never ever be another boxer like him.

Ever

The Nal

walshb wrote: »

The whole bums thing is constantly rolled out. It's nonsense. He beat the best men on earth during a 4 year reign. A very dominant reign.

He beat James Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, a then retired 38 year old Larry Holmes, Tony Tubbs, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Carl Williams and then got KO'd by Buster Douglas. Dodged Riddick Bowe.

Hardly a glittering run compared to the other greats.

walshb

The Nal wrote: »

He beat James Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, a then retired 38 year old Larry Holmes, Tony Tubbs, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Carl Williams and then got KO'd by Buster Douglas.

Hardly a glittering run.

Well, I could call out other champions and their hardly glittering run as well.

He was devastating in dispatching many of them. Never came close to getting beaten.

Take Holyfield.....he beat an even farther past his prime Holmes and took 12 rds to do it.

He also beat a past his prime slower Foreman in 1991.

Bert Cooper? C'mon....

then he met a quality big HW and was beaten. Clearly beaten in an excellent fight and an excellent display from both

Lost to Michael Moorer for chrissake...Tyson would have whacked Moorer in two rds tops.

People can nit pick here and there on many areas and aspects of fighters' careers.

I prefer to focus on and discuss and assess them when at prime...Holyfield as well. Holyfield at prime was brilliant.

Tyson's prime was a 4 years reign where he lost once. He lost to a big and committed and excellently put together Douglas. That night Douglas fought brilliantly, as well as having all the tools necessary. Mike fought well, but was definitely not the same Tyson as regards preparation and focus. Just read up on it...

Who today and recently would have been superior to Mike? Who would have beaten him? I can only think of Vitali, and IMO Vitali if he wins damn well earns it against a prime Tyson.

The Nal

walshb wrote: »

Mike fought well, but was definitely not the same Tyson as regards preparation and focus. Just read up on it...

Oh I know yeah. Water in rubber glove instead of an ice pack etc. Preparation and focus are all part of being an all time great though.

walshb wrote: »

Who today and recently would have been superior to Mike? Who would have beaten him? I can only think of Vitali, and IMO Vitali if he wins damn well earns it against a prime Tyson.

Its a short list. Post Tyson is arguably the worst period ever for HW boxing. Post Joe Louis maybe the only worse era.

walshb

The Nal wrote: »

Oh I know yeah. Water in rubber glove instead of an ice pack etc. Preparation and focus are all part of being an all time great though.
.

And plenty of ATGs had off nights and losses and poor performances for varieties of reasons.

When you look through Tyson's whole career he is a first balloT HOF fighter. He is a legitimately and deserved ATG at HW!

The Nal

walshb wrote: »

He is a legitimately and deserved ATG at HW!

No question. Top 15 for me.

Maravilla33

The Nal wrote: »

He beat James Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, a then retired 38 year old Larry Holmes, Tony Tubbs, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Carl Williams and then got KO'd by Buster Douglas. Dodged Riddick Bowe.

Hardly a glittering run compared to the other greats.

Really? Tyson won the title in 86. By the time he lost it in 1990 vs Douglas, Bowe was a 14-0 novice who'd fought nobody. Tyson then went to jail and Bowe won the titles. By the time Tyson fought Holyfield Bowe was pretty much done. Their peaks didn't overlap, there was never a time they should have fought but didn't. Think Tyson said he wanted to fight him but wouldn't because they were friends but I'd have little interest in a shot Tyson fighting an on his way out Bowe.

The Nal

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Really? Tyson won the title in 86. By the time he lost it in 1990 vs Douglas, Bowe was a 14-0 novice who'd fought nobody. Tyson then went to jail and Bowe won the titles. By the time Tyson fought Holyfield Bowe was pretty much done. Their peaks didn't overlap, there was never a time they should have fought but didn't. Think Tyson said he wanted to fight him but wouldn't because they were friends but I'd have little interest in a shot Tyson fighting an on his way out Bowe.

Sorry should've added that it wasn't in the initial run when he dodged him.

Holyfield lost to Bowe a year before he beat Tyson. So Bowe was on the way out then apparently but he beat Holyfield who then went on to beat Tyson.

Tyson vs Bowe would've been two 29/30 year olds against each other.

I agree Bowe had a very short prime though.

walshb

The Nal wrote: »

No question. Top 15 for me.

ATG fighter period I should have said.

walshb

The Nal wrote: »

Sorry should've added that it wasn't in the initial run when he dodged him.

Holyfield lost to Bowe a year before he beat Tyson. So Bowe was on the way out then apparently but he beat Holyfield who then went on to beat Tyson.

Tyson vs Bowe would've been two 29/30 year olds against each other.

I agree Bowe had a very short prime though.

When did he dodge him though, and who says he dodged him? There is no real evidence to back that up.

We know Bowe dodged LL. That was real, genuine, tangible. Tyson dodging Bowe? I never even heard that mentioned till now...

Maravilla33

The Nal wrote: »

Sorry should've added that it wasn't in the initial run when he dodged him.

Holyfield lost to Bowe a year before he beat Tyson. So Bowe was on the way out then apparently but he beat Holyfield who then went on to beat Tyson.

Tyson vs Bowe would've been two 29/30 year olds against each other.

I agree Bowe had a very short prime though.

Sounds good but we both know Tyson was done by then and Bowe wasn't far off. Can dress it up however we want but it was never really a viable fight and can hardly say Tyson dodged him. Just seems like another stick to beat Tyson with. I agree with some of your points about him but then others seem a bit too simplistic/twisted to suit the argument. I'm far from a Tyson fan boy but think he gets a raw deal from some and is ridiculously worshipped by others. Very little middle ground.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Sounds good but we both know Tyson was done by then and Bowe wasn't far off. Can dress it up however we want but it was never really a viable fight and can hardly say Tyson dodged him. Just seems like another stick to beat Tyson with. I agree with some of your points about him but then others seem a bit too simplistic/twisted to suit the argument. I'm far from a Tyson fan boy but think he gets a raw deal from some and is ridiculously worshipped by others. Very little middle ground.

I agree. Slated OTT by some and made into a god by others....

My biggest issue is how he gets criticized for x, y and z when you could apply x, y and z to many greats fighters..

Some of the points and criticisms used to slate Mike are juts bonkers, and reek of a dislike for the man as a fighter.

You hear people, talk about his LL loss and his McBride loss as evidence that he was a quitter and not that good......

His record speaks for itself at peak....

Utterly dominant and utterly successful, and over 4 years. It's a fairly decent stretch.

He also had success post Douglas, and post prison when clearly past his peak. Several good wins on the resume.