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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
