Skip to main content

Legacy Betrayed: The Monetization of Mike Tyson

On the night of November 15, 2024, boxing fans from around the globe had their eyes set on a long-awaited match featuring one of the all-time greatest boxers and one of the biggest names in sports: Mike Tyson. Known as “Iron Mike” and “The Baddest Man on the Planet”, Tyson is the youngest boxer ever to win a heavyweight title, but that was thirty-eight years ago, November 22nd, 1986, when Tyson was all of twenty years old.


As for the fifteenth of November, 2024, Iron Mike, now all of fifty-eight years, was scheduled to go toe-to-toe with “YouTube sensation” Jake Paul, 27, who’s made a “career” out of reckless antics and childish online videos and, as far as professional boxing goes, coaxing old fighters to come out of retirement. 


Despite all of the hype and anticipation in the lead-up to the match, one between old school and new school, one buoyed by nostalgia, conjuring up memories of a bygone era in sports, and capturing the imaginations of the many who witnessed Tyson in his prime and the countless others who know of his legend, the event left viewers not just underwhelmed but saddened by the spectacle of an old man, once the best at his craft, grossly unprepared and unfit to fight; most spectators and fans of the sport merely hoping to see flashes of vintage Mike Tyson, glimpses into the greatness that once graced the canvas. 


The event ultimately turned out to be one of the lousiest professional boxing matches ever aired on live television, and easily one of the most disappointing productions in all of professional sports, rivaling the likes of “The Last Hurrah!” of October 2, 1980, between “The Easton Assassin” and then-heavyweight champion Larry Holmes, 30, and “The Greatest” Muhammad Ali, 38, when Ali was already noticeably exhibiting signs of Parkinson’s syndrome. 


At fifty-eight years of age, Tyson was twenty years older than was Ali in “The Last Hurrah!” And, throughout the contest, Tyson reminded us of the fight none of us can ever win: the fight against Father Time. 


Throughout the fight, Tyson looked stiff and unconfident, a shell of his former glory. The boxing itself looked lethargic, uninspired, and at times didn’t even have the looks of a genuine fight. As a lifelong fan of the sport of boxing, I regret that I was right when I said ahead of the event that the fight wouldn’t be worth it on pay-per-view; fortunately it was essentially “free” to those with a Netflix subscription, or those inclined to use the accounts of family and friends.


In the end, Paul defeated Tyson via unanimous decision with the judges scoring the bout 80–72, 79–73 and 79–73 in favor of Paul. After witnessing the fight through the first few rounds, most of us spectators were just glad that Tyson remained on his feet until the final bell.


Notwithstanding the predictable effects of Father Time, there were various other clues portending Tyson’s defeat: not just his demeanor, the apprehension visible on his face, or his uncharacteristically-sheepish entrance into the ring, but certain words spoken in an interview with a young lady before the fight. 


For this author, one particular interview stood out ahead of the fight, perhaps foreshadowing the events to come: in some measure the sacrifice of legend and legacy for a handsome cash prize; the monetization of the Tyson name, and the exploitation of the hopes, nostalgia, and wishful thinking of his fans, for one final payout. The interview centered around one topic: the matter of ‘legacy’.


Faced with the question of what type of legacy the former heavyweight champion of the world would like to leave behind, Tyson had this to say:


“I don’t believe in the word ‘legacy’. I just think that’s another word for ego. ‘Legacy’ doesn’t mean anything; it’s just some word everybody grabbed onto.”


“It means absolutely nothing to me. I’m just passing through. I’m going to die and it’s going to be over. Who cares about legacy after that?”

 

“No, we’re nothing. We’re just dead. We’re dust. We’re absolutely nothing. Our legacy is nothing.”


Although I admire Tyson for many reasons, often for his thoughts, I think I may disagree with him on the subject of 'legacy' — and I fear that Tyson, in denying the value of legacy, may have just been justifying to himself what he knew was on the line in this fight, and just what he had to be willing to sacrifice for this payday, in a fight he may well have expected to lose. 


While legacy may appear disposable in the promise of riches, its value is in the unseen, the invisible and the intangible; its richness is beyond measure and beyond time. Legacy indeed means something, to the father, the grandfather, the leader and the mentor; it is a responsibility as much as it is an honor. It is a commitment as much as it is a higher calling.


Legacy and honor tend to go hand in hand, and it is our legacy, which carries on through the people we've touched, that calls forth our best efforts in this short time each of us has on this planet: a kind of accountability achievable only by the very idea that our memory survives us. 


The legacies of celebrities are a different matter altogether, often too nebulous, abstract and exaggerated to be worth much, to carry any practical value; and if that is indeed what Tyson is describing as 'legacy' (i.e. false idols), then I completely agree. As for the legacies of individuals, of men and of women, of mothers and of fathers, they influence the future, they influence what will be; they determine the shape and durability, the strength of the oak and the constitution of the family tree.

Comments

  1. Didn’t see the fight but it appears the legacy Tyson is more concerned with now is having some cash to leave behind. At the end of the day any sport is as much, or more imo, about conquering the demons within as it is vanquishing opponents. I read his biography and the dude is so beat up and rickety that I’m sure his pre fight comments alluded to that as much as anything. He has come light years in his journey as a human and even a spiritual being. The more important legacy seems to be going in the right direction (not that he could have gone much lower;). As awkward as the match seems to have been, I think his dominance as a boxer won’t be affected. Just dial up his KOs on YouTube and his “legacy” speaks volumes.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to  reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin)

Buy your copy today of  Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin) , available at  Amazon  and Barnes & Noble . The name Bobby Fischer reigns supreme in the world of chess, yet there was a time when it hogged headlines, struck fear into the eyes of the competition, and was on the lips of folks all across the globe. More than the face of the centuries-old game, there was a time when Bobby Fischer was synonymous with the cause and spirit of America, that his moves on the chessboard sought more than checkmate but to pit the strength of “raw-boned American individualism” against “the Soviet megalithic system” which had come to dominate the game of chess at the same time it dominated Cold War politics. Fischer’s triumph over the USSR's Boris Spassky in the ’72 World Chess Championship would ultimately be celebrated as a symbolic and diplomatic victory for the U.S., but, as time would tell, it would not mean the American...

The Cost of Government is What It Spends, Not What It Taxes

The cost of government is the quantity it spends, not the quantity it taxes; that cost representing the financial burden imposed upon those who pay the taxes and all who transact within that economy or through its common currency. Likewise, governments can either take the people’s money through taxation or they can take the people’s purchasing power through money-printing (or the like).  Therefore, the argument against tax cuts requires further context to appreciate why tax cuts have failed and will continue to fail to deliver economic growth, especially where those tax cuts promote or serve excess indulgence and cheap speculation. In short, it’s not that tax cuts are inherently destructive, or that reducing the tax liability of the wealthiest in society “doesn’t work”; rather, the fact is that the public debt is so high that the country simply cannot afford those tax cuts without defaulting on its debts or — which is the same — covering them through inflation (i.e. money-printing,...