11/21/24
October 17, 2006
Tyson considers fighting women: And the circus continues...
posted by louisville_slugger to boxing at 08:41 AM - 94 comments
But this time he wants to get paid for it.
posted by louisville_slugger at 08:59 AM on October 17, 2006
Honestly, can a long prison term be too far off for this guy? He's obviously just about at rock-bottom. Someone should convince him to join the military, because I'd rather see someone like him have to man those vehicle check points than some of the regular soldiers that have to assume those risks. What else can this guy possibly have to contribute to society, be it now or in the future?
posted by dyams at 09:10 AM on October 17, 2006
I'll be the first to admit that I think I would actually pay to see this.
posted by SummersEve at 09:17 AM on October 17, 2006
Oh, this thread will not go well. I was really hoping that some casino somewhere would give Mike Tyson the Mickey Mantle-type job as a public PR-type ambassador/greeter or something, put him on the payroll, let him work a few days a week and keep him out of bigger trouble and away from demeaning and degrading publicity stunts, like racing horses or doing porn or, well, stuff like this.
posted by chicobangs at 09:25 AM on October 17, 2006
"Tyson said the tour was meant to be fun and raise money for charity" What a barrel of laughs this is gonna be. Wife beating rapist money squanderer turned comedic philanthropist, with proceeds from fighting women. I can't wait.
posted by mjkredliner at 09:31 AM on October 17, 2006
I think Queen Lateefa could take him out !
posted by T.C. at 09:37 AM on October 17, 2006
Just when you think Tyson cannot do anything further to degrade himself more than he already has, he surprises us with something new.
posted by psmealey at 09:41 AM on October 17, 2006
I was reading the Wikipedia article on him.. man what a waste. Threw his dominating talent down the tubes.. anyway. I originally looked up to find out his age. At 40 he's to old to join the military like dyams suggested.
posted by apoch at 09:42 AM on October 17, 2006
Actually, apoch, the military has been bolstering its recruiting by loosening the eligibility rules. This Houston Chronicle blog points out that "The maximum age for recruits was raised from 35 to 42, adding a big chunk of potential enlistees. " So the dream of unleashing Iron Mike on the Sunni Triangle lives on.
posted by Venicemenace at 10:02 AM on October 17, 2006
Oh, this thread will not go well. Exactly why I posted it, thought we could use some comic relief after some of the deep stuff we've been into this week.
posted by louisville_slugger at 10:14 AM on October 17, 2006
Your idea of "comic relief" is...well, never mind.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:18 AM on October 17, 2006
I can't believe I'm reading a Tyson story and saying to myself that he should have done porn. Or at least do the casino greeter tour - you know, first he's at the front door, then he's at the events, then he's greeting people lining up for th $5.99 buffet - THEN he can do the porn. There's an order to these things. He's bucking the tried-and-true system, here. And didn't Brett Maine all ready try this?
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:32 AM on October 17, 2006
He should just go all in and say he wants to fight a tiger. We already know he can beat up a woman, I want to see him fight a tiger, or a grizzly bear or an elephant.
posted by jerseygirl at 10:45 AM on October 17, 2006
I'll be the first to admit that I think I would actually pay to see this SummersEve: I think we all would, it's a curiousity thing. Plus, there was a time when Tyson was the standard bearer of boxing. It's a shame to think whats happened to him.
posted by BornIcon at 10:50 AM on October 17, 2006
This has got to be the grand finalle for ole Iron Mike. Just when you thought you heard the last about Tyson, he pulls this stunt out of his hat. Well, one thing for sure, he's got alot of experience beating up women. Since he can't beat a legitimate heavyweight , or possibly any boxer, he decided he'll try to fight women. Hell,if in fact this happens, I hope some woman out there kicks his ass, and embarrasses the hell out of him. Then after, let the military take him. Put him in the desert with all our other troops who are FIGHTING A REAL FIGHT, some wondering if they are ever coming home alive. Then lets see how big a man he thinks he is. Enough is enough for Mike. He should stop all his foolishness trying to get back into the limelight. He had his day and he blew it. He was once a fierce man in the ring, but he let it slip away.
posted by Ghastly1 at 11:25 AM on October 17, 2006
Mike Tyson: The Most Interesting Train Wreck in Sports. Jerseygirl: I SO want to see him fight an elephant!
posted by Drood at 11:29 AM on October 17, 2006
I was watching some of his early fights on ESPN the other day..they were replaying his 6th and 12th professional fights in entirety (or something like that). I had forgotten how truley awe-inspiring he was in his prime. I had watched him in my younger days and I remember amazement at his fights, but after watching him age and slow down through the years it jades you on how good he was originally. Looking back at those earlier fights, it floored me again, just like in my younger days. I mean I found myself hitting rewind on the tivo repeatedly in awe of each punch and I'm not a huge boxing fan. SOOOO fast and every punch was just like a hammer. It made me go onto bittorent and try to find some of his earlier fights. He's a lunatic and headcase, but man could that kid fight.
posted by bdaddy at 11:31 AM on October 17, 2006
Yea, come to think of it, him fighting an elephant would be pretty entertaining. Just sitting here visualizing it I'm laughing my ass off. Good idea jerseygirl.
posted by Ghastly1 at 11:38 AM on October 17, 2006
I SO want to see him fight an elephant! that's a big ass ear to chew
posted by bdaddy at 11:43 AM on October 17, 2006
No doubt about it bdaddy, he could hit. I too was watching the same thing on ESPN. Watching some of those KO's it's a wonder some of those guys got up. One of,if not the hardest puncher of all time. And to think he hit his wife and girlfriends like that is unreal,
posted by Ghastly1 at 11:47 AM on October 17, 2006
He did say once best punch he ever threw was at then wife Robin Givens. Scary.
posted by jerseygirl at 11:52 AM on October 17, 2006
He is a bad human being, and he is a wife beater. But if he hit 90 pound Robin Givens like he hit in the ring, she would be dead. He's bad enough without exaggerating.
posted by BlueCarp at 12:07 PM on October 17, 2006
The first couple of years he fought, I considered him one of the best heavyweights ever. Now i think of him as nothing but trash. What a sheer waste of talent. Yoy see this in all of sports. Like what Miami did last week. Guess sports does reflect society
posted by texasred at 12:16 PM on October 17, 2006
BlueCarp, If you're implying I am exaggerating or making something up...
Moreover, long before the rape conviction, Tyson's behavior was a model of misogyny. He allegedly boasted that the best punch he ever landed was on Robin Givens, his wife at the time. -- Sports IllustratedEmphasis mine.
posted by jerseygirl at 12:17 PM on October 17, 2006
Does anyone have the number for Tonya Harding or Nicole Bass?
posted by dbt302 at 12:45 PM on October 17, 2006
Mike Tyson in his prime was probably the greatest fighter that ever lived. Please notice I did not say boxer but fighter. As a human being he has to be one of the worst. Unfortunatley the death of his mentor, adopted father and trainer Cus D'amato left a young and directionless, very rich and talented young man, essentially an orphan and easy pray for the money grubbing users like Don King and Robin Givens. There is no excuse for the behavior of Mike Tyson but he had too much talent, too much marketability, to much success, and too much money at far too young an age. Combine that with an obvious lack of brains, serious abandonment issues, and a lot of pent up internal anger, then throw him to the dogs like Don King, well it sure explains a lot. Where did anybody expect him to wind up but broke and in jail, which ironically is how he spent his youth.
posted by Atheist at 12:53 PM on October 17, 2006
The first couple of years he fought, I considered him one of the best heavyweights ever. Mike's personal psychoses aside, for the moment... I'm no fight afficionado, but I do have some friends that have followed the fight game for many, many years. They seem to agree that while Tyson in his prime (when he was 19-20) was a very, very quick boxer and had a tremendously intimidating presence, he only had a limited set of skills. He fought a collection of weak heavyweights by ambushing them with speed and force, and never was pushed to demonstrate any defensive skills or anything beyond the combinations he used to beat his opponents into submission. According to them, Buster Douglas (under-motivated underachiever that he was), was the first bona fide heavyweight with solid mass and good hand speed he fought, and he basically got his butt handed to him. I still think he was pretty fierce, but I have heard this assessment from more than just a few people. When people talk about the great heavyweights, even just considering those first couple years when he seemed unbeatable (and not the later years where he was roundly outclassed by both Holyfield and Lewis), Tyson's name just doesn't even come up.
posted by psmealey at 12:56 PM on October 17, 2006
Man, really something to brag about "One of the best punches I ever landed was on my wife Robin Givens" That comment right there just shows you the mentality of this madman. Would any woman even have the courage to get in the ring with this lunatic? Well I guess there is if the price is right.
posted by Ghastly1 at 12:57 PM on October 17, 2006
According to them, Buster Douglas (under-motivated underachiever that he was), was the first bona fide heavyweight with solid mass and good hand speed he fought, and he basically got his butt handed to him. well you're boxing officianado friends aren't so much :-) Tyson was never considered having "limited" skills and he certainly wasn't a one puch boxer. As for Buster: 1st, Buster douglas wasn't bona-fide, and 2nd is he happened to meet Mike when he was already in his downward spiral. He had fired his trainer Kevin Rooney, and there are many real officianado's who blame that for his demise. From his wiki In late 1988, Tyson fired longtime trainer Kevin Rooney, the man many credit for honing Tyson's craft after the death of D'Amato in November 1985. Without Rooney, Tyson's skills slowly deteriorated and he became more prone to looking for the one-punch knockout, rather than utilizing the fierce combinations that brought him to stardom. He also began to headhunt, neglecting to attack the opponent's body first. In addition, he lost his fabulous defensive skills and began to barrel straight in toward the opponent, neglecting to jab and slip his way in.
posted by bdaddy at 01:14 PM on October 17, 2006
Yeah, you're friends are no officionado's, man.
posted by cobra! at 01:19 PM on October 17, 2006
Tyson was never considered having "limited" skills and he certainly wasn't a one puch boxer. He wasn't? Sure as hell seemed so. No one knew what to do with tyson when he came up. They learned. Sure, he hurt himself, but a frustrated tyson could be beat. Mentioned with the top heavy weights? Sure. On the level of ali and louis? Nope. Skill set comparable? Nope.
posted by jimdavis at 01:20 PM on October 17, 2006
BlueCarp, If you're implying I am exaggerating or making something up... Moreover, long before the rape conviction, Tyson's behavior was a model of misogyny. He allegedly boasted that the best punch he ever landed was on Robin Givens, his wife at the time. -- Sports Illustrated Emphasis mine. sorry, I changed this to where the emphasis should be: He allegedly boasted that the best punch he ever landed was on Robin Givens, his wife at the time. -- Sports Illustrated But that said, I think what BlueCarp was getting at wasn't that you were lying, but that anyone (sports illustrated or Mike himself) insinuating that Tyson hit Givens with all he had isn't being truthful, since he would have killed her if he did (and it's certainly hard to argue that point).
posted by bdaddy at 01:21 PM on October 17, 2006
Yeah, you're friends are no officionado's, man. Yeah, well, maybe not... but at least I was able to turn this sorry discussion (if only somewhat) back towards sport and away from this other stomach-turning stuff. :-)
posted by psmealey at 01:30 PM on October 17, 2006
Buster Douglas being the first bonafide heaveyweight that he had fought? Are you kidding me? I can't think of the names right at the minute, but if I'm right ,I think there were a dozen better fighters than Douglas before he beat Tyson. If I'm not mistaken, Douglas lost his first defense of the heaveyweight title. Tyson was unprepared for that fight, didn't train properly, and took him too lightly. Don't get me wrong; I'm not sticking up for this lunatic. He got his ass kicked. and he had it coming to him eventually. I taped that fight for the hell of it on HB0 that night thinking it would be a 1 or 2 rounder in Tysons favor. What a shocker, I still watch that fight every now and then. Watching Tyson on his hands and knees looking for his mouthpiece totally disoriented is a classic. He was never the same after that fight
posted by Ghastly1 at 01:31 PM on October 17, 2006
He wasn't? Sure as hell seemed so. No one knew what to do with tyson when he came up. They learned. Sure, he hurt himself, but a frustrated tyson could be beat. Mentioned with the top heavy weights? Sure. On the level of ali and louis? Nope. Skill set comparable? Nope. They learned? yea, after he was 37-0, had consolidated the belts, and dispatched every top notch fighter available. :-) LOL. I think you are talking about Tyson post 1990, and certainly not the one before that. By the way, for those interested some interesting reading at his wiki. Brought back a lot of memories wiki
posted by bdaddy at 01:31 PM on October 17, 2006
bdaddy is right. Also its no coincidence that he fought Douglas just when Don King was getting involved. Tyson was an eleven to one favorite. It was the first time there was an 11 to 1 underdog in a heavy weight title fight, since the 11 to 1 underdog Leon Spinks surprised Mohammad Ali. Funny isn't it. It seems that is the price Mr. King thinks a title is worth. Anybody who thinks everything is as it appears in boxing is mistaken. When handicaping fights where Mr. Don King is involved, one has to ask the question, not who is the best fighter, but what will make Don King the most money. Not to mention the subsequent rematches. It is no secret that after such a long string of first round knock outs, Mike Tyson had trouble selling pay per view fights. He looked unbeatable, and the fights were over too quickly to get people to pay. His loss to Douglas made his subsequent pay per views more marketable. Boxing learned a long time ago people pay much more to see rematches of good fights, or those trilogy rubbermatches, than they do to see someone end a fight quickly and decisively. All the really big money in boxing is made from evenly matched opponents. Evander Hollyfield became the richest fighter of all time not by winning everyfight decisively, but by having serial wars with, Forman, Tyson, Ruiz, and Bowe. Coincidently all orchestrated by Don King.
posted by Atheist at 01:37 PM on October 17, 2006
I always knew that some day that Mike Tyson would get in touch with his feminine side...LOL.
posted by nflhou02 at 02:19 PM on October 17, 2006
bdaddy where would you rank Tyson all-time as a boxer? Approximately. I agree that in his prime he was a terrifying fighter, but I would not set him in the top ten all-time.
posted by Venicemenace at 02:28 PM on October 17, 2006
but I would not set him in the top ten all-time. Good decision, because he's not.
posted by justgary at 02:38 PM on October 17, 2006
keep him out of bigger trouble and away from demeaning and degrading publicity stunts, like racing horses or doing porn Maybe he could do horse porn.
posted by ledzep77 at 02:47 PM on October 17, 2006
What pisses me off about Mike Tyson is that he could have been top-ten all time if he'd just kept on the course that Cus D'Amato & Teddy Atlas had him on. When Cus died and he ran Teddy out of camp, he no longer had the tools to keep it together, and he was doomed, especially once Don King got his claws into him and started feeding him into the machine, one mismanagement step and embezzled check at a time. He doesn't rank among the top boxers, not because he was some talentless schmuck, but because his brain wasn't wired right for such a thing. He had the physical tools to really do something special, and the people who were positioned and willing to help him out of his teenage-thugdom disappeared at really bad times, leaving him with no disciplinary or life skills, and that (I think) is why he's so frustrating and, like it or not (and I know many of you don't), such a tragic and compelling person. Tons of boxers have had a similar life-arc and tragic ending, and yet Tyson, who hasn't had a fight of any import in well over a decade, is still making headlines every time he manages to degrade himself further. He really could have been somebody, and he couldn't keep keep himself out of trouble long enough to get there. You could write a pretty good opera out of Mike Tyson's life.
posted by chicobangs at 02:49 PM on October 17, 2006
Tyson had the power to be one of the best heavyweight sluggers ever. Not only the power but the unbeatable mindset that all the "best" must have, Until he fought Douglas. After that there was instilled in him the fear that he could lose and he couldn't handle that. But to compare him with Ali and Lewis-----nada He was a "thug' with skills and hurt the fight game more than anyone I can think of at the moment.
posted by skeet0311 at 03:18 PM on October 17, 2006
bdaddy where would you rank Tyson all-time as a boxer? Approximately. I agree that in his prime he was a terrifying fighter, but I would not set him in the top ten all-time. I would put him in the top 10 (not sure where), despite the chasm that exists between his prime and his not-so-prime. Some names I would probably rank in front : Robinson, Ali, Lewis Some names I would probably rank behind: Foreman, Leonard, Marciano , Hagler (maybe)
posted by bdaddy at 03:45 PM on October 17, 2006
hurt the fight game more than anyone I can think of at the moment. then you forget about all the promoters who've done more damage to the sport than any boxer could ever dream
posted by bdaddy at 03:46 PM on October 17, 2006
You could write a pretty good opera out of Mike Tyson's life. reminds me of some clip of Tyson I saw right at the beginning of his downfall that was set to the tune of a David Berns song Where is that large automobile? (shows the clip of his ferrari wrapped around a tree) This is not my beautiful house! (shows the clip of a 4-sale sign in front of his house) This is not my beautiful wife! (shows the clipe of Robin Givins and her mother) It was almost poetic how all of that stuff was going on at the same time.
posted by bdaddy at 03:52 PM on October 17, 2006
Well just to set the record straight about how great Mike Tyson could have been. I think most of the people would say Ali was one of the greatest if not the greatest of all time. The closest opponent style wise to Tyson Ali had to face was Joe Frazier. Similar forward moving bob and weave style to Tyson except that at age 20 Tyson hit harder, had a better defense, was twice as fast and was bigger than Frazier. We know how much trouble Frazier gave Ali. Tyson would have given him even more. The only thing that would have had Ali beating Tyson would have been Ali's ability to beat Tyson mentally, get in his head and confuse him. The real crime committed by Tyson is how true boxing fans were robbed of what could have been had, Cus D'Amato stayed alive for a few more years. There is no excuse for Tyson's criminal behavior, but there is certainly a sad story of a kid with no parents, who lost his adopted father, and turned to criminals like Don King, who basically used, robbed and discarded him. In the end boxing was the biggest loser. Tyson may have wound up a joke but Boxing as an organized sport has done little to to help the men who make the sport money learn how to deal with money, or protect them from the likes of unscrupulous promoters and managers. In some ways. society is funny, we pay millions to a guy for his ability to beat others into a coma, praise him for his toughness and skill, then act suprised when he is exposed for being nothing more than a stupid brutal thug. The Mohammed Ali's and Sugar Ray Leonards of the world are the exception not the rule. As much as I like boxing, the object of the sport is beat your opponent unconscious. Why is anybody surprised it doesn't attract the kind and gentle types.
posted by Atheist at 04:06 PM on October 17, 2006
For the record, I would rate Mohammad the greatest heavyweight of all time, and the greatest heavyweight boxer. I would rate the Mike Tyson who became the youngest undisputed heavyweight champ of all time, one of the greatest fighter/punchers.
posted by Atheist at 04:15 PM on October 17, 2006
One thing to keep in mind when discussing Ali's trouble with Frazier is that Ali missed three years of boxing, and many believe Ali would have been in his prime during those three years. The main reason they fought three times was that Ali lost that initial meeting. Had Ali faced Frazier a few years earlier or had been actively boxing the three years leading up to the first fight, the results may have been different. He may not have had as much trouble with Smokin' Joe the first time and subsequently may not have needed to fight him on two more occasions. I agree though that Tyson, a young Tyson, was as fierce as any opponent Ali ever faced, probably more so. I also used to feel sorry for Tyson. I believe, as others have stated above, that losing those few people who truly seemed to care for Mike was the beginning of the end. By the time Don King entered the picture and Tyson fought Douglas in Tokyo, he was far removed from the hungry, polished fighter we had been used to seeing. He could no longer dominate the way he had because his training and preparation was not the same. More importantly, when the fight moved to the later rounds, he had no one with any real boxing knowledge on hand to give him advice. I remember between rounds in the Douglas fight, all his corner seemed to be telling him was how bad he was and no one could beat him. Well, we know how that one ended.
posted by ampto11 at 04:26 PM on October 17, 2006
Tyson didn't hurt the sport. There have been talented trainwrecks in the sport since the very beginning. There was nothing Tyson could do to boxing that dozens of others hadn't done already, and boxing had done fine up till then. Don King, on the other hand, has hurt the fight game more than any one fighter ever could. He's virtually destroyed boxing, especially in the heavyweight division, as a going sporting concern in this country. Now it's little more than a sideshow that plays to half-empty casinos and shopping mall parking lots, instead of filling hockey arenas and baseball stadiums like it used to 25 years ago. Every two-bit huckster with dollar signs in their eyes is trying to put together their little mini-mafia and freeze out any competition for their showpony, instead of contenders fighting each other to see who's the best in the ring. Without Don King (and to a lesser extent Bob Arum and their ilk), there's no need for a UFC, and no need for spectacles like "The Contender," because we still have a heavyweight division that, while it may not be in a golden age, would be at least competitive, and has fighters that come by their records somewhat legitimately and who are worth pulling for, fighting matches that occasionally matter against other contenders. But we have none of that. Thanks, Don, for nothing.
posted by chicobangs at 04:32 PM on October 17, 2006
Perhaps I will play the Devil's Advocate. Tyson was not a good person by any stretch of the imagination, I believe that we all can agree on. But he did go to prison for his crimes. That punishment was passed down from a legal system we all are judged by. His actions were despicable in and out of the ring. But who is he hurting with this last crazy notion? If I'm not mistaken, this time the women have to AGREE to fight Tyson. He's not roaming across the countryside eating children. And allegedly, some of the money goes to a charitable cause of some kind. I think I for one would like to see Mike Tyson do some good in the world and have a second chance (or 3rd or 4th or whatever he's up to now). Perhaps most of his problems stem from bad influences or no influences in his life, and not because he's the anti-Christ. And I don't agree with skeet0311 that he hurt the fight game more than anyone else. I think that title goes to Don King.
posted by THX-1138 at 04:43 PM on October 17, 2006
He's not roaming across the countryside eating children Still one of the greatest all time sports quotes ever (made even better with his lisp) "My style is impetuous. My defense is impregnable. And I’m just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat his children - Praise be to Allah!”
posted by bdaddy at 04:55 PM on October 17, 2006
And on preview, Atheist says it better than me.
posted by THX-1138 at 04:55 PM on October 17, 2006
The only trouble the fans will have is deciding which one is the girl.
posted by SunnySide at 05:10 PM on October 17, 2006
So he's looking to fight a woman. One thought occurs to me. When they're in a clinch, will he proposition her? Hope he doesn't nibble her ear!
posted by ctal1999 at 05:36 PM on October 17, 2006
In some ways. society is funny, we pay millions to a guy for his ability to beat others into a coma, praise him for his toughness and skill, then act suprised when he is exposed for being nothing more than a stupid brutal thug. That, my friend, is some well-said shit.
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:39 PM on October 17, 2006
I SO want to see him fight an elephant! that's a big ass ear to chew In keeping with the circus motif, I understand that most of their elephants are Indian, which are both easier to train and have smaller ears.
posted by owlhouse at 06:24 PM on October 17, 2006
this guy should just give it up now. i mean after he tried to come out and "box" like a real champ instead of hitting people with his elbows like he did to michael spinx. he lost almost all of his bouts, and don't say he never recovered after losing to douglas. without using his power punches (mostly elbows) he has no skill in the ring, he had to bite evander's ear... i say "give it up man!"
posted by singlen8tivedude at 06:47 PM on October 17, 2006
Anyone consider: What if he loses??
posted by Tigger1 at 06:52 PM on October 17, 2006
Well, Mitch "Blood" Green did call him Michelle after they went the distance, prior to their unscheduled rematch in front of Dapper Dan's clothing store in Harlem...
posted by ajaffe at 08:19 PM on October 17, 2006
Tigger1, if he loses, there's always Bolivion.
posted by chicobangs at 08:38 PM on October 17, 2006
well you're boxing officianado friends aren't so much :-) posted by bdaddy His officianado friends are actually much more in agreement with boxing historians/experts than you are bdaddy. I would put him in the top 10 (not sure where), despite the chasm that exists between his prime and his not-so-prime. Some names I would probably rank in front : Robinson, Ali, Lewis Some names I would probably rank behind: Foreman, Leonard, Marciano , Hagler (maybe) posted by bdaddy I'm not trying to change your mind bdaddy (but you said yourself you're not a big boxing fan), but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with you (who's opinions are respected in the boxing community). Putting tyson in front of someone like marciano is mind boggling. You seem to be crediting tyson with a full career by basically predicting what he would have done if he hadn't hurt himself, then using that to put him in front of top notch fighters. Tyson would be lucky to make a top ten list of heavy weights, definitely not in the top five. If you make it top boxer of any weight, he's no where near the top ten. Bert Sugar didn't rate him in the top ten heavy weights of all time. When it comes to the top fighers of all time he has tyson at number 100 (yes, 100), and says he's probably over-rating him even there. BW: It is an excellent book, but I noticed that Mike Tyson made the cut at number 100 which is rating him higher than most would. Sugar: He's lucky to be there. I put him in because I know that people want to read about him. He is in there more for perceived greatness, what he could have become. I wouldn't disagree with someone if they said that I overrate him. People have asked me about Oscar De La Hoya, why not he? Lennox Lewis, why not him? It is interesting to note that if you flip through the book you will know who number 100 is before you know who number 42 is. (link) There was also an interview I heard (sorry, no link) with one of tysons very early trainers where they talked about tyson's mental makeup. Basically, tyson never liked fighting. He liked knocking people out. But when pushed he wasn't a guy who wanted to rumble. You can see that in later fights. When pushed, he crumbled. If the fight didn't immediately go his way, he was in trouble. Tyson was a fierce fighter with speed and power who shined for a short time, but he wasn't a top ten fighter. It's not even close.
posted by justgary at 08:38 PM on October 17, 2006
but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with you I'm not saying my list is definitive (and certainly everyone has their opinions on things like this), but to say there are people who don't agree isn't accurate. Just a quick search for top 10 boxers of all time and found him in 3 lists out of the first few I checked http://ezinearticles.com/?TOP-TEN-Pound-4-Pound-Best-Boxer-Ever&id=25070 http://techblogbiz.blogspot.com/2006/09/top-10-greatest-boxers-of-all-time.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,3-2005270135,00.html Putting tyson in front of someone like marciano is mind boggling Not so strange if you look at it. Who did he beat? Joe Lewis? Impressive except he was well past his prime (140 years old! as they say in 'Coming to America'). Archie Moore? In his 40s. Joe Walcott? 39 years old. Not much else on his resume. So 49-0 against a bunch of no-names or wash-outs versus 37-0 against a bunch of no-names or wash-outs (Tyson in his prime). It's not exactly mind boggling. he has tyson at number 100 then I say Bert's an idiot (or more likely he's like that old NFL player that thinks that all of the old players would whip the current players behinds). I imagine it's also "hip" to say a recent fighter that everyone else argues is one of the greatest of all times is not even in your top 100. I'm sure it makes him seem real intelligent at parties talking about some backyard drunk that nobodies ever heard of who was 192-5 and all 5 of his losses came against Joe Lewis . By the way, I can post several LEGITIMATE basebally sportswriters with lots of book deals who think Bonds isn't one of the greatest hitters of all time...doesn't make it so.
posted by bdaddy at 10:30 PM on October 17, 2006
Just a quick search for top 10 boxers of all time and found him in 3 lists out of the first few I checked The first one is a random blog. The second is from 'techblogbiz', no need to say more there. The third is a tabloid. I said hardpressed to find anyone 'respected' in the boxing community, and I obviously still stand by that. I promise I can find a list here and there that claims titanic is the greatest movie ever made. Doesn't mean a lot. then I say Bert's an idiot (or more likely he's like that old NFL player that thinks that all of the old players would whip the current players behinds). I imagine it's also "hip" to say a recent fighter that everyone else argues is one of the greatest of all times is not even in your top 100. I'm sure it makes him seem real intelligent at parties talking about some backyard drunk that nobodies ever heard of who was 192-5 and all 5 of his losses came against Joe Lewis. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read his credentials. You can put the man down all you want, they're impressive. But hey, if you, someone that admits they're not a big fan, think you know better than Sugar, be my guest. Insult on. By the way, I can post several LEGITIMATE baseball sportswriters with lots of book deals who think Bonds isn't one of the greatest hitters of all time...doesn't make it so. I'm not sure what you mean by legitimate. If you mean respected, no you can't. They might leave bonds out because of steroid abuse, but that's another subject.
posted by justgary at 11:54 PM on October 17, 2006
This is actually as close as I can find to my feelings on the subject: Where does Mike Tyson rank among the all-time greats? There’s no question that for a brief time in the late 1980s Tyson was truly awesome -- as feared and dominating as any fighter who ever lived. But true greatness also requires longevity and wins over quality opponents and in these two categories Tyson is sorely lacking. Tyson’s prime really only lasted from his 1985 debut through the end 1989 -- just prior to being KO’d by Buster Douglas. During this time Tyson was an amazing 37-0 and became the youngest heavyweight champ in history. But his greatest victories were KOs against a flabby, over the hill ex-champ in Larry Holmes and a scared, blown-up light heavyweight in Michael Spinks. Tyson’s other "big wins" were over Trevor Berbick, Bonecrusher Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tony Tubbs and Frank Bruno. Hardly the stuff of legends. Using the Douglas loss as the turning point, Tyson is an extremely ordinary 12-4 with 2 no contests over the second part of his career. Against the great fighters of his era - Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis and Buster Douglas - Tyson was 0-4 (OK, I’m using the term ‘great’ very loosely here in order to make a point) and he never even faced Riddick Bowe, George Foreman, Ray Mercer or Michael Moorer. Given the stunningly short duration of Tyson’s meteoric rise and fall, along with his lack of truly significant wins, it’s impossible to rank Tyson among the top ten heavyweights of all-time. In one of the greatest cases of squandered talent in the history of sports, Tyson’s spot in the pantheon of greats belongs somewhere between numbers 11 and 20 -- right next to his twin from an earlier era, Charles "Sonny" Liston. Outside the top ten in the heavy weight division. If you add the best of every other weight class he's going to slide even further down? Where is debatable.
posted by justgary at 12:04 AM on October 18, 2006
At age 20, Mike Tyson crippled a grown man with a left hook that made him fall 3 times. As far as Mike not fighting anyone, look at the heavyweight division today, in his prime, he would be champ right now by far. Lennox was a good champion, but was Oliver Mcall or Hasim Rahman? Hell no, but they beat Lewis. There are no real gravy fights as a heavyweight, you are fighting a grown man usually over 220 lbs, that has been training to try to render you unconscious. Mike hardly ever fought anyone shorter than him (5'11) or lighter than him (prime 213). He fought men 3-6 inches taller and sometimes 30-40 lbs heavier and made them look like children getting beaten by an adult. Lennox and Mike are around the same age, where was lennox when he was 20? He couldn't do what Mike did, history proves it. He had to wait for Mike to slow down, not care, and give up. Please search youtube for early Mike Tyson knockouts and bouts, you can find amazing footage of him in his prime. Here are a few names of people beaten by Mike tyson who could beat any of the heavyweight champs today IMO; 1.Frank Bruno 2.James "bone crusher" Smith 3.Pinklon Thomas 4. Carl Williams 5. Tony Tucker 6.Trevor Berbick (every see what he did to Larry Holmes?) 7.Michael Spinks 8. Larry Holmes (at the age when he fought Tyson would punish all current heavyweights) 9.Razor Ruddock (who Lennox beat after Tyson ruined him) Mike Tyson couldn't box? MIke Tyson had possibly the best upper-cut and left hook off all time. His head movement was incredible (which is why his jaw was truly never tested until he got older and stopped moving). His ability to slip punches was dynamic to say the least. His use of angles and misdirection were a boxing art form. Cus took a poor street kid who use to get picked on, taught him the art of fighting and made him the youngest, most ferocious heavyweight champion of the world, ever. To say a young Mike Tyson wasn't really that good is a disservice to Cus D'mato and Kevin Rooney. I hate to say if, but if Mike doesn't lose Cus and Doesn't fire Rooney (on top of his rape conviction), he would hands down be in the top 3 heavyweights of all time. Don't take my word for it. See for yourself. Head movement and left hooks round 7 of Tyson Ruddock 1 after Mike lost previous round Rise and fall of Mike Tyson
posted by Bishop at 01:27 AM on October 18, 2006
At age 20, Mike Tyson crippled a grown man with a left hook that made him fall 3 times. I think the fact that you didn't name that man speaks volumes. As far as Mike not fighting anyone, look at the heavyweight division today, in his prime, he would be champ right now by far. So would any top ten heavy weight fighter of all time. Louis? Ali? Hell, larry holmes. Again, doesn't prove anything but the wasteland the heavy weight division has become. Saying tyson would punish all current heavy weights means nothing (in this argument) when none of those current heavy weights are being touted as all time greats. I hate to say if, but if Mike doesn't lose Cus and Doesn't fire Rooney (on top of his rape conviction), he would hands down be in the top 3 heavyweights of all time. Shoulda, woulda, didn't. You can predict all you want. You don't rate on what could have been. Well, you can, but historians don't. I did notice your videos left out the douglas fight. And tyson knocking out Ruddock? (Ruddock? Really? ). Flashy knockouts win. You can take a poll today and I'm quite sure tyson would be at the top. Of course, most of those people have no sense of boxing history, wouldn't know joe louis from joe jackson. I've watched a lot of boxing, Sugar's watched a lot more. He's watched more boxing than everyone in this thread put together. If you want to discount his opinion, fine. But I can't even begin to debate anyone who thinks tyson could touch the top three on his best day. We're just living in different worlds.
posted by justgary at 02:04 AM on October 18, 2006
Here's another list I have no problem with.
posted by justgary at 02:15 AM on October 18, 2006
Gary, I think the other side of the debate is arguing Tyson's potential. Your feeling is he should be ranked solely on how things did work out, they're ranking based on how things could have worked out. The latter leads to great flights of fancy, where one extrapolates single instants of the sublime into a career of brilliance. It's also everything I abhor in day-to-day baseball discussion where fans ignore (what I see as) cold, hard facts in favor of what their eyes tell them. I have to be a hypocrite here and say I fall into the What If?* camp with Tyson and will excuse myself by saying I think most, if not all of us, love sports for those single sublime moments because they let us see into a more perfect world. * Which is in no way to say I align myself with that creepy race of pervert Watchers.
posted by yerfatma at 06:20 AM on October 18, 2006
How about Iron Mike vs. The Miami Hurricanes Football team? I would pay to see that!
posted by T.C. at 09:11 AM on October 18, 2006
Gary, we've been here before. You don't like Mike Tyson. No big deal. You're a boxing expert, fine by me. Your personal opinion of him is not the end all of his (prime) potential. As far as me "not including a video of the Douglas fight" you have made an error that you tend to mention to new members of spofi, "if you would have bothered to follow the links" you would have witnessed the Douglas fight and the Lewis beat down that Tyson suffered. I understand it was a long 8 minutes and I know you can't stand looking at Tyson for over 30 seconds. As if anyone could ever mislead or misdirect people when it came to what happen to Mike Tyson. I think the fact that you didn't name that man speaks volumes The man is mentioned in my list of fighters who would currently have a title belt, and any one even discussing boxing should be able to name Trevor Berbick, who was the current WBC champion after punishing Larry Holmes ( who admittedly was beginning the downward side of his career) but would definitely whip any heavyweight going today at that stage of his career. To discredit Trevor Berbick after what he did to in the Holmes fight is just crazy. As far as the woulda, shoulda, coulda, I think this way of looking at any sport applies to boxing more so than any other sport. For example, sometimes people say, "I know the 70's Steelers would crush the 00's Patriots, but with all the intangibles, there is no way to determine this. With boxing, it's man vs man, nothing else to factor in. I often here discussion about, Ali would have whipped Lennox, Rocky M. would have crushed Joe Frazier, and so on. From that view point is where I draw my conclusion that Mike Tyson was one of the most punishing fighters ever. The reaction by some when it's mentioned that if Tyson doesn't lose Cus and Rooney, he would have been 1 of the greatest fighters of all time, is understandable to me. No one likes to focus on or examine the potential of someone that they don't care for. People "what if" all the time. What if the Titans get 1 more yard in the superbowl. What if Bartman doesn't reach out and grab the foul ball in that Cubs game. What if Bonds didn't do steroids,would he still have reached Ruth or set the single season home run mark. What if Tyson didn't lose Cus and Rooney??? What if Tyson really was innocent of rape (this guy tends to be credible and thinks he was not guilty). What if Desiree Washington was the woman who accused the Duke lacross team of rape, this bit of evidence and this bit of evidence would have been all over the news/internet/spofi.
posted by Bishop at 09:17 AM on October 18, 2006
I have to side with gary on this one. Tyson was fun, but from what I understand, he simply doesn't have the career to rate amongst the best of all-time. He barely rates amongst the best of his generation (Lewis and Holyfield have had better careers). As far as potential goes, I don't think anyone denies that he had the ferocity and power to impress and punish, but he didn't seem to be much of a tactical fighter - and he was exposed as such at a pretty early age for most fighters. There is no doubt that the early part of his career was nothing short of spectacular, and he remains a huge figure in the 'wasted potential' pantheon, but all the 'what ifs' in the world can't change the reality. He isn't a top ten heavyweight. He just isn't.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:27 AM on October 18, 2006
Of course, most of those people have no sense of boxing history, wouldn't know joe louis from joe jackson. So, Joe Jackson is the guy willing to fight with gorillas walking down his street, right?
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:44 AM on October 18, 2006
Nah, he just sits in his window and talks shit about them. How high you rank Mike Tyson on the list of all-time greats depends almost completely on how much weight you give to raw talent versus actual career-long ring accomplishment. The more you stress the former, the higher up your list he goes. It's not that he didn't do anything in his career, but yeah, naming ten (or fifteen, or more) heavyweights who had better start-to-finish careers is not a huge challenge.
posted by chicobangs at 09:54 AM on October 18, 2006
Speaking of great heavyweights (I'm torn about making this an FPP), here's an excellent profile of Joe Frazier.
posted by chicobangs at 10:04 AM on October 18, 2006
Excellent article chico, make it an FPP.
posted by jojomfd1 at 10:36 AM on October 18, 2006
Just chiming in to say I am disappointed that folks are condoning cruelty to animals by suggesting he fight lions, tigers, bears (oh my) or elephants. I know you are joking (I hope!), but please don't give an a-hole like Tyson any suggestions.
posted by scully at 11:44 AM on October 18, 2006
the first one is a random blog. The second is from 'techblogbiz', no need to say more there. The third is a tabloid. and as I said, only a quick search. I didn't go interview fighters or anything. Based on the article contents and the knowledge presented about each of the fighters, it wasn't a 13 year old creating these things...it was boxing fans who are subjectively ranking the fighters they studied or grew up watching. How is that different that what you, I, or even Bert feel about things? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read his credentials. You can put the man down all you want, they're impressive. I did read his credentials. So if I post the following: Peter Gammons bio Pretty impressive credentials, huh? Pretty similar to Bert's. So that makes Peter an expert I guess? You've never disagreed with anything Gammons has said? If you did, how could you do such a thing, given his background? He obviously knows more about baseball than you or me, right? So what you're saying is that if Gammons releases a baseball top 10 list, we should trust it because he obviously has been around baseball more than we have, right? Unless you happen to be one of the 3 Gammon's fans, I think you catch my meaning. I'm not ranking Tyson on what "coulda" been. I'm also not ranking him on his longevity, as there are certainly guys like Chavez who are better. I'm saying, who, in there prime, was the best fighter. And I would certainly consider Tyson in that top 10 across all weight classes. Of course that's just my opinion. I don't expect you or bert to dissuade me anymore than I expect to dissuade you, nor can any of us prove differently. Based on fights I've seen of all, I certainly think Tyson at age 21-22 was certainly in Ali/Frasier/Holiefield/Holmes class and all of those would be in Mister Bert's top 10-15. I certainly understand if you don't feel that way. I certainly DO NOT understand how anyone can argue he's not in the top 100. That, to me, is crazy, considering even a top 50 list would include names people have never even heard of or include bizarre characters who knocked out a big name guy but lost to some drunken bum. It would include guys like Leanord, who certainly were great, but whose 100 punches in 10 seconds would score a lot of points and win matches but did no damage to guys like Haggler. I would say I do not agree. As I said, he would rank Tyson 100 because it gives him lots of attention and that gives him a lot of reason to talk at the partys about how Joe Smchoe from Deadwood once knocked out a horse with 1 hand tied behind his back and he could certainly take out Tyson.
posted by bdaddy at 11:44 AM on October 18, 2006
Just chiming in to say I am disappointed that folks are condoning cruelty to animals by suggesting he fight lions, tigers, bears (oh my) or elephants. I know you are joking (I hope!), but please don't give an a-hole like Tyson any suggestions. posted by terrapin at 11:44 AM CDT on October 18 I've changed my mind. I want Tyson to fight terrapin.
posted by jerseygirl at 11:48 AM on October 18, 2006
"Tyson only pawn in game of life."
posted by chicobangs at 12:04 PM on October 18, 2006
Gary, I think the other side of the debate is arguing Tyson's potential. Agreed. I just think they're two different debates (as you said). One is cold hard facts, one is playing 'what if', which by it's very nature is less accurate. I don't have a problem with either view. There's no way to disprove tyson wouldn't be the greatest heavy weight to ever life if..if..if.. It's when the list is 'greatest of all time' and we throw tyson in there for his couple of years of dominance that I think it's a little ridiculous. Gary, we've been here before. You don't like Mike Tyson. No big deal. You're a boxing expert, fine by me. Your personal opinion of him is not the end all of his (prime) potential. No one likes to focus on or examine the potential of someone that they don't care for. I really wish you'd stop with this passive-aggressive bs you pull every time we argue bishop. It's your answer for everything. Don't like him? You must hate him. 1. No where have I said I was a boxing expert. In fact, I think my overall handle on the sport is pretty spotty, which is why I also rely on opinions from people who have dedicated their lives to the sport. I'm not the one who said "I'm not a big fan" and then put down Sugar. I'm not the one who said "Tyson is top 3 hands down". I don't think of myself as qualified to make any of those statements. If you do, great. I told you that we are worlds apart in our opinion. That's not a put down. That's the truth. Your opinion is as valid as mine, maybe more (who knows, you maybe a boxing historian). Responding with "you just don't like the guy" is insulting, and makes about as much sense as my discounting your opinion simply because you have tyson's poster on your wall. 2. When we argued bonds you said I didn't like bonds. When we argue tyson you say I don't like tyson. Which is amazing because I like tyson. Honestly, where do you get this stuff? I think he was railroaded in the rape trial, and I think he's been surrounded by people who were only out to use him. If you asked me the greatest pitcher of all times, I'd pick clemens, and I hate the guy. So take the "you don't like him" elsewhere. It ain't me. Pretty impressive credentials, huh? Pretty similar to Bert's. So that makes Peter an expert I guess? You've never disagreed with anything Gammons has said? I'd disagree with him. Wouldn't call him an idiot though. And I'd certainly give his opinion thought before disregarding it. Hey, everyone has opinions, and in cases like this there's no way to prove one or another. All opinions are valid, but some carry more weight than others, the same as in any field. I could tell you the best programming language for software development. Of course, someone who's actually programmed would have more weight behind their opinion. To hold my opinon and the programmers on the same level wouldn't be very smart.
posted by justgary at 12:13 PM on October 18, 2006
What if Tyson really was innocent of rape (this guy tends to be credible and thinks he was not guilty). You can't take a defense attorney's word about whether his client is innocent or not. Really, you just can't.
posted by bperk at 12:16 PM on October 18, 2006
one is playing 'what if', which by it's very nature is less accurate Say what you want about that race of hairless Peeping Toms, but they're always accurate. They were right about Conan once and then again.
posted by yerfatma at 02:10 PM on October 18, 2006
All a fighter can do is face every opponent available. Anybody that does their research can look at Tyson's record since turning pro and literally demolishing every available heavyweight, fighting twice a month sometimes and becoming the youngest heavyweight champ in history. His victories include fights with Larry Holmes, Trevor Berbick, James Tillis, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno, Michael Spinks, Jesse Furgeson, Mitch Green, Marvis Frazier, Jose Ribalta, Henry Tillman, Carl Williams, Bonecrusher Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Bruce Seldon, Buster Mathis, Francios Botha. Say what you want about all those opponents between 1985 and 1990 that was the best the heavyweight division could put in front of him and he destroyed all of them. The truth is this. From 1985 to 1986 Tyson ran his record to 28-0 with 27 KOs and became the youngest heavyweight champ in history. From 1987 to 1989 he defended his title 9 times against the top ranked contenders and won all nine fights by KO. In his first fight of 1990 he lost his title to Buster Douglas ( I should remind people that even Ali lost his title once to Leon Spinks) but then he fought 8 times between his lost to Douglas and 1996 and stopped each opponent and regained the Heavyweight Title. So in the span of his first 11 years as a pro he won the title twice and had a record of 45 wins and 1 lose with over 40 knockouts. He accomplished all of this before his second loss which came at the hands of Evander Hollyfield in 1997. Personally I think people have a short memory and only remember the end of his career after 1997, careful study of his 11 year career as a pro from 1985 until the end of 1996 alone is enough for him to be considered one of the greatest of all time.
posted by Atheist at 03:05 PM on October 18, 2006
Bperk, the statement you make is very true, I should have been more clear with my information about Alan Dershowitz. He actually offered to become Tysons attorney after his review of the trial and the evidence. This is a very important fact that I mistakenly did not mention, thinking everyone knew about that situation. Atheist, very well put. I do honestly believe that at least 5 of the guys on the list of people Tyson beat would be champion today. Gary, sorry to misjudge your fondness of Tyson. I think it's some of the statements you make when making your arguments about these athletes (Tyson/Bonds/Rose). Like these They might leave bonds out because of steroid abuse, but that's another subject. You use the word abuse instead of use. If I smoke weed 5 times in my life, am I a drug "abuser"? It's not hating to say bonds looks pathetic, a shadow of his former self. If this is the real bonds and he doesn't pull it together down the stretch, you'd be nuts to sign him. He's breaking down, and it aint pretty. posted by justgary at 5:43 PM CDT on May 20 This just tends to sound like the opinion of someone who doesn't like Barry Bonds. Letting rose come back to manage? Unthinkable. posted by justgary at 1:02 PM CDT on November 22 Doesn't sound like a fan of Rose. I wouldn't say mike tyson was over rated as much as seriously flawed. However, he was a very flawed fighter. Oh please. The first fight he loses so he must have thrown it? He got his ass handed to him. It was only a matter of time, and he was never the same since. posted by justgary I take it you're not a big Tyson fan. But wait: I'm not the one who said "Tyson is top 3 hands down". I don't think of myself as qualified to make any of those statements. If you do, great. I told you that we are worlds apart in our opinion. That's not a put down. That's the truth On the other hand: Mike Tyson has to be mentioned with the top heavey weights. There was a time he seemed unbeatable. posted by justgary at 10:22 PM CDT on February 2 Maybe we're not worlds apart. Maybe
posted by Bishop at 05:37 PM on October 18, 2006
Mike Tyson was good, but never great. When he finally fought someone who could hit him, he lost. He has no chin. In order to be a great fighter you have to be able to take a punch. Tyson has never been able to do that.
posted by SunnySide at 05:50 PM on October 18, 2006
Bishop, I'm not going to go line for line with you. We obviously don't communicate well. Just a couple of examples. it's not hating to say bonds looks pathetic, a shadow of his former self. If this is the real bonds and he doesn't pull it together down the stretch, you'd be nuts to sign him. He's breaking down, and it aint pretty. posted by justgary at 5:43 PM CDT on May 20 This just tends to sound like the opinion of someone who doesn't like Barry Bonds. In what world? The bonds I saw in the beginning of the year was absolutely awful. Couldn't hit and looked crippled in the field. If you don't believe me, check out his stats for the first part of the year. Honestly, how do you look at that statement and come up with I simply don't like the guy? Letting rose come back to manage? Unthinkable. posted by justgary at 1:02 PM CDT on November 22 Doesn't sound like a fan of Rose. You bet on baseball, you shouldn't be allowed to manage. And you look at that and say "he just doesn't like rose". Where in your mind does that logic come from bishop? You can't respect my opinion as a logical and valid view, even if you disagree with it? There's plenty of fans who agree with that statement. They just hate rose also? And I've already commented on tyson. Again, if you believe my thoughts on tyson or any other athlete are simply because I don't like them, whatever. You believe whatever you want to believe. I'm not going to waste my time defending that nonsense any longer. His victories include fights with Larry Holmes, Trevor Berbick, James Tillis, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno, Michael Spinks, Jesse Furgeson, Mitch Green, Marvis Frazier, Jose Ribalta, Henry Tillman, Carl Williams, Bonecrusher Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Bruce Seldon, Buster Mathis, Francios Botha. Say what you want about all those opponents between 1985 and 1990 that was the best the heavyweight division could put in front of him and he destroyed all of them. Exactly. Over 5 years. He took on everyone for 5 whole years. Roy Jones Jr. took on everyone for triple that time, and yet his critics still claim he never fought anyone so he's overrated. Tyson does it for 5 years and that's considered an accomplishment. He then falls apart, but we won't count those years since he wasn't the same fighter. And that's why boxing historians will generally put tyson in the 'what if' category, and not the top boxers of all time. Personally I think people have a short memory and only remember the end of his career after 1997 I think most people remember tyson for his knockout power, and are blinded by the flashiness of his style. They ignore his short period of greatness, his lack of size, and his flawed mental makeup.
posted by justgary at 06:00 PM on October 18, 2006
his lack of size He was 5'10", right? How tall were most heavyweight champs? Maybe it would make a difference nowadays, but why would that matter against historical champs? And what was wrong with his "mental makeup" until he ditched his support system?
posted by yerfatma at 07:16 PM on October 18, 2006
Tyson: ht. 5-11 Reach 71 Dempsey: ht. 6-1 Reach 77 Louis: ht. 6-2 Reach 76 1/2 Ali: ht. 6-3 Reach 82 Holmes: ht: 6-3 1/2 Reach 80 Tunney: ht: 6 1/2 Reach 77 Foreman: ht: 6-3 Reach 82 (link) Compared to the majority of heavy weights considered elite tyson is small. Why would it matter today and not historically? And what was wrong with his "mental makeup" until he ditched his support system? You're assuming the loss of his support system changed his mental outlook. I disagree. I think it changed his boxing. When tyson was challenged, he crumbled. Remember that fight where he went down twice against a great boxer and came back to win by knockout in the 12? You don't, because it never happened. Tyson himself has said he hates fighting. Don't get me wrong, I think his attitude of 'destroy everything in my way/ I'm the baddest man on the planet' was great. But if the fighter was still standing, or tyson couldn't connect, and started getting hit hard, i don't think he had the mental makeup to deal with it, imho.
posted by justgary at 07:57 PM on October 18, 2006
And for the record, I don't have any problem with tyson being in the top ten heavy weights (not when you include all weight classes), though I don't agree with it. I do have a problem with top 5, and certainly top 3. When you consider everything, I don't see how anyone can complain with tyson being at least considered among the best when so much of his value is trapped in the 'what if' category. I actually agree with some of the points made here.
posted by justgary at 08:30 PM on October 18, 2006
All a fighter can do is face every opponent available. Anybody that does their research can look at Tyson's record since turning pro and literally demolishing every available heavyweight, fighting twice a month sometimes and becoming the youngest heavyweight champ in history. His victories include fights with Larry Holmes, Trevor Berbick, James Tillis, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno, Michael Spinks, Jesse Furgeson, Mitch Green, Marvis Frazier, Jose Ribalta, Henry Tillman, Carl Williams, Bonecrusher Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Bruce Seldon, Buster Mathis, Francios Botha. Say what you want about all those opponents between 1985 and 1990 that was the best the heavyweight division could put in front of him and he destroyed all of them. The truth is this. There are three impressive names in that list. Holmes, Smith and Spinks. All were near the end of their careers when Tyson fought them (He fought Holmes and Spinks in 1988). The rest of them are historically speaking, unimpressive. (Berbick's known for beating Ali, but Berbick never successfully defended his title.) His 8-0 record following his defeat at the hands of Douglas were at best marginal fighters and at worst hand-picked to make him look good and bring his profile up to pay-per-view snuff. Look at those names - the best amongst them was Donovan Rudduck. But Peter Mathis? Valuev is undefeated and threatening Marciano's all-time record for victories without a defeat. It's an impressive record. It does not make Valuev a top-ten heavyweight all time. When Tyson faced the best, and in one case where he first faced a guy who didn't cower in fear at his approach, he wilited. He lost. There were mitigating circumstances, for sure, but the reality is that his career - when compared to even Holyfield and Lewis, pales in comparison. If your basically third in your generation, how can you possibly be in the top ten all-time? Impressive early career (based on exciting victories) is one thing - top ten all-time is entirely another. In 1989 it looked assured. By 1992 it was clear that it wouldn't be.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:51 PM on October 18, 2006
Compared to the majority of heavy weights considered elite tyson is small. Why would it matter today and not historically? I actualy believe that was part of his greatness. He was consistanly smaller than the competition. Everyone he faced had a height, wieght, reach, and age advantage. To overcome such in a sport like boxing speaks volumes. The only thing Tyson had to deal with in his prime years was hack-a-Tyson. He was out right mugged, grappled, WWE'd by some fighters. They would hold on for dear life. That would frustrait a lot of boxers, kind of the same way getting bit would. The rest of them are historically speaking, unimpressive. (Berbick's known for beating Ali, but Berbick never successfully defended his title.) Please take a look at what Berbick did to an in shape Larry Holmes. Im not saying he was an all time great, but he was hardly a bum and he would probably have 1 of the belts today. Greatest of his generation? Where were Lewis and Holyfield when they were 21 years old? Tyson could have dropped 10 pounds and been Lightheavy/cruiser weight champ for years, but he didn't. Since Tyson/Lewis/Holyfield were in the same generation, don't you wonder why they never fought within the first 2 years Tyson was champ? Tyson was fighting at a ridiculous clip at that time. Sure, there were several no names, but that just shows that he was fighting anybody they were standing in front of him, unlike the other 2. I'll say it again, it's no secret what happen to Mike Tyson. It's no secret how he came apart. I'm simple saying 2 things, 1. If ( I know.."IF") He doesn't lose Cus and Rooney, we're not having this discussion right now. 2. You take any Fighter in their prime (Ali/Foreman exceptions)and sit them in front of a young Mike Tyson after he took the belt from Berbick, and he scores a KO by round 3. This includes all the greats, My favorite Rocky M., Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Jake L., Holmes, Joe Louis, Walcott, Liston, Patterson etc. Actually look at this list. Take note while Clay/Ali is on it 5 times, Forman is on it 3, Holyfield is on it 5 times, Lennox 5 times, The only fighter on this list 6 times is (in his short time of greatness) Mike Tyson. Quick baseball reference; If Ali is Nolan Ryan, Marciano is Sy Young, Holyfeild is Roger Clemens, then Mike Tyson would be Dwight "Doc" Gooden. He was one of the best at a young age and had it not been for his problems, he could have been among the greatest of all time.
posted by Bishop at 02:53 AM on October 19, 2006
Since Tyson/Lewis/Holyfield were in the same generation, don't you wonder why they never fought within the first 2 years Tyson was champ? Tyson was fighting at a ridiculous clip at that time. Sure, there were several no names, but that just shows that he was fighting anybody they were standing in front of him, unlike the other 2. It sounds to me like you assume that they were ducking Tyson and not the other way around. I'm not so sure that's the case - but from what I recall, at the same age Lewis wasn't as good (but obviously became better - as he knuckled Mike) and was in the Olympics and an amateur and I have no idea what Holyfield was doing - was he even a heavyweight at this point?
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:38 PM on October 19, 2006
When Tyson faced the best, and in one case where he first faced a guy who didn't cower in fear at his approach, he wilited. He lost. There were mitigating circumstances, for sure, but the reality is that his career - when compared to even Holyfield and Lewis, pales in comparison. If your basically third in your generation, how can you possibly be in the top ten all-time? I'll just shutup and let you comment for me next time weedy. My thoughts, but better put. Tyson fought everyone out there for 5 years, while other boxers in the list did the same for 15 or so. With Tyson we're being asked to assume that he would have been as dominant in the next 5-10 years as his first 5 without his problems. We're also being asked to pin the years after his dominant 5 on those problems, and not that others adjusted and tyson didn't. So when he got beat by douglas, it wasn't the real tyson. And there might be a grain of truth in all that. But there's too many great boxers with full careers, and you have to make too many concessions to tyson's career, to put him at the top. And as impressive as his victories were, the names of the fighters aren't near impressive enough to overcome his short career.
posted by justgary at 06:40 PM on October 21, 2006
What's so surprising? He already has a "record" for beating women.