Mike Tyson - shockingly underrated by all and sundry!!

Just read on another thread that "Foreman beats Tyson easily"....apparently prime Tyson gets beaten easily off Holy and Lewis too!!..

Some perspective...Mike Tyson certainly in 86/87/88 was awesome....certainly much faster than Foreman, Holy and Lewis!!

Also very hard with his head movement to hit cleanly.....carried clubbing power that wiped out the durable Berbick, Holmes and Thomas!! Guys that didn't get knocked out and in a lot of ways bargained on their durability....

"Foreman beats Tyson in 2 rounds".....Nobody had an easy night against Tyson and let's face it.. he's a better all round fighter than Foreman...

Personally in their primes I wouldn't give Foreman a prayer....He wouldn't be able to get off!! Tyson wasn't Frazier..he was more rounded than him...he gave angles...had blinding speed etc...(but that's my opinion)

For me a prime Tyson gets beaten by Ali for sure and you can call other fights pickem.......

I'm not looking to start an argument guys but please before you say all and sundry beat him..(Lewis lost to Mccall...Holy struggled with Stewart and Dokes..lost to Bowe!!)..Please remember just what a fighter he was in his all-too-short prime....

Less of this Foreman, Holy, Lewis play with him nonsense!!

I know he's easy to hate..but please be fair.....

Sorry Truss but Tyson is no Joe Frazier, he gets well and truly wiped out by Foreman, wouldn't be close while it lasted at all. Not a dig at Tyson but stylistically he's made for Big George, Cus D'Amato himself said Tyson wouldn't stand a chance.

Cus D'amato said it himself any pressure fighter comes to foreman gets destroyed. In the styles makes fights - this is the nightmare for Tysn. Someone bigger, badder and someone who wants Tyson to come to him. Holyfield beats him because of his chin and his triple jab but not easily at all depends on how it goes and Lewis past 5-6 round beats him easily - once he stops moving that head. Tyson was technically brilliant but Lennox's size and calibre in combination are too much for him. Athough I've recently reevaluated Holmes Tyson - and I moved into the camp that says he does the same to the Holmes in his prime.

Don't care what D'amato thinks.....

Tyson was bigger than Frazier...quicker..more elusive and more intimidating..

Foreman was easy to hit, slower and never fought anybody remotely like iron mike..

Tyson battered Holmes who went on to take some notable scalps...

Get real about how good Mike was...

One of the quickest heavies and one of the hardest hitting ones in history!!

Arcel thought Dempsey beat Ali...so what!!

By the same virtue I therefore don't care what you think

Foreman absolutely destroys Tyson in a round or two, he was good yes but doesn't alter my cast iron opinion he stands about as much chance of beating Big George as I do.

Frazier didn't give up - Somehow I don't see Tyson getting up after the second or the third knock down. Also - Intimidating? Think Foreman was a little more intimidating than Tyson though neither match up to Liston. Foreman does exactly what he did to Frazier - push him off when he comes in close and hit him with an uppercut or hook.

Why are you trying to disagree with my article then...

You just don't like Tyson.....

Who did Foreman fight.....who punched as hard..who was as quick ..and who offered so much head movement...Ali apart???

No he just destroys Tyson in one round.....

Okay..

Folly to suggest Tyson gave up and had no heart....I'm talking about prime Tyson.....He had plenty of heart.....

5'10 along with Marciano the shortest heavyweight champs.

Wrapped it up, no matter what level the opposition was, at 21

Learned the ropes from a very respected, old school trainer in Cus.

Its clear that given the disadvantages Tyson was dealt in life he still achieved what he did because he was a special fighter. Technically a lot better then what people give him credit for.

I dislike Tyson simply because I think Foreman beats him easily?

Not special enough to have a prayer against a guy who's only special quality was his power...onetwo..

Anyone who sees Ali-Foreman sees an amateurish swatter.....though he was better than that in fairness!!

Foreman is very like Tyson in the way he won most of his fights before the first bell...

However technically, speed-wise and defensively Tyson had the upper hand...

both greats!!!

Not asking for people to agree one-two..just asking them to give Tyson a bit of credit....

The same Forman who struggled with Lyle?

The same Forman who struggled with the little heavy Young?

Forman threw with his arms. Against a mobile Tyson who would explode at any given chance (especially when Forman held which he loved to do) this fight would end before the 5th.

The same Foreman who obliterated Joe Frazier

Tyson is not like either Lyle or Young but Frazier whilst slower is very similar, he stands next to no chance against a guy who loved fighters coming to him.

Who did Tyson beat that was remotely similar to Foreman?

From that era I see Tyso beating Norton, Quarry, Lyle, Elis might be a little clever for him and Ali would be too smart and quick. Spinks would be interesting though.

As in Leon Spinks?

Tyson obliterates Frazier...If you shoved him back you beat him..

Tyson was 220!!!!

Unlike Frazier he had real speed and threw punches from different angles..

Berbick fell from the left....Holmes from the right!!!!! wasn't over reliant on one shot...

Million miles from being like Joe Frazier..

Leave it out...

Of course Truss he's nothing like Frazier, silly old me, Cus D'Amato knows nothing especially about his own fighter.

I'm sorry but one of the quickest, strongest.. most powerful and elusive heavyweights in history (Tyson circa 87)..

With a quality chin!!!!!

An easy night for somebody????

almost slanderous..

Come on Ghost..

Frazier was slow, and would come towards you and bury his head in your chest. From that position he would work body and head.

How the hell does that remind you of Tyson??????????

Not slanderous in the slightest, just taking into account the style match up which doesn't bode well for Tyson in the slightest.

Demspey, Marciano, Tyson and Frazier would all suffer a similar fate.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Frazier was slow, and would come towards you and bury his head in your chest. From that position he would work body and head.

How the hell does that remind you of Tyson??????????

He maraudes forward, trying to apply pressure, no pressure fighter regardless of size, speed and power is going to stand up Foreman.

Tyson never marauded forward with moving his head ready to slip the oh so obvious punches of big George.

So which come forward slugger like Foreman are you basing it on????

If it doesn't bode well for Tyson!!...

Here is me thinking Tyson only lost to Boxers until he was half-dead!!!

rebuttal comes ever so easy!!

Your rebuttal is based on you rating Tyson ridiculously highly, nothing else.

Razor Rudduck was as hard a hitter as George.

Come forward types like Bruno..Berbick .Ruddock and the like were all forced back by Tyson's lightning speed, movement and power...

But the slower than Mike.. Foreman.. is just going to stand there and take the kind of shots that Holmes, Williams and Berbick were rendered helpless by???...For a guy decked off Ali, Lyle and Young..that's one heck of a leap of faith!!!

Like I said pick Foreman to win but.....cut all this one round walkover garbage...

Makes you look like Waingro...

Righto Onetwo, Razor Ruddock was on the same level as Foreman.

Why cut it out when it's a fully feasible outcome, you love Tyson I get it but he's not as good as you think.

I agree that Tyson's abilities are often underrated, but I also think Foreman takes him out within four.

What people often over look is that Tyson wasn't a good infighter. He looks like the archetypal inside worker but he was actually very docile in clinches. The first time he went the distance, when the opponent (shoot, forgot his name!!) held him he just waited for the ref. The commentators mentioned that seemed the ideal time to drill the body but he didn't.

To me Foreman's too strong in close and too powerful whe Tyson's coming in. I don't know if there's anyone who could go to Foreman and win. Maybe Liston at his best.

Foreman would have eaten Tyson in his prime, probably in three or four rounds.Tyson showed no sign of heart in the early part of his caree, he didn't need to as he never had to come from behind to win. Foreman wouldn't be frightened of him as he thought himself invincible at the time and would walk through anything Tyson threw at him and knock him out.

Ironically, in terms of fantasy matchups of the 70s - Tyson would have a much better chance against the Ali of that period. Much hay can be made of Tyson's mental fragility and the fact that Ali would torture him mentally in the build up to the fight.

However - stylistically - Tyson offers a lot to trouble the post-exile-Ali. Good workrate and head movement inhibits Ali's effective aggression. Good power, good body shots - "peak" Tyson has enough to pose problems.

Unfortunately, "peak" Tyson was a victim of his own success. He was never challenged or tested - which left the conclusion in some's minds that he couldn't be challenged or tested, whilst others assumed that he merely wasn't fighting or beating anyone other than tin cans. The truth? As always, somewhere in the middle.

I'll come down on Truss's side on this one. In '86 to '88, Tyson was incredible and would have troubled anyone. But the light that shines twice as bright burns half as long and once his belief went, he became a fighter world class boxers could beat.

oxring wrote:Ironically, in terms of fantasy matchups of the 70s - Tyson would have a much better chance against the Ali of that period. Much hay can be made of Tyson's mental fragility and the fact that Ali would torture him mentally in the build up to the fight.

However - stylistically - Tyson offers a lot to trouble the post-exile-Ali. Good workrate and head movement inhibits Ali's effective aggression. Good power, good body shots - "peak" Tyson has enough to pose problems.

I agree. In terms of style, I'd give Tyson a better chance against Ali than against Foreman.

Having said that, I don't think that Foreman would blast Tyson out with the ease he did against Frazier. It probably wouldnt go beyond 4 rounds, but I'd imagine a fight in which both men have some success hurting one another during a brief but brutal encounter.

Dunno - I was watching some Frazier quite recently - his head movement is absolutely fantastic - and better than Tyson's IMHO. Frazier had a chin of granite - and look what Foreman did to him.

I'd agree with you on it going 4 or so rounds though - as Tyson liked o get closer to is opponent than Frazier and that stops Foreman getting some of his punches off. However - I'd still make big George a pretty hefty favourite.

Foreman pushes frazier about 20 timesi n that first round Unless the ref is Joe Cooper, I don't think Tyson is allowed close enough to do much damage although he may get a few shots in. I don't think fraziers head movement was better than Tysons but Frazaier maintained it - whereas Tyson stopped after a few rounds. But i'd concede that Fraziers head movement could be utilised for body work - whereas Tyson for some inexplicable reason let himself get tied up. I don't doubt that Tyson would have a good chance of beating that version of Ali mental issues aside - think that he would overwhelm him and then see it out by his fair boxing when he found that he couldn't knock him out. Would imagine Ali taking the latter rounds though. Would be an excellent match up. Peak for peak - Ali wins eventually in a comfortable fashion after surviving an early pummeling.

Tyson was a great fighter but I always felt he was a tad over rated..

when he was young, new a fearless he was a real handful and wiped out some good fighters...

But in the game of boxing as we know you have to be able to adjust. I personally think it was not only down to Tyson going in jail as signs where there before that if you could weather the storm you can win, it was a case that fighters started to learn that if you can not be intimidated by Tyson and use your skills or strength to keep him at bay and not back down, then you have a chance of beating him..

I think he was great, but compared to the real greats he lacked the technical ability to match some of the other greats IMO

Although he is a great example of what no fear and pure intimidation can do in a ring.

Na Tyson was a superb technician - just his own worst enemy in the mental sides of things. Genuinely could have been top 5 had he his head screwed on.

Does it do JCC an injustice saying that Mayweather could potentially school him? I don't think it does, certain fighters have styles that work well against certain opposition but can see them come up well short against others.

I don't believe that we need to under rate Tyson's abilities to make Foreman the favourite here.

Stylistically, the fight favours Foreman. It's always perilous for the swarmer to come at the slugger, and George is the best slugger in heavyweight history, in my opinion. Foreman is almost certainly stronger, has superior one shot power and at least as good a chin as Tyson. Tyson is faster and a far superior technician for as long as he is moving his head.

Tyson's problems, as I see it, are that he comes in straight lines and doesn't vary the angles of attack in the manner which Dempsey did when he was at his best ( for the record, I reckon Foreman beats Dempsey, also, ) and Tyson needs to operate from mid range to wreak his havoc. Foreman can pulverise a man from range and, whereas Tyson has a tendency to loop some of his punches, George can upend a man with straight punches. Tyson might manage to get close enough to let his combos go but, more often than not, I see George planting his hands in Tyson's chest and shoving him off like a rag doll. Even if Tyson does get to land a combo or two he still has the problem of hurting George sufficiently to stop him in his tracks.

It's customary, when assessing Tyson, to say that his success is inversely proportional to the length of the fight. He could knock out Joe Louis ( slow starter, ) or Rocky Marciano ( also slow starter, ) or even Jack Dempsey ( two heavy handed swarmers colliding in ring centre, ) any time during the first two or three rounds but probably comes unstuck if any of those three is still there after those first exchanges. This is one fight in which I see it the other way round. George needs to get Tyson early before his questionable stamina becomes an issue. If he doesn't, I'd reckon Tyson's superior technique takes over and he boxes his way home for a decision.

I honestly believe that the Foreman who beat Frazier and Norton has Tyson out of there before those issues arise.

I wonder how Tyson approaches the fight though? He is an expert in boxing history - how does he handle going into a fight in which he knows he may get pummelled, in which nearly everything , style, strength, power, height, reach are against him.

Tyson's technique is far superior to Georges, the main problem for Tyson and why I don't pick him regularly in the fantasy match-ups is his inability to show he can fight back in adversity. He never showed when the going got tough he could dig in change to plan B and eke out the result in his favour.

If Tyson couldn't get George going early and see Mike's head dropping and looking for a way out.

Foreman for me

ShahenshahG wrote:I wonder how Tyson approaches the fight though? He is an expert in boxing history - how does he handle going into a fight in which he knows he may get pummelled, in which nearly everything , style, strength, power, height, reach are against him.

Interesting point Shah, as you said all the physical attributes against him, I guess he can only do one thing attack the body and try and stay as close to big George as possible, Tyson's footwork could get him into these positions but he may have to wade through spells of hell to get there, thats why I cant pick him.

Shockingly underrated by all and sundry
-----------------------------------------------

Most certainly not. The opposite actually. The average person (casual sporting fan/ Joe Public) hugely overrates him. The number of times I've heard that Tyson would do this and that to such and such a boxer... about how unbeatable he was... how a prime Tyson was the 'baddest and best' ever

In the general public perception the myth has grown way out of proportion to the reality.

Interestingly, the more knowledgeable fight fans don't seem to rate him nearly as highly.. I wonder why



emancipator - universal and intergalactic expert on tennis, boxing, trees and mud.

Not on here.....emanc...

Tyson's speed is most definitely a problem for big George.....Tyson at 220 is around the same size...which Frazier wasn't....

With all due respect to Windy he probably thinks Jack the non Pareil stops Holy in two....

People do forget what an animal Tyson was in his prime!! Showed plenty of heart after being staggered by Tucker and Bruno...

Foreman could be decked and Tyson knocked out some durable guys...

Remember that Berbick pushed Tyson back and got caught doing it!!!

Foreman wasn't as good as he's made out to be!!..Ali had already had eleven years at the top when he tamed him..

Sure tyson had confidence problems but he was a BULLY...If he stings Foreman early which he's likely to do.. he relishes the battle..

Easy to let dislike cloud judgement!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

With all due respect to Windy he probably thinks Jack the non Pareil stops Holy in two....

Doubt it, Truss. Nonpareil Jack was a middleweight and Holy a cruiser / heavy.

Just thought I'd help you out, since you didn't know.

I was just glad I spelt it right

You did very well, my old mate.

I love wikipedia sometimes.

John Edward Kelly (December 15, 1862 – November 1, 1895) was an Irish-born champion boxer. At 1.73 m (5 ft 8 in) height, he was better known as Jack "Nonpareil" Dempsey, called "Nonpareil" because no one could defeat him. In 65 contests, he lost only 3 times.

I sent a post a few days ago in which I said that it was fashionable amongst boxing experts/ardent fans to slate Tyson, usually as a means of showing up casual fans who think Tyson was the ATG.

I personally rate Tyson (in his first iteration at least) very highly and have him 8-10 on my ATG list. Similarly, I rate his chances against other ATG's quite well, and beleive he doesn't get the credit he deserves for developing and refining such a difficult stlye. He hit with such speed and accuracy that he would pose a problem for any HW in history IMO.

Having said that, I'm not sure he would beat Foreman, although I would only give Foreman a slight advantage. Foreman's chin, while very good is slightly overrated in my opinion. For example, people say Frazier couldn't dent it, particularly in the second fight when he landed a number of good left hooks, but as the video shows, they were never followed up by anything, Foreman saw them coming, and I think the height difference may have taken the edge off the punches to an extent. Contrast that with Tyson of 1987-89 and he hardly ever threw a punch withouth intending to follow it up.

When you apply that to Foreman's fights when he was knocked down-Ali, Lyle, Young, all those KD's were due to an accumilation of punches, and none of those boxers were massive punchers. Therefore, I think Tyson would have a better chance than many.

The only fighter I would say Tyson has virtually no chance of beating would be Liston. Too strong, too good a boxer, and possibly more than that, his hard man demeanor wasn't an act (unlike Foreman), and so is probably the only boxer in my mind who Tyson would be legitimately intimidated by.

Think you've got Foreman and Liston the wrong way round there, he went on to become a bit of a joke in his comeback but in the 70's Foreman was a hard man no two ways about it, he was a brooding hostile man intent on wreaking havoc, no acting whatsoever.

Trussman.
I totally agree with all you say.
Break it down... Million Pound question??
The year is 2012.. Ask Joe Public, to look at picture of
Mayweather
Pacquioa
Klitschko`s
Jones
Hopkin
Or another
Ali
Tyson
My guess Joe public would chose "the bottom'2

Being more popular and well known means jack.