The problem with fighters like Mike is that they are the ones responsible for their own demise.

And when they f*&%ed up in and out of the ring, people - not necessarily historians - ganged up on them. In many ways what they do out of the ring affect the perception of everyone, and it translate into the way we think of their careers.

Look at PBF...

Well, we all have our way of putting someone in their pedestal...

and we have ways to bash other peoples monument as well.

froch ko tyson

His boxing skills were very underrated

For those that appear to think Tyson would have beaten any heavy in any era in his prime, it is worth remembering Sonny Liston. He too was the baddest most destructive Heavy of his time. He also had the same bullying mentality, but Ali beat him before the fight even started, and that is exactly what he would have done to Tyson. He would have abused him about any and every aspect of his life, including his effeminate lispy voice, but he would have undermined his confidence to a massive extent.

whether tyson was overrated is subjective i think.every fight tyson won he won from the first bell.i think it,s an interesting point that he never once won a fight he was losing..to show the character his mentor would frequently speak about.
he wasn,t yet 23 years old when he fought bruno the first time yet amazingly was already past his best (shades of wilfred benitez)
if tyson had the mental strength of say evander holyfield he may well have proved to be the greatest heavyweight ever.the combined hand speed with power combinations was second to none.he also had an underrated jab and great defence.
my personal feeling is the tyson who beat spinks would have beaten almost every heavyweight.ali is the only one i would be confident he would never have beaten..possibly holmes too.
what isnt in dispute is he was one the most exciting fighters in any weight division.

Mike Tyson is coming back according to rumors.

Re-thinking about it im not sure he is underrated by Boxing historians.

Fighters are not judged on whether they were capable of beating other great fighters in head to head match ups they are or should be rated on how dominant they were in their own!! particular era, Mike Tyson may have been able to beat even a prime Larry Holmes, although i disagree, but the bottom line is Larry was more dominant in the era he was in and beat better men so he is obviously ranked higher.

Mike Tyson was not dominant over a long sustained period of time and his competition was not that great so in theory he is probably overrated more so than underrated in terms of how dominant he was in his own!! era.

I have always preferred a stylish boxer but Tyson at his best as barbaric as his fighting could appear was one of the greatest heavyweights. He had unbelievable speed for a heavyweight, power that appeared second to none, tight defence, solid chin and underrated boxing skills.

I have often watched ESPN's Top 10 heavyweight of all time and the likes of Tyson, and Holyfield at best were just in the top 15 and Lennox Lewis was rated outside the top 20. I think the historians give very little credit to modern fighters as they think things are a lot easier these days (mutltiple titles and weight classes).

However, things have always been the same for heavyweights as they never dropped weight to go for a title at a lighter weight so all they could do is win the title and try and clean up the division and without doubt Tyson (and Lewis) cleaned up and won everything they could.

I think the comments of Tyson being a 'bully', a 'frontrunner' type fighter and not being able to deal with adversity has to be accepted as a valid point as his record reflects that. However, as he dominated and cleaned up so quickly I question how much desire he had left after sweeping all before him? I believe if this desire could have been maintained then I doubt he would have lsot as many fights as he did but believe the question mark would still be over his head as he would continued to dominate without being tested in the way fans, pundits and historians would want to see before making their final decision.

An example of this is Mayweather. Unbeaten and never close to losing and beaten top level fighters in several wieghts but has the question mark over him becuase he has not been pushed to the wire. Yet Manny Pac is easier to quantify because he has been beaten even though in recent times has appeared just as unbeatable as Floyd has been

by casual i'm assuming you all are talking about knockout pretty much guaranteed. tyson was a killer in his prime and would've cause problems for any heavyweight, now or past. his heart has always been the subject of criticism, teddy himself noticing "silent agreements" when he held on the inside. but great fighter

by casual i'm assuming you all are talking about knockout pretty much guaranteed. tyson was a killer in his prime and would've cause problems for any heavyweight, now or past. his heart has always been the subject of criticism, teddy himself noticing "silent agreements" when he held on the inside. but great fighter