Does Anyone Agree With Teddy Atlas' Latest Take on Mike Tyson?

[kara]

Teddy Atlas on Mike Tyson: I Don’t Know If He Was Ever Great - Boxing News (krikya360.com)

[Ivich]

Teddy Atlas on Mike Tyson: I Don’t Know If He Was Ever Great - Boxing News (krikya360.com)

We all have our own criteria for greatness,one of mine is longevity.I think Tyson showed flashes of greatness so I'd have no problem with him being termed great.

[Tatabanya]

No, I don't. Especially because Atlas has always been biased against Tyson.

[QueensburyRules]

- - While Tyson had a few screws loose, dumpy Teddy have a factory of screws loose.

[DeeMoney]

I know Atlas has had some less than flattering things to say about Tyson, but in this case I think its beneficial to read the article and not just the headline.

Throughout the article Atlas is effusive in his praise of Tyson’s abilities. Noting his great speed and strength. But essentially questioning if he can be judged as great as he never had to overcome a great challenge.

As others have noted, everyone has different criteria for greatness. In this case, Atlas’ criteria punished Tyson for being too good relative to most of his competition (ex his dominance over Spinks). While never winning a 50/50 type fight against a great fighter.

Whether you agree with that, I think its best to get the actual opinion out there, not just a headline.

[sleazyfellow]

Teddy's case for hating Mike was Mike being a little horn dog and trying to hump on teddy's niece.

[Tatabanya]

I know Atlas has had some less than flattering things to say about Tyson, but in this case I think its beneficial to read the article and not just the headline.

Throughout the article Atlas is effusive in his praise of Tyson’s abilities. Noting his great speed and strength. But essentially questioning if he can be judged as great as he never had to overcome a great challenge.

As others have noted, everyone has different criteria for greatness. In this case, Atlas’ criteria punished Tyson for being too good relative to most of his competition (ex his dominance over Spinks). While never winning a 50/50 type fight against a great fighter.

Whether you agree with that, I think its best to get the actual opinion out there, not just a headline.

It's not just a matter of criteria.

Whichever way Atlas chooses - elegant or less - he always ends putting Tyson's name in the negative list.

It's not Tyson's fault if he fought Holyfield after three years in jail, and Lewis during the twilight of his career, when he was penniless and full of drugs.

[BKM-]

I think what Atlas is getting at is Tyson's legacy is formed in a bubble of excuses and what-if's. You don't extra points for having "reasons" for losses in crucial legacy defining fights, and you don't get extra points for theories on how good you could have been.

Take that away and you get stuck with facts. Which is that he has double digit title wins in his career and if I'm not mistaken, collected 6 alphabet titles(the first run clearing out the whole division which is impressive) throughout his career. Not too shabby. Gets extra points for the comeback in the 90s, but heavily penalized for his losses in his defining fights against other ATG's. Unique fighter, showed greatness in the ring but is heavily penalized for not being able to overcome adversity.

Those two issues I mentioned above bring him down a lot when he's in the company of a Muhammad Ali, Lennox Lewis, George Foreman etc.

One thing I will say against teddy Atlas here though, is my desdain for the fetishization of the word "great" in boxing which a lot of old timers do. It's just silly. I said this not long ago and I'll say it again: Being great doesn't mean you're an all time great. They can be mutually exclusive.

[Marchegiano]

Teddy is bitter and a bit weird.

[GhostofDempsey]

Teddy has a personal grudge with Tyson. He’s a very good coach but he allows his personal biases to surface too often.