Mike Tyson, Top Ten Worthy?

[HomicideHenry]

IMO, had it been anyone else who defeated the stiffs that Tyson defeated, it wouldnt have been looked upon as a great feat. What made Tyson great was the way he defeated these men, not that the caliber of opposition he was facing was what you could define as being all-time world beaters.

Ali defeated the Foreman's, Frazier's, Liston's, Patterson's, Norton's.

Marciano defeated the Walcott's, Charles's, Louis's, and Moore's.

Foreman defeated the Frazier's, the Moorer's, the Norton's.

Holyfield defeated the Bowe's, the Douglas's, the Moorer's, the Tyson's, the Foreman's, the Holmes's.

Holmes defeated the Norton's, the Ali's, the Mercer's.

All the ATG HW's, the true elite guys, defeated real name opposition, guys with real credability, who had no blips to take away from their victories over them. The guys Tyson batted around the ring, even in his prime, all had faults, all were inconsistant, or were all out of their element.

Let's take a genuine look at these men Tyson defeated, and let's not make excuses for them, let's look at them for what they really were:

Tony Tubbs= a feather fisted fat guy who was more or less brought in to break the inactivity of Tyson; this fight also was the first HW title bout brought to Japan since Foreman flattened Roman

Tyrell Biggs= a known drug abuser whose trainers and management had trouble trying to keep in control, they more or less cashed Biggs in before a lesser fighter got to him first

Pinklon Thomas= another known drug abuser

Trevor Berbick= Lost to Holmes, but his best win was arguably over a shot Muhammad Ali

Michael Spinks= scared shitless, wasnt fighting the top contenders after winning the lineal HW crown, and was getting old himself

Bonecrusher Smith= a late starter being in his 30's, was inconsistant as hell

Frank Bruno= probably his best opponent of the group, losing to guys like Witherspoon and Smith though he was ahead on cards before getting kayoed

Larry Holmes= been inactive for 2-3 years, basically using 'champion emeritus' to get to Tyson

Yes, I know, I'm missing Carl Williams and Tony Tucker, but imo, Williams was an easy mark for Tyson and Tucker, for the most part, was alot the same as Thomas and Smith.

[dmt]

Ruddock was good.

[HomicideHenry]

I was referring to when Tyson was champ. But, overall, yes Ruddock was good, but, he wasn't exactly a all-time great world beater either. Ruddock was a better fighter before he started relying on his right all the time. Overall, Tyson, every time he stepped up against the genuine world beaters (Holyfield, Lewis) he was destroyed.

[dmt]

Monte wrote a good article:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[brownpimp88]

I was referring to when Tyson was champ. But, overall, yes Ruddock was good, but, he wasn't exactly a all-time great world beater either. Ruddock was a better fighter before he started relying on his right all the time. Overall, Tyson, every time he stepped up against the genuine world beaters (Holyfield, Lewis) he was destroyed.
Joe Louis was old when marciano beat him, archie moore and ezzard charles were not heavyweights and walcott was old too. Mike Tyson would go 49-0 against the same comp that rocky fought. Ezzard and Archie would get ko'd by tyson.

[Thread Stealer]

I have no problem with him being on the lower end of the top ten, or just outside it.

[My2Sense]

IMO, had it been anyone else who defeated the stiffs that Tyson defeated, it wouldnt have been looked upon as a great feat.

As a matter of fact, Larry Holmes did beat many of the same guys Tyson did, yet many people were critical of him and his quality of opposition during his heyday.

Taking this a step further, I've never seen a fighter so thoroughly embarrassed the way Tyson was by Douglas while smack dab in his prime, and yet be totally "forgiven" for it, without even proving he could avenge it. Would Marciano get the same treatment if he had been whupped by Cockell, or Ali if he had been whupped by Mildenberger, or so on?

[Jaws]

I was referring to when Tyson was champ. But, overall, yes Ruddock was good, but, he wasn't exactly a all-time great world beater either. Ruddock was a better fighter before he started relying on his right all the time. Overall, Tyson, every time he stepped up against the genuine world beaters (Holyfield, Lewis) he was destroyed.

Tyson never fought Lewis in a meaningful match.

And Tyson's opposition is arguably better than Lewis' and Holmes', but yet they are both usually considered easy Top Ten All-Timers.

[AnthonyJ74]

As a matter of fact, Larry Holmes did beat many of the same guys Tyson did, yet many people were critical of him and his quality of opposition during his heyday.

Taking this a step further, I've never seen a fighter so thoroughly embarrassed the way Tyson was by Douglas while smack dab in his prime, and yet be totally "forgiven" for it, without even proving he could avenge it. Would Marciano get the same treatment if he had been whupped by Cockell, or Ali if he had been whupped by Mildenberger, or so on?

Tyson didn't duck anyone during his first championship reign the way Holmes did. Tyson fought all the contenders around worth fighting. He unified the heavyweight title within, what, a year after he beat Berbick. Holmes didn't do that. Tyson beat the best available comp around at that time (1987-1989); Holmes didn't do that. Also, Tyson won the freakin' heavyweight title (WBC) when he was 20-years-old; that was a special, herculean achievement, even though Berbick was ordinary, he was till way more experienced than Tyson and very durable and strong. And don't forget Tyson regained the heavyweight title after 3-years of inactivity, against a good, capable fighter in Frank Bruno.

Tyson should definitely be in the top ten.

[ironchamp]

IMO, had it been anyone else who defeated the stiffs that Tyson defeated, it wouldnt have been looked upon as a great feat. What made Tyson great was the way he defeated these men, not that the caliber of opposition he was facing was what you could define as being all-time world beaters.

Ali defeated the Foreman's, Frazier's, Liston's, Patterson's, Norton's.

Marciano defeated the Walcott's, Charles's, Louis's, and Moore's.

Foreman defeated the Frazier's, the Moorer's, the Norton's.

Holyfield defeated the Bowe's, the Douglas's, the Moorer's, the Tyson's, the Foreman's, the Holmes's.

Holmes defeated the Norton's, the Ali's, the Mercer's.

All the ATG HW's, the true elite guys, defeated real name opposition, guys with real credability, who had no blips to take away from their victories over them. The guys Tyson batted around the ring, even in his prime, all had faults, all were inconsistant, or were all out of their element.

Let's take a genuine look at these men Tyson defeated, and let's not make excuses for them, let's look at them for what they really were:

Tony Tubbs= a feather fisted fat guy who was more or less brought in to break the inactivity of Tyson; this fight also was the first HW title bout brought to Japan since Foreman flattened Roman

Tyrell Biggs= a known drug abuser whose trainers and management had trouble trying to keep in control, they more or less cashed Biggs in before a lesser fighter got to him first

Pinklon Thomas= another known drug abuser

Trevor Berbick= Lost to Holmes, but his best win was arguably over a shot Muhammad Ali

Michael Spinks= scared shitless, wasnt fighting the top contenders after winning the lineal HW crown, and was getting old himself

Bonecrusher Smith= a late starter being in his 30's, was inconsistant as hell

Frank Bruno= probably his best opponent of the group, losing to guys like Witherspoon and Smith though he was ahead on cards before getting kayoed

Larry Holmes= been inactive for 2-3 years, basically using 'champion emeritus' to get to Tyson

Yes, I know, I'm missing Carl Williams and Tony Tucker, but imo, Williams was an easy mark for Tyson and Tucker, for the most part, was alot the same as Thomas and Smith.


I think you are seriously undermining the quality of the opponents that Tyson fought. Its probable that you are unaware of any of the fighters that Tyson fought other than their night with Mike Tyson.

If you really examine other ATGs and their wins as Champ; then you can scrutinize and find ways to undermine other accomplishments as well.

Marciano won 6 times and only beat 4 fighters as champion. Tyson beating Michael Spinks was a better win than Marciano beating Charles. The Walcott who faced Rocky was no better than the Pinklon Thomas who faced Mike Tyson.

George Foreman's body of work has very little depth. He has some signature wins which are great but his overall body of work is pretty shallow compared to Tyson. Try it yourself take the top 15 names of Tyson's resume and compare them to the top 15 NAMES on Foreman's resume.

Jack Dempsey, Average competition, avoided black fighters held the title hostage before losing it to Gene Tunney.

Evander Holyfield, you mentioned "the Bowe's, the Douglas's, the Moorer's, the Tyson's, the Foreman's, the Holmes's.

Well Evander lost 2 out of 3 to Bowe. Douglas is only there because he beat Tyson, otherwise he's a footnote. Tyson beat better fighters before and after he fought Douglas. Evander is 1-1 with Michael Moorer. Tyson beat Holmes far more convingcingly than Evander did.

Holmes's win over Ali isnt noteworthy, I seriously doubt that that any top flight boxer in the past 20 years would have had trouble with the Ali that fought Larry. Norton was no better than Ruddock and also if you are going to undermine Tyson's opponents by calling them inconsistent don't include Ray Mercer, who is as inconsistent as they come.

There is really so much to type but I'm not even sure where to begin with this.

Anyway to answer the thread. Yes Mike Tyson is definately top 10 worthy.

[HomicideHenry]

Joe Louis was old when marciano beat him, archie moore and ezzard charles were not heavyweights and walcott was old too. Mike Tyson would go 49-0 against the same comp that rocky fought. Ezzard and Archie would get ko'd by tyson.

What I'm saying is, in short, all the ATG's had wins against GREAT or other ATG fighters. Holmes and Spinks were the only great fighters that Tyson beat, and as I stated before, Holmes been inactive 2-3 years and Spinks was scared shitless and had been avoiding mandatories, not even being apart of HBO's tournament to determine the undisputed HW champ.

So, were they really still great when Tyson beat them, or were they utter shit? A prime Holmes, sure, would have beaten Tyson, and a prime, couraged Spinks, for sure, would have done better than he did.

You point out that Marciano's best wins were against old men, but Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore WERE either top contenders at the time and were also current/former world champions. Before losing to Marciano, Louis defeated Bivins twice and beat Savold whom the BBBC proclaimed the true HW champion during Louis's retirement. He wasnt completely gone, despite what bullshit historians like Bert Sugar would like to say.

Also, they were elite NAMES. Outside of Spinks and Holmes, who I just said were out of their primes/elements, who did he fight who was the genuine article? Nobody. Simple as THAT.

[ironchamp]

What I'm saying is, in short, all the ATG's had wins against GREAT or other ATG fighters. Holmes and Spinks were the only great fighters that Tyson beat, and as I stated before, Holmes been inactive 2-3 years and Spinks was scared shitless and had been avoiding mandatories, not even being apart of HBO's tournament to determine the undisputed HW champ.

So, were they really still great when Tyson beat them, or were they utter shit? A prime Holmes, sure, would have beaten Tyson, and a prime, couraged Spinks, for sure, would have done better than he did.

You point out that Marciano's best wins were against old men, but Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore WERE either top contenders at the time and were also current/former world champions. Before losing to Marciano, Louis defeated Bivins twice and beat Savold whom the BBBC proclaimed the true HW champion during Louis's retirement. He wasnt completely gone, despite what bullshit historians like Bert Sugar would like to say.

Also, they were elite NAMES. Outside of Spinks and Holmes, who I just said were out of their primes/elements, who did he fight who was the genuine article? Nobody. Simple as THAT.

The Joe Louis that Marciano beat was no better than the Larry Holmes that Tyson beat.

You can't fault Tyson for Michael Spinks perceived fear of him. The fact is that he was an undefeated LHW Champ turned HW Champion. He didnt participate in the HBO because he was weighing his options and he didnt want to be mandated to participating. He wanted big money fights. He was a pretty solid win.

Thomas, Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Biggs, Ruddock, Bruno were all top names when he beat them. They were either title holders or former titleholders and they were the best fighters that division had to offer.

[HomicideHenry]

But they were not, in retrospect, what you would call real threats in H2H match ups with ANY of the all-time great champions or contenders! That is a fact! 9 out of 10 undisputed HW champions would have defeated these WBA belt holders with ease. Can you see Coetzee ever standing a chance against Frazier? Or Dokes standing a chance against Foreman? Hell fucking no!

To make it even more understandable to you, can you invision Tyrell Biggs ever beating the likes of Oscar Bonavena? Or Bonecrusher Smith ever beating Jerry Quarry? How about this, can you invision Tubbs ever beating the likes of Eddie Machen? Thats what I am talking about here.

As for Louis being no better than Holmes, I dont see your logic. Holmes was inactive 3 years, with no tune ups at all. Louis, on the other hand, was a top contender in beating Bivins twice, Savold, and only took the Marciano fight because he needed the money, people forget the FACT that all Louis had to do was wait to fight the winner of Walcott/Charles because he was in line to get another title shot, he already had it under contract!

Holmes was beaten around and was kayoed for the only time in his career when he fought Tyson. I believe alot of it was because of the inactivity and no tune ups. When he came back in the 1990's, he learned from his mistake in the Tyson bout and had several tune ups, before losing decisions to Holyfield and McCall. Just goes to show you that, even though Holmes was younger when he fought Tyson, he was actually a more capable, durable, more conditioned fighter in his 40's because he PREPARED PROPERLY.

[brownpimp88]

What I'm saying is, in short, all the ATG's had wins against GREAT or other ATG fighters. Holmes and Spinks were the only great fighters that Tyson beat, and as I stated before, Holmes been inactive 2-3 years and Spinks was scared shitless and had been avoiding mandatories, not even being apart of HBO's tournament to determine the undisputed HW champ.

So, were they really still great when Tyson beat them, or were they utter shit? A prime Holmes, sure, would have beaten Tyson, and a prime, couraged Spinks, for sure, would have done better than he did.

You point out that Marciano's best wins were against old men, but Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore WERE either top contenders at the time and were also current/former world champions. Before losing to Marciano, Louis defeated Bivins twice and beat Savold whom the BBBC proclaimed the true HW champion during Louis's retirement. He wasnt completely gone, despite what bullshit historians like Bert Sugar would like to say.

Also, they were elite NAMES. Outside of Spinks and Holmes, who I just said were out of their primes/elements, who did he fight who was the genuine article? Nobody. Simple as THAT.
So what if spinks was scared shitless? He was undefeated and the linear champ, joe louis would retire after tha marciano loss cuz he was old. Ezzard Charles had many losses between 1951-1954, hardly the same guy as the fighter from the 1940's. Its funny that walcott all of a sudden becomes an elite name when he was a journeyman for most of his career.

All you are doing is looking at names anyways. Niether of those guys are ATGs at heavyweight, they were light heavies and over the age of 37.

Tyson fought ranked heavyweight contenders one after another, as a matter of fact, hes beaten nearly twice as many ranked fighters as Marciano has. Tyson doesn't lose to an aging joe louis and two light heavyweights, rocky's 49-0 is so overrated. At least 35 of those fights were against unranked nobodies.

Spinks was coming of a KO win over Cooney and he was supposed to lose that fight. Larry Holmes was coming off two very close fights with spinks and some believe he won that fight. He never took any serious beatings prior to fighting tyson. Praising Rocky's wins over old guys and then downplaying Tyson's wins over his atgs his laughable and completely biased.

[brownpimp88]

But they were not, in retrospect, what you would call real threats in H2H match ups with ANY of the all-time great champions or contenders! That is a fact! 9 out of 10 undisputed HW champions would have defeated these WBA belt holders with ease. Can you see Coetzee ever standing a chance against Frazier? Or Dokes standing a chance against Foreman? Hell fucking no!

To make it even more understandable to you, can you invision Tyrell Biggs ever beating the likes of Oscar Bonavena? Or Bonecrusher Smith ever beating Jerry Quarry? How about this, can you invision Tubbs ever beating the likes of Eddie Machen? Thats what I am talking about here.

As for Louis being no better than Holmes, I dont see your logic. Holmes was inactive 3 years, with no tune ups at all. Louis, on the other hand, was a top contender in beating Bivins twice, Savold, and only took the Marciano fight because he needed the money, people forget the FACT that all Louis had to do was wait to fight the winner of Walcott/Charles because he was in line to get another title shot, he already had it under contract!

Holmes was beaten around and was kayoed for the only time in his career when he fought Tyson. I believe alot of it was because of the inactivity and no tune ups. When he came back in the 1990's, he learned from his mistake in the Tyson bout and had several tune ups, before losing decisions to Holyfield and McCall. Just goes to show you that, even though Holmes was younger when he fought Tyson, he was actually a more capable, durable, more conditioned fighter in his 40's because he PREPARED PROPERLY.
He was inactive for a year and half, not 3 years and he arguably won that fight against spinks. Eddie machen and Oscar Bonavena were not the most consistent fighters in thier careers, they would have dropped decisions here and there. Tony Tubbs was an excellent slick boxer, hes the type that would have given someone like Foreman problems, not saying he necessarily wins, but slick boxers always gave foreman hell.

[rusty nails]

youngest heavyweight champ ever
one of the only fighters to ever hear the words undefeated undisputed heavyweight champion of the world
KNOCKED OUT larry holmes (who was never stopped) and michael spinks who was never knocked down) in less than 5 rounds of boxing.
two time title holder.
competed for the heavyweight title a third time 14 years or so from his prime.


i think he qualifies

[HomicideHenry]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Watch what Tyson says of him fighting Holmes. He himself says it wasnt the legendary Holmes he fought, that he wouldnt stand a chance against a prime Holmes. You, I am sure, will take that with a grain of salt and say Mike was being respectful to Holmes, but Tyson was an actually intelligent and knowledgable guy when it game to the great boxers, and I think he believed a prime Holmes probably would have beaten him.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

As you can see from the press, Tubbs was well known out of shape guy at that time, so he was an easy mark for Tyson. So dont go praising Tubbs, him training with The Hulk to lose 40-50 pounds to fight Tyson is about as ridiculous as you can get. As for Holmes, imo, he was too much about the money evidentially. Holmes admitted the long lay off and his age was a big factor in his loss to Tyson. Larry Merchant gave a good analysis on a prime Holmes/Tyson hypothetical that was maybe a bit too nice on Mike with the whole "well its not fair on Mike" line, but I think its a given Holmes at his best would have given Tyson lots of problems in the ring.

[dmt]

Holmes was also vulnerable when it came to fighters who could put pressure on him so lets not pretend this would be one sided

[HomicideHenry]

I'm not saying it would be. BUT...I believe the Holmes who took on Shavers and Norton, would have defeated Mike Tyson via decision. Holmes at his best, could pick himself up off the canvas to win fights. Tyson, on the other hand, when he was down, he was out.

[Mendoza]

IMO, had it been anyone else who defeated the stiffs that Tyson defeated, it wouldnt have been looked upon as a great feat. What made Tyson great was the way he defeated these men, not that the caliber of opposition he was facing was what you could define as being all-time world beaters.

Ali defeated the Foreman's, Frazier's, Liston's, Patterson's, Norton's.

Marciano defeated the Walcott's, Charles's, Louis's, and Moore's.

Foreman defeated the Frazier's, the Moorer's, the Norton's.

Holyfield defeated the Bowe's, the Douglas's, the Moorer's, the Tyson's, the Foreman's, the Holmes's.

Holmes defeated the Norton's, the Ali's, the Mercer's.

All the ATG HW's, the true elite guys, defeated real name opposition, guys with real credability, who had no blips to take away from their victories over them. The guys Tyson batted around the ring, even in his prime, all had faults, all were inconsistant, or were all out of their element.

Let's take a genuine look at these men Tyson defeated, and let's not make excuses for them, let's look at them for what they really were:

Tony Tubbs= a feather fisted fat guy who was more or less brought in to break the inactivity of Tyson; this fight also was the first HW title bout brought to Japan since Foreman flattened Roman

Tyrell Biggs= a known drug abuser whose trainers and management had trouble trying to keep in control, they more or less cashed Biggs in before a lesser fighter got to him first

Pinklon Thomas= another known drug abuser

Trevor Berbick= Lost to Holmes, but his best win was arguably over a shot Muhammad Ali

Michael Spinks= scared shitless, wasnt fighting the top contenders after winning the lineal HW crown, and was getting old himself

Bonecrusher Smith= a late starter being in his 30's, was inconsistant as hell

Frank Bruno= probably his best opponent of the group, losing to guys like Witherspoon and Smith though he was ahead on cards before getting kayoed

Larry Holmes= been inactive for 2-3 years, basically using 'champion emeritus' to get to Tyson

Yes, I know, I'm missing Carl Williams and Tony Tucker, but imo, Williams was an easy mark for Tyson and Tucker, for the most part, was alot the same as Thomas and Smith.


I think Ruddock, Bruno, Tucker, and Thomas were the best heavies that Tyson beat.

The trouble with Tyson in the top ten is he lost his legacy fights badly to Lewis and Holyfield, and was upset by Douglas. Had Tyson been more competitive in either of his legacy fights, or showed more mental fortitude without fouling or quitting when the going was rough, he would be in my top ten.

Tyson could KO anyone in theory, but put him in there with a skilled guy who not going to fold under Tyson's early round pressure and things were different for Tyson.

[Mendoza]

As a matter of fact, Larry Holmes did beat many of the same guys Tyson did, yet many people were critical of him and his quality of opposition during his heyday.

Taking this a step further, I've never seen a fighter so thoroughly embarrassed the way Tyson was by Douglas while smack dab in his prime, and yet be totally "forgiven" for it, without even proving he could avenge it. Would Marciano get the same treatment if he had been whupped by Cockell, or Ali if he had been whupped by Mildenberger, or so on?

I think you could also say that Tim Witherpsoon defeated some of the same guys before Tyson did. Tyson's team never made a match with Witherpsoon. Too bad, Witherpsoon was likely still in his prime in 1986, and 1987, and IMO was better than anyone ( omit the old Holmes ) Tyson beat in the 1980's.

[Holmes' Jab]

8th or 9th in my book.

[kolcade4]

1 Muhammad Ali
2 Rocky Marciano
3 Joe Louis
4 Larry Holmes
5 Floyd Patterson
6 Jack Johnson
7 Joe Frazier
8 Sonny Liston
9 Ezzard Charles
10 Lennox Lewis
11 Mike Tyson

I was being generous to give Mike the 11 spot. he should really be at 12 or maybe even 13. Of course these rankings are IMO. This ranking reflects Tyson's career as a whole. Now if you want me to rank the Tyson of 1986-88,89 then he easily breaks the top ten and I probably would have him sitting at 5 right after Holmes. Although that is debatable as well , Im not sure Tyson could have handled a prime Holmes but at the same time Im not sure that a prime Holmes could handle the untamed 86-89 version of Tyson . As of this point though Ive got to let the records speak for themselves.

[Holmes' Jab]

Patterson 5th???? C'mon. :huh

[kolcade4]

Patterson 5th???? C'mon. :huh
He fought quality competion throughout his 20 year career 55 wins (40 kos) 8 losses
Won the vacant world heavyweight title with a 5th-round KO of Archie Moore. At the age of 21, Patterson was the youngest ever world heavyweight champion. His record was surpassed by Mike Tyson, who won the WBC heavyweight title at age 20 in 1986.
Was the first person to regain the world heavyweight title. He lost it twice, defended it successfully seven times, and failed to regain it three times

[kolcade4]

He fought quality competion throughout his 20 year career 55 wins (40 kos) 8 losses
Won the vacant world heavyweight title with a 5th-round KO of Archie Moore. At the age of 21, Patterson was the youngest ever world heavyweight champion. His record was surpassed by Mike Tyson, who won the WBC heavyweight title at age 20 in 1986.
Was the first person to regain the world heavyweight title. He lost it twice, defended it successfully seven times, and failed to regain it three times
that's why. like i said imo

[lefthook31]

Tyson will definitely go down as an all time great and top tenner. He is the youngest heavyweight champion, and still the last to unify the titles in three separate fights. His competition consisted of a good solid pedigree of boxers, most who held the title for more than one fight like the fighters of the 90's. How do you say Spinks was scared shitless? He didnt try and fight? He tried, he was just no match for Tyson who was at his best that night. Guys like Tubbs, Tucker, Ferguson, Ribalta, Berbick, Thomas, Biggs, Bruno, Green, were all solid fighers when Tyson faced them. I remember many boxing experts thought Biggs would easily outbox Tyson, they also picked Spinks to beat him. If Tyson wouldnt have completely dominated them the way he did, people wouldnt say they were scared shitless like they do today. Fact is Tyson was super fast and he was very good at taking away a boxers advantage, and forcing them to fight. They either held on to survive or got knocked out.
People say his prime was short, but he had a lot of fights in that short period of time, about the same as Holyfield and Lewis had over 10+ years.

[kolcade4]

Patterson 5th???? C'mon. :huh
even though it was a vacant title, it was against archie moore and that is one one hell of an accomplishment for a 21 year old no matter what era your'e fighting in. hell that record stood for what; 30 years. well, who would you put there?

[godking]

But they were not, in retrospect, what you would call real threats in H2H match ups with ANY of the all-time great champions or contenders! That is a fact! 9 out of 10 undisputed HW champions would have defeated these WBA belt holders with ease. Can you see Coetzee ever standing a chance against Frazier? Or Dokes standing a chance against Foreman? Hell fucking no!

To make it even more understandable to you, can you invision Tyrell Biggs ever beating the likes of Oscar Bonavena? Or Bonecrusher Smith ever beating Jerry Quarry? How about this, can you invision Tubbs ever beating the likes of Eddie Machen? Thats what I am talking about here.

As for Louis being no better than Holmes, I dont see your logic. Holmes was inactive 3 years, with no tune ups at all. Louis, on the other hand, was a top contender in beating Bivins twice, Savold, and only took the Marciano fight because he needed the money, people forget the FACT that all Louis had to do was wait to fight the winner of Walcott/Charles because he was in line to get another title shot, he already had it under contract!

Holmes was beaten around and was kayoed for the only time in his career when he fought Tyson. I believe alot of it was because of the inactivity and no tune ups. When he came back in the 1990's, he learned from his mistake in the Tyson bout and had several tune ups, before losing decisions to Holyfield and McCall. Just goes to show you that, even though Holmes was younger when he fought Tyson, he was actually a more capable, durable, more conditioned fighter in his 40's because he PREPARED PROPERLY.I can see Biggs beating Bonavena easily and Tubbs could have beaten Machen.

I hope your suggesting that Bonavena or Machen would have beaten Tyson.

[ChrisPontius]

He has an excellent case for the top10 and makes mine.

[Flea Man]

Marciano has a poor resume, Charles and Walcott gave him fits at an old age and out of their best weights.

And I'm a Marciano fan!

Tyson beat what was there at the time, and it's clear to see that he was displaying none of the skill he had used to get to the top by the time he beat Douglas. Oh, well, he came back and beat some other half-decent guys, and then came back again and lost his big fights, and was then completely shot and lost against Williams and McBride.

These things happen. In his day he beat some half-decent champs, and returning or not, is still the only man to have ever stopped Larry Holmes, who carried on fighting way after Tyson.

[Flea Man]

TYson's win over HOlmes is easily as decent as Marciano's over Louis IMO

[kolcade4]

TYson's win over HOlmes is easily as decent as Marciano's over Louis IMO
that is a great comparsion

[kolcade4]

Marciano has a poor resume, Charles and Walcott gave him fits at an old age and out of their best weights.

And I'm a Marciano fan!

Tyson beat what was there at the time, and it's clear to see that he was displaying none of the skill he had used to get to the top by the time he beat Douglas. Oh, well, he came back and beat some other half-decent guys, and then came back again and lost his big fights, and was then completely shot and lost against Williams and McBride.

These things happen. In his day he beat some half-decent champs, and returning or not, is still the only man to have ever stopped Larry Holmes, who carried on fighting way after Tyson.
you do have great point about Marciano, he did fight guys who were done aka (Joe Louis 65-2-0-) (Jersey Joe Walcott 51-17-2 twice -)(Roland LaStarza 53-3-0)- (Ezzard Charles 83-11-1 twice)(Archie Moore 148-19-9) ali also fought archie moore when moore was 184-22-11 , that was like fighting your grandfather in his rocking chair.

[Flea Man]

Thanks kolcade4, I assume you're not being sarcastic?

[Flea Man]

your follwing post shows me you are not, :good

[kolcade4]

not at all, im assuming youre not giving tyson hardly any credit for beating a washed up almost finished holmes, just as the rock did with archie moore. it sucks that some fighters meet in the time that they do. i always refer to the ever elusive boxing time machine that i have been hinting my wife to get me.

[Flea Man]

Well....SOME credit, but not a huge amount. Just think that if the thread starter is trying to prove that Tyson is not one of the greatest HW's of all time, then using Marciano as an example is not a good idea, as he ranks below Iron Mike IMO, and H2H would be smashed to bits within one or two rounds.

[kolcade4]

yet i still have marciano ranked #2 all time due to his record of 49-0 even though it is not the greatest resume as you said which is true i do feel that nobody can ignore his undefeated record. i would have liked to see jersey joe in his prime against the rock though. or in fact all of those i mentioned in the previous thread.

[Flea Man]

Nahhhh, an undefeated record with a patchy resume isn't as good as a fighter with losses who beat some immeasurable odds IMO. Otherwise Calzaghe would be one of the greatest fighters of all time, but he's not.

[kolcade4]

now your playing an if game. i know that tyson would more than likely mop the floor with marciano but that involves a time machine. im looking at the fact that marciano beat who was placed in front of him and i am in total agreement about the resume part. tyson cracks the top 5 in the era of his prime 86-89 but that is not the fact .tyson fumbled the football. i would ve ranked holmes higher as well if he beats tyson at his old age but he didnt.

[Flea Man]

Look, Marciano outright sturggled with past-prime (but admittedly wiley) fighters.

You say you'd give more credit to Larry holmes if he beat Tyson but tell me not to play the 'if' game? THat's an if.

Put it this way, if Marciano had come back and beaten Patterson, he'd prove himself. The fact of the matter is Marciano never beat anyone who could have beaten him, and guys he should've beaten easily (past prime 'blown-up' fighters) he nearly lost too (2nd Charles fight for instance)

I'd rank Marciano above Dempsey, but still only about no.7 or no.8.

My top 5 is

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Holmes
5. Lewis

[kolcade4]

Look, Marciano outright sturggled with past-prime (but admittedly wiley) fighters.

You say you'd give more credit to Larry holmes if he beat Tyson but tell me not to play the 'if' game? THat's an if.

Put it this way, if Marciano had come back and beaten Patterson, he'd prove himself. The fact of the matter is Marciano never beat anyone who could have beaten him, and guys he should've beaten easily (past prime 'blown-up' fighters) he nearly lost too (2nd Charles fight for instance)

I'd rank Marciano above Dempsey, but still only about no.7 or no.8.

My top 5 is

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Holmes
5. Lewis
you were making the comparison for tyson and marciano that's the reason i used the holmes reference . which they actually did fight. foreman at 3 ?

[Flea Man]

Foreman at three due to the way he destroyed undefeated Joe Frazier, and also how he came back (against admittedly middling opposition) but reclaimed the title. Apart from being one of the most hurtful punchers in HW history he also has one of the most solid chins, well demonstrated in his comeback.

3,4 and 5 are admittedly interchangable. But as man for ranks MArciano at no.2 you have no right to belittle my judgements.

What I was referring to was this 'i would ve ranked holmes higher as well if he beats tyson at his old age but he didnt. ' that's what you said a couple of threads back, even you you said that there was no point 'using a time machine'. I then said I'd rank Marciano higher if he'd beaten Floyd Patterson, showing you the same rule applies there.

No hard feelings I think we just got our wires crossed.

[AnthonyJ74]

I think you could also say that Tim Witherpsoon defeated some of the same guys before Tyson did. Tyson's team never made a match with Witherpsoon. Too bad, Witherpsoon was likely still in his prime in 1986, and 1987, and IMO was better than anyone ( omit the old Holmes ) Tyson beat in the 1980's.

The winner of Witherspoon/Smith was next to fight Tyson. Smith knocked Witherspoon out in one round; thus, he got the shot at Tyson. It wasn't that Tyson avoided Witherspoon; Witherspoon lost to Smith and eliminated himself.

[kolcade4]

Foreman at three due to the way he destroyed undefeated Joe Frazier, and also how he came back (against admittedly middling opposition) but reclaimed the title. Apart from being one of the most hurtful punchers in HW history he also has one of the most solid chins, well demonstrated in his comeback.

3,4 and 5 are admittedly interchangable. But as man for ranks MArciano at no.2 you have no right to belittle my judgements.

What I was referring to was this 'i would ve ranked holmes higher as well if he beats tyson at his old age but he didnt. ' that's what you said a couple of threads back, even you you said that there was no point 'using a time machine'. I then said I'd rank Marciano higher if he'd beaten Floyd Patterson, showing you the same rule applies there.

No hard feelings I think we just got our wires crossed.
calm down, you say i have no right but yet you are doing the same with my ranking of rocky. so i don't have the right but you do? either way you look at it all of these posts are subjective. you definatly made a great point about the rock's resume.

[mr. magoo]

The winner of Witherspoon/Smith was next to fight Tyson. Smith knocked Witherspoon out in one round; thus, he got the shot at Tyson. It wasn't that Tyson avoided Witherspoon; Witherspoon lost to Smith and eliminated himself.

I think Witherspoon was eliminated by a means other than just the incredible fighting abilities of James Smith ;)

[lefthook31]

not at all, im assuming youre not giving tyson hardly any credit for beating a washed up almost finished holmes, just as the rock did with archie moore. it sucks that some fighters meet in the time that they do. i always refer to the ever elusive boxing time machine that i have been hinting my wife to get me.

I look at Tyson's win over Holmes very impressive, considering he went on to beat Mercer, give Holyfield and Mcall close fights. Tyson crushed him in 4 rounds.

[kolcade4]

i don't see it the same way. holmes was at the ass end of his career. thats like saying that holmes win over ali was notable.

[kolcade4]

I look at Tyson's win over Holmes very impressive, considering he went on to beat Mercer, give Holyfield and Mcall close fights. Tyson crushed him in 4 rounds.
although he did fight 23 to 24 fights after tyson and the defeat of a 18-0 ray mercer was impressive.i guess that is how good holmes was. still a prime holmes gives a different fight to tyson.

[ripcity]

Top 5 Worthy.
Unified the Heavyweight championship.
Beat the best heavyweights of his day when in his prime.
Would do better head to head than ANY heavyweight in mythical prime for prime match ups.

[lefthook31]

i don't see it the same way. holmes was at the ass end of his career. thats like saying that holmes win over ali was notable.
Nah not the same. Ali didnt go onto any noteable wins. Holmes did. I think its a different fight too in his prime, but not much different. Tyson was very good at making mobile fighters stand and fight. Holmes never had the fire power to keep Tyson off.

[janitor]

Lets look at his raw statistics:

Prime
Obviously on his way to the title he was one of if not the most dominant of all the heavyweight champions.

He achieved more than anybody else at a younger age and probably had a slight lead over both Louis and Ali (at the same stage of their careers)going into the Douglas fight.

Opposition
The oponents he beat during his prime run were the best available at the time. While there were not many great fighters around there were a lot of verry good fighters as is the case with the title reigns of Louis and Marciano. The resumes of great champions are rarely built against other great fighters in their primes.

Title reign
His title reign was short and he only really managed two sucesfull title defences if we are comparing him to greats of the past. Yes I am sorry but if there had been split titles in Joe Louis's era he could have picked one up before he beat Jimmy Braddock. His lack of longevity is the biggest mark against his record.

Depth
The depth of his resume is deceptivley impresive. Although he had a short title reign he was beating ranked contenders for a long time after he lost the title. If you rank the heavyweight champions based on how many ranked oponents they beat Tyson is actualy one of the best.

Historical impact
In terms of historical impact he can be compared to fighters like Sullivan, Dempsey, Louis and Ali. If you have never heard of him you are probably living on Mars.

Head to head
You can argue it either way of course but if he was going to fight your No5 heavyweight or even your No1 heavyweight would you be confidant of the outcome. I dont think most of us would.

Conclusion
A top 10 ranking can be justified.

[Bokaj]

Lets look at his raw statistics:

Prime
Obviously on his way to the title he was one of if not the most dominant of all the heavyweight champions.

He achieved more than anybody else at a younger age and probably had a slight lead over both Louis and Ali (at the same stage of their careers)going into the Douglas fight.

Opposition
The oponents he beat during his prime run were the best available at the time. While there were not many great fighters around there were a lot of verry good fighters as is the case with the title reigns of Louis and Marciano. The resumes of great champions are rarely built against other great fighters in their primes.

Title reign
His title reign was short and he only really managed two sucesfull title defences if we are comparing him to greats of the past. Yes I am sorry but if there had been split titles in Joe Louis's era he could have picked one up before he beat Jimmy Braddock. His lack of longevity is the biggest mark against his record.

Depth
The depth of his resume is deceptivley impresive. Although he had a short title reign he was beating ranked contenders for a long time after he lost the title. If you rank the heavyweight champions based on how many ranked oponents they beat Tyson is actualy one of the best.

Historical impact
In terms of historical impact he can be compared to fighters like Sullivan, Dempsey, Louis and Ali. If you have never heard of him you are probably living on Mars.

Conclusion
A top 10 ranking can be justified.

Nice summation. It would be interesting to see a ranking based on number of ranked opponents beaten and percentage of wins. If anyone would have the stats it would be Hhascup, I reckon.

[Vanboxingfan]

I have no problem with him being on the lower end of the top ten, or just outside it.

Without reading the entire thread this is my thought as well. H2H I think an argument can be made that he's inside the top 5. But career achievement and lack of longivity on the top eshlon hurts him in my opinion.

[janitor]

Nice summation. It would be interesting to see a ranking based on number of ranked opponents beaten and percentage of wins. If anyone would have the stats it would be Hhascup, I reckon.

OLD FOGEY atempted something similar once and Tyson came out better than expected.

[PowerPuncher]

You can rip anyone's career down, how about we make fair comparisons of his wins with other champs in terms of his opponents:

Holmes - equivilent of Louis-Marciano or Tyson-Lennox
Spinks - equivilent of a Moore/Charles-Marciano or Dempsey-Tunney
Thomas - equivilent of a Norton-Ali,
Bruno - equivilent of Louis-Max Baer
Rudduck-equivilent of Dempsey-Firpo
Douglas - equivilent of a Foreman-Young or Schmelling-Louis
Tucker - 35-0 part champ in his prime, equivilent of a Lastarza?
Berbick - 1 of Holmes better wins
Seldon - Equivilent of a Fulton

Tyson's comp was good and I doubt any other HW in history would have dominated as impressively. Ali would beat everyone but take longer dispatching them. Foreman would have possibly been outboxed by Holmes and maybe Thomas. I won't go on but you get the point

[Bokaj]

You can rip anyone's career down, how about we make fair comparisons of his wins with other champs in terms of his opponents:

Holmes - equivilent of Louis-Marciano or Tyson-Lennox
Spinks - equivilent of a Moore/Charles-Marciano or Dempsey-Tunney
Thomas - equivilent of a Norton-Ali,
Bruno - equivilent of Louis-Max Baer
Rudduck-equivilent of Dempsey-Firpo
Douglas - equivilent of a Foreman-Young or Schmelling-Louis
Tucker - 35-0 part champ in his prime, equivilent of a Lastarza?
Berbick - 1 of Holmes better wins
Seldon - Equivilent of a Fulton

Tyson's comp was good and I doubt any other HW in history would have dominated as impressively. Ali would beat everyone but take longer dispatching them. Foreman would have possibly been outboxed by Holmes and maybe Thomas. I won't go on but you get the point

Good comparison. The only one I don't agree with is Douglas=Young/Schmeling. Young had an impressive win over Lyle and a very good perfomance, that many believe was a win, against Ali among other things. Schmeling was ex-undisputed champ. Douglas had nothing like that prior to Tyson. I think Tyson's loss to Douglas is quite a bit worse than Foreman's to Young or Louis' to Schmeling.

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;4123039]You can rip anyone's career down, how about we make fair comparisons of his wins with other champs in terms of his opponents:


My take on your comparisons.

Holmes - equivilent of Louis-Marciano or Tyson-Lennox

Agreed.

I would possibly give Holmes the edge over the guys you listed at that stage of their careers.

Spinks - equivilent of a Moore/Charles-Marciano or Dempsey-Tunney

Verry close.

It is only the fact that Spinks had fewer fights at heavyweight that puts him a bit bellow Charles/Moore as a heavyweight win.

Thomas - equivilent of a Norton-Ali,

I can go with that.

Bruno - equivilent of Louis-Max Baer

Not even close.

Baer might have been a douchbag but he is way out of Bruno's league.

Rudduck-equivilent of Dempsey-Firpo

Yes

Douglas - equivilent of a Foreman-Young or Schmelling-Louis

No.

Schmeling and Young established themselves as top fighters outside of their key career wins over Louis/Foreman.

Tucker - 35-0 part champ in his prime, equivilent of a Lastarza?

For my money Tucker is a better win.

This is a guy who was denied two mandatory shots at the lineal title.

Berbick - 1 of Holmes better wins

A good win for sure.


Seldon - Equivilent of a Fulton


Not even close.

Fulton was seen as the No1 challenger to Willards title for most of Willards title reign.

Seldon is not worthy to carry his spit bucket.

Tyson's comp was good and I doubt any other HW in history would have dominated as impressively. Ali would beat everyone but take longer dispatching them.

In general your point stands.

[HomicideHenry]

I can see Biggs beating Bonavena easily and Tubbs could have beaten Machen.

I hope your suggesting that Bonavena or Machen would have beaten Tyson.

You must be joking, right?

Biggs was only 15-0-0 when he fought Tyson. Despite that Olympic gold medal he wore, Tyson batted him around like he was still an amateur. Tyson toyed with him, then finished him off, could have stopped him whenever he wanted to. Bonavena had two wars with Frazier, gave Ali loads of trouble before getting stopped for the first time in his career in the 15th round.

As for your question, do I think Machen or Bonavena could beat Tyson? Machen once went the distance with Sonny Liston and he had a broken hand in that fight. Liston is comparable to Tyson, imo. So peak Machen, yes, I think could have pulled a decision over the Tyson we're speaking of, because if he could go the limit with a prime Liston who had greater physical attributes than Tyson, he could keep Tyson at bay with his jab. Bonavena? He was tough, and imo, I think he beat Frazier the first time they fought but didnt get the nod. In a series, he fails against Tyson, but just for one match, I think its a 60/40 split in favor of Tyson, but a Bonavena upset wouldnt surprise me.

[Bill Butcher]

I think anyone that DOES NOT have Tyson in their top 10 HWTs needs to wake up & smell the shit because their judgement is woeful.

[MrMarvel]

I put Tyson in my top 10.

[HomicideHenry]

I personally have Tyson at #11

Say what you want to, but Tyson lost to Holyfield and Lewis, never fought Bowe or Moorer, never fought Mercer, Morrison, Foreman, McCall.

You would have to say Frank Bruno, Spinks and Holmes were his best wins. Tucker, imo, was his toughest test in the ring, though. Had Tucker not had a broken hand, he probably could have derailed the myth of Tyson right then and there.

Dont get me wrong, Mike Tyson was and still is my favorite heavyweight from my time, but I dont believe his standing is top ten. Lewis and Holyfield basically fought them all, save Bowe for Lewis and a few lower ranked contenders for Holyfield. Tyson's reputation and record was built on blowing away guys who either didnt have the skills or lacked the fire power to do anything back to him effectively for too long.

Sure, he beat who they put in front of him, but just because he was the youngest undisputed HW champ, imo, doesnt make him a top 10 HW. There's been more than just a handful of undisputed champs at HW. From Sullivan to Ali, before the creation of the WBA and these bastard organizations, there were almost two dozen champs who were undisputed. Since their creation, there have been: Frazier, Ali [until the Spinks bout], Foreman, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Moorer, Riddick Bowe, Hasim Rahman. Sure, Lewis dropped his WBA and IBF belts down the line, but the LINEAL title means more to people than the damned straps the organizations produce.

[brownpimp88]

I personally have Tyson at #11

Say what you want to, but Tyson lost to Holyfield and Lewis, never fought Bowe or Moorer, never fought Mercer, Morrison, Foreman, McCall.

You would have to say Frank Bruno, Spinks and Holmes were his best wins. Tucker, imo, was his toughest test in the ring, though. Had Tucker not had a broken hand, he probably could have derailed the myth of Tyson right then and there.

Dont get me wrong, Mike Tyson was and still is my favorite heavyweight from my time, but I dont believe his standing is top ten. Lewis and Holyfield basically fought them all, save Bowe for Lewis and a few lower ranked contenders for Holyfield. Tyson's reputation and record was built on blowing away guys who either didnt have the skills or lacked the fire power to do anything back to him effectively for too long.

Sure, he beat who they put in front of him, but just because he was the youngest undisputed HW champ, imo, doesnt make him a top 10 HW. There's been more than just a handful of undisputed champs at HW. From Sullivan to Ali, before the creation of the WBA and these bastard organizations, there were almost two dozen champs who were undisputed. Since their creation, there have been: Frazier, Ali [until the Spinks bout], Foreman, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Moorer, Riddick Bowe, Hasim Rahman. Sure, Lewis dropped his WBA and IBF belts down the line, but the LINEAL title means more to people than the damned straps the organizations produce.
11 is an okay ranking, i just want to know who you put infront of him. Jack Dempsey can get far more criticism than tyson.

[kolcade4]

I personally have Tyson at #11

Say what you want to, but Tyson lost to Holyfield and Lewis, never fought Bowe or Moorer, never fought Mercer, Morrison, Foreman, McCall.

You would have to say Frank Bruno, Spinks and Holmes were his best wins. Tucker, imo, was his toughest test in the ring, though. Had Tucker not had a broken hand, he probably could have derailed the myth of Tyson right then and there.

Dont get me wrong, Mike Tyson was and still is my favorite heavyweight from my time, but I dont believe his standing is top ten. Lewis and Holyfield basically fought them all, save Bowe for Lewis and a few lower ranked contenders for Holyfield. Tyson's reputation and record was built on blowing away guys who either didnt have the skills or lacked the fire power to do anything back to him effectively for too long.

Sure, he beat who they put in front of him, but just because he was the youngest undisputed HW champ, imo, doesnt make him a top 10 HW. There's been more than just a handful of undisputed champs at HW. From Sullivan to Ali, before the creation of the WBA and these bastard organizations, there were almost two dozen champs who were undisputed. Since their creation, there have been: Frazier, Ali [until the Spinks bout], Foreman, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Moorer, Riddick Bowe, Hasim Rahman. Sure, Lewis dropped his WBA and IBF belts down the line, but the LINEAL title means more to people than the damned straps the organizations produce.
cuddos, ive got him at 11 as well , ye t i think bonecrusher needs to be mentioned as another tough test for tyson.

[kolcade4]

I personally have Tyson at #11

Say what you want to, but Tyson lost to Holyfield and Lewis, never fought Bowe or Moorer, never fought Mercer, Morrison, Foreman, McCall.

You would have to say Frank Bruno, Spinks and Holmes were his best wins. Tucker, imo, was his toughest test in the ring, though. Had Tucker not had a broken hand, he probably could have derailed the myth of Tyson right then and there.

Dont get me wrong, Mike Tyson was and still is my favorite heavyweight from my time, but I dont believe his standing is top ten. Lewis and Holyfield basically fought them all, save Bowe for Lewis and a few lower ranked contenders for Holyfield. Tyson's reputation and record was built on blowing away guys who either didnt have the skills or lacked the fire power to do anything back to him effectively for too long.

Sure, he beat who they put in front of him, but just because he was the youngest undisputed HW champ, imo, doesnt make him a top 10 HW. There's been more than just a handful of undisputed champs at HW. From Sullivan to Ali, before the creation of the WBA and these bastard organizations, there were almost two dozen champs who were undisputed. Since their creation, there have been: Frazier, Ali [until the Spinks bout], Foreman, Tyson, Holyfield, Lewis, Moorer, Riddick Bowe, Hasim Rahman. Sure, Lewis dropped his WBA and IBF belts down the line, but the LINEAL title means more to people than the damned straps the organizations produce.
1 Muhammad Ali
2 Rocky Marciano
3 Joe Louis
4 Larry Holmes
5 Floyd Patterson
6 Jack Johnson
7 Joe Frazier
8 Sonny Liston
9 Ezzard Charles
10 Lennox Lewis
11 Mike Tyson

I was being generous to give Mike the 11 spot. he should really be at 12 or maybe even 13. Of course these rankings are IMO. This ranking reflects Tyson's career as a whole. Now if you want me to rank the Tyson of 1986-88,89 then he easily breaks the top ten and I probably would have him sitting at 5 right after Holmes. Although that is debatable as well , Im not sure Tyson could have handled a prime Holmes but at the same time Im not sure that a prime Holmes could handle the untamed 86-89 version of Tyson . As of this point though Ive got to let the records speak for themselves

[SuzieQ49]

The Joe Louis that Marciano beat was no better than the Larry Holmes that Tyson beat.

how can you be so sure? Who did larry holmes beat within 2 years that was a top 10 contender going into the tyson fight? Louis beat multiple top 10 contenders and was on a 8 fight winning streak going into the marciano fight.

[SuzieQ49]

Ezzard Charles had many losses between 1951-1954, hardly the same guy as the fighter from the 1940's. .

Many? 5 losses, 2 of which were thought to be robberies is "Many". What about the MANY wins over top 10 contenders/champions he had during 1951-1954???


Its funny that walcott all of a sudden becomes an elite name when he was a journeyman for most of his career


Walcott was an elite level fighter since late 1945. Thats 7 straight years as a top contender. Hardly "suddenly" like you claim.


Niether of those guys are ATGs at heavyweight, they were light heavies and over the age of 37.

Jersey Joe Walcott certainly was

[SuzieQ49]

I think you could also say that Tim Witherpsoon defeated some of the same guys before Tyson did. .

You could also say that Tyson DOMINATED guys(Thomas, Bruno, Tubbs, Smith) that either beat or gave Tim Witherspoon Hell.

Tyson's team never made a match with Witherpsoon.


More like Team Witherspoon never made a match with Tyson. After seeing tyson destroy Bonecrusher Smith and Pinklon Thomas....both whom clearly beat witherspoon....spoon wanted no part of that.


Too bad, Witherpsoon was likely still in his prime in 1986, and 1987,


Spoon got dominated and knocked out by bonecrusher smith in 1 round. Dont give me that bull about a fix. witherspoon got caught by a big right hand in the opening seconds and never recovered. Tyson then easily beat bonecrusher. I give witherspoon 4 rounds at best vs tyson. Especially the witherspoon with man boobs of 1987. it will be another thomas and tubbs type knockout.


and IMO was better than anyone ( omit the old Holmes ) Tyson beat in the 1980's

Thats of opinion. I think Pinklon Thomas Tony Tucker and Tony Tubbs proved themselves at or above the level of tim witherspoon. You overrate spoon to try to make holmes legacy look better than it was.

[SuzieQ49]

Put it this way, if Marciano had come back and beaten Patterson, he'd prove himself. The fact of the matter is Marciano never beat anyone who could have beaten him, and guys he should've beaten easily (past prime 'blown-up' fighters) he nearly lost too (2nd Charles fight for instance)


This is a very retarded post. I doubt you will find anyone on the boards who will agree with this statement. You dont have to critisize rocky to boast tyson. Both rate in the top 6 all time IMO.


Marciano never beat anyone who could have beaten him

Then why were Rex Layne and Joe Louis favorites over him?? Many People thought Roland Lastarza, Ezzard Charles, and Archie Moore all had a good chance to outbox him.


Put it this way, if Marciano had come back and beaten Patterson, he'd prove himself.


Why should a retired washed up champion have to comeback to prove himself? What did patterson do in the 1950s outside of get utterly destroyed by hardly great ingemar johansson? patterson proved himself no better than walcott or charles


and guys he should've beaten easily (past prime 'blown-up' fighters)


Why should he have beaten walcott easily? Walcott was the HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION coming off back to back wins over a prime ezzard charles


why should he beat archie moore easily? Moore was 45-1 in his last 46 fights and had just beaten HUGE young ranked heavyweight punchers Nino Valdez, Bob Baker, and Clarence Henry

Why should he beat joe louis easily? Louis was 68-2 coming off an 8 fight winning streak with loads more experience. Louis was 6'2 215lb, he had 4" in height advantage and 31lb weight advantage.

why should he beat rex layne easily? Layne was 22 years old 34-1(25 knockouts) 9 to 5 favorite and considered the next potential heavyweight champion by the papers

why should he beat roland lastarza easily? Lastarza was 23 years old 37-0 talented boxer ranked in the top 10

why should he beat harry kid matthews easily? matthews was 81-3, ranked in the top 5, and had won his last 50 fights in a row. A talented boxer.

why should he beat ezzard charles easily? Charles was a hall of fame master boxer and # 1 contender who had just dismantled bob satterfield and coley wallace.

[Muchmoore]

I rate Tyson in my top 5.

Head to Head he's second to only Ali in my view. Best blend of power and speed ever seen, Tyson was probably the most dominating ever champion at his best. His wins are under rated too, say whatever you want about Spinks, the fact is that he was the unbeaten former LHW and HWT champion and had never even been dropped. Ruddock, Thomas, Tucker, Tubbs, Bruno, Berbick, Holmes, Golota, and Smith are also good, capable fighters that he took apart. Depthwise he is clearly a step above fellow ATGs like Dempsey and Foreman.

I can see Tyson just missing out on the top 5, but ommiting him from the top ten entirely isn't fair.

[Stonehands89]

God bless him. His four-year-old daughter just died. Accidental death at home. Her name was Exodus Tyson.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]'s-daughter,-4,-dies-day-after-accident/?GT1=39002

[Dempsey1238]

Pretty sure Exodus was being held in the locker by Mike Tyson room after the Lewis fight.
I belive that was Exodus in the interview there.



I personal think Tyson just miss the top ten.

I can think any were from 9-15 is good for him.

1 Louis
2 Ali
3 Marciano
4 Johnson
5 Lewis
6 Holmes
7 Jeffies
8 Foreman
9 Frazier
10 Sullivan
11 Holyfiled
12 Tyson
13 ete.

That looks about right, by ranking of Sullivan and others are historic impack, and not relly head to head, and since Sullivan is the first superstar of the ring, I think a top ten is worth a ranking for him.

[BeeGee]

Tyson was a victim of his own power and speed. He made real good fighters look like street bums they way he dominated them.

[HomicideHenry]

IMO, top 10 lists are hard to make because you can make such strong arguments for so many of them to be rated higher than others. Its like Jim Jeffries, he never lost, until he came back six years later, and personally, I cant invision anyone beating Jeffries at his prime under the rules of the era, Muhammad Ali included. But fact of business, boxing's changed, and isnt under 45 round fights any more, so you have to base alot of it around the 12-15 round distance. Jack Johnson, imo, wasnt as great as alot of people give him credit for being, but at the same token, he is the only man I can think of who fought virtually EVERYBODY you could name in an era, pre title and during his reign. His win/loss ratio was incredible. Dempsey I never thought was so great either, he was inactive for three years, avoided better contenders while as champion. But at the same token, from Willard previously I cant think of any other white HW who was such a barnstormer as Dempsey, he run down the division like a sickle through wheat.

In no particular order, here's the men on my top 10 HW champions list:

Muhammad Ali
Joe Louis
Jack Johnson
Larry Holmes
Rocky Marciano
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Jim Jeffries
George Foreman
John L. Sullivan

Joe Frazier just misses the cut, though, like I said, you can make strong arguments for alot of these guys. Even if I take Sullivan out, because for the most part he fought in an era that wasnt remotely at all like boxing today and put Tyson ahead of him, Frazier still beats Tyson on my list. Why? He was the first to beat Ali, he was an undisputed HW champ beating Mathis/Ellis and anyone else standing in his way to unify those titles, he was apart of the greatest HW trilogy in history, and fact of business, H2H Frazier had that extra mile, imo, to take the best of what Tyson got.

[BoxingFanNo1]

Tyson never fought Lewis in a meaningful match.

And Tyson's opposition is arguably better than Lewis' and Holmes', but yet they are both usually considered easy Top Ten All-Timers.

:rofl:rofl

[BoxingFanNo1]

God bless him. His four-year-old daughter just died. Accidental death at home. Her name was Exodus Tyson.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]'s-daughter,-4,-dies-day-after-accident/?GT1=39002

Damn......

Hope he keeps it together.

[SuzieQ49]

Homicide I do think your very unfair the way you critisize Tysons competition. Tyson was the only heavyweight from 1985-Present that has Unified ALL 3 MAJOR belts in a one year span...NO one has replicated this. Hell, Larry Holmes never even unified one belt. Tyson also dominated I mean literally dominated Alpha Champions/Top Contenders that had never been down before and were rated extrmeley high. Some of the men tyson dominated were men Larry Holmes ducked later in his career. I think Tyson beat some of the most highly talented big men of all time...Men like Tubbs Tucker Thomas Williams had some serious skills and men like Bonecrusher Bruno Ruddock had some serious Power and Berbick was a very strong durable swarmer.

[dmt]

why in the world in sullivan there?

[HomicideHenry]

Homicide I do think your very unfair the way you critisize Tysons competition. Tyson was the only heavyweight from 1985-Present that has Unified ALL 3 MAJOR belts in a one year span...NO one has replicated this. Hell, Larry Holmes never even unified one belt. Tyson also dominated I mean literally dominated Alpha Champions/Top Contenders that had never been down before and were rated extrmeley high. Some of the men tyson dominated were men Larry Holmes ducked later in his career. I think Tyson beat some of the most highly talented big men of all time...Men like Tubbs Tucker Thomas Williams had some serious skills and men like Bonecrusher Bruno Ruddock had some serious Power and Berbick was a very strong durable swarmer.


Truthfully, on paper all of them look good enough. I just have done alot of research on each of these fights and the build up and preparations put into these fights, and think imo, I'm right in my assumptions/opinions that when Tyson fought the majority of these men, they were out of their elements. Sure, all of them were ranked, for the most part, but every single fight he fought had its glitches. Inside information on these fights, made me have a different opinion on Tyson than I did originally.

[HomicideHenry]

why in the world in sullivan there?

Undefeated for 10 years as a professional, never lost under the London Prize Ring rules and Marquis of Queensbury rules (until Corbett), save for Godfrey and Jackson (whom he never fought) he more or less defeated every big name opponent on the planet competing at HW. He was the link between the bare knuckle and gloved era, he was America's first real sports star. He was a legend in his own time, the biggest celebrity of his time, it wasnt just about his ring career, he was a persona.

[dmt]

a bareknuckle great cannot possibly be rated alongside those who actually fought using gloves

[janitor]

a bareknuckle great cannot possibly be rated alongside those who actually fought using gloves

Sullivan fought four bouts with bare knuckles and over 100 with gloves.

I would say that makes him primarily a gloved fighter.

[SuzieQ49]

Sullivan cannot possibly be ranked because he ducked Black Fighters. He completley drew the color line. "I never fought a negro and I never shall". I HATE THIS, Tunney and Dempsey did the same thing too. You cannot rate a man highly if he did not defeat the top black contenders of his era....this eliminates alot of the comptetiion if your only picking on white softies.

[dmt]

but there is little footage of sullivan to judge him from

[SuzieQ49]

Any white fighters who drew the color line/or didnt take on black fighters...automatically should be hugely penalized in my book! No exceptions. No exuses! Its pathetic!!

[Dempsey1238]

But Peter Jackson came at the END of Sullivan's rein, It would not hurt John L if he lost to Jackson. IT would have been like Louis Marciano or Ali Holmes type of affair.
Jackson came in the 1890's. Sullivan's was the 1880's.

Sullivan did fought and beat MOST of the best of the 1880's. And did have a fight ready with Godfrey, until the police step in and stop the fight from taking place, with both fighters in the ring.

[Dempsey1238]

but there is little footage of sullivan to judge him from

I suppose we can knock Harry Greb off the top ten of middleweights than>?

Sullivan was a icon. He is in the top ten imo.

[round15]

Tyson could have been the #1 heavyweight of all time ahead of Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Ali and Marciano. Tyson was beating everyone in front of him and at one time was quite possibly the best combination of Frazier, Patterson and Marciano. The only notable weaknesses is Tyson's heart and endurance, which he never really had to show. Tyson went the twelve round distance with Tucker, Green and James Smith, but he never went fifteen rounds.

Who knows how many times people on this forum have lamented the what ifs, especially if Cus D'Amato had lived through his championship, and if Teddy Atlas stayed with him. I can say truthfully that Tyson would have held the title for at least 2 more years, with the only serious threats being Razor Ruddock, Lennox Lewis and quite possibly Riddick Bowe. Holyfield is not beating the pre-exile Mike Tyson, but makes a competive fight before being stopped himself.

[kolcade4]

are we still talking about tyson's career as a whole b/c in that aspect their can't be anyway he cracks the top ten. Pre prison Tyson 86-89 hell yeah he easily is at 5 or 4 or shit maybe even 3 but we have to look at his whole career. i know you guys that are saying he is easily is top ten are only thinking about tyson that had it together. i love that version of tyson he is hands down the most exciting fighter ever. but that isnt the case. he didnt beat holyfield, lewis.lost to danny williams and Kevin McBride? i mean it is painful not to have him where he belongs honestly. as crazy and nutty as the guy is you can't help to love and admire the guy, but this is not about everybody's admiration for mike it is about whether he belongs in the top ten. and due to his two losses to holyfield and losses to lewis it's extremly hard for me to not have in in my top ten but i have to.

[round15]

Sullivan cannot possibly be ranked because he ducked Black Fighters. He completley drew the color line. "I never fought a negro and I never shall". I HATE THIS, Tunney and Dempsey did the same thing too. You cannot rate a man highly if he did not defeat the top black contenders of his era....this eliminates alot of the comptetiion if your only picking on white softies.

Agree with you here SuzieQ49.

Dempsey, Sullivan and plenty other fighters drew the colour line, and I honestly believe this affects their all time rankings. Jack Johnson called Dempsey out at 38 years old after serving jail time and never got a fight.
Jack Johson drew the colour line himself when he was champion, no doubt about that. What people forget is the fact that many of Johnson's greatest fights were against Langford, McVey and Joe Jeannette, before he won the heavyweight title.

[Vanboxingfan]

are we still talking about tyson's career as a whole b/c in that aspect their can't be anyway he cracks the top ten. Pre prison Tyson 86-89 hell yeah he easily is at 5 or 4 or shit maybe even 3 but we have to look at his whole career. i know you guys that are saying he is easily is top ten are only thinking about tyson that had it together. i love that version of tyson he is hands down the most exciting fighter ever. but that isnt the case. he didnt beat holyfield, lewis.lost to danny williams and Kevin McBride? i mean it is painful not to have him where he belongs honestly. as crazy and nutty as the guy is you can't help to love and admire the guy, but this is not about everybody's admiration for mike it is about whether he belongs in the top ten. and due to his two losses to holyfield and losses to lewis it's extremly hard for me to not have in in my top ten but i have to.

Well in fairness to Tyson I do think you can throw some of his later fights out the door,(ie McBride, Williams) as he was clearly shot. And I'd only penalize him partially for his loss to Lewis because as mentioned he was basically shot, although a legacy fight is a legacy fight.

And I also think you can give him some credit for the way in which he won when he was in his prime, that's fair too. But when you take those these comments along with yours I think he stratles the line between being in and out of the top 10.

[Silver]

why do some of you even use the lennox lewis fight when ranking tyson? tyson way past it when the fight took place. the fight was all about money.

[kolcade4]

why do some of you even use the lennox lewis fight when ranking tyson? tyson way past it when the fight took place. the fight was all about money.
so your saying that this fight should not even be considered. well should we consider the holy field fights/ should we consider the holmes fight? iv got an idea lets start talking about fighters in the light that we like to see them in. in that case tyson sits somewhere inside my top 5 .

[HomicideHenry]

Sullivan cannot possibly be ranked because he ducked Black Fighters. He completley drew the color line. "I never fought a negro and I never shall". I HATE THIS, Tunney and Dempsey did the same thing too. You cannot rate a man highly if he did not defeat the top black contenders of his era....this eliminates alot of the comptetiion if your only picking on white softies.

He attempted on three occasions to fight George Godfrey. Fight never came off for one reason or another. After his retirement, Sullivan had quite a few sparring sessions/exhibitions with Godfrey. I can see where you are coming from, but at the same time Brockton I think you are one of those who seem to follow the 'African Supremacy' theory, that unless you beat a black man, you cant get any credit at all. With your logic Tommy Burns and Marvin Hart must be superior to Sullivan because they either lost or beat black guys, am I right?

It's ridiculous. If we're gonna penalize Sullivan, Dempsey, and Tunney, let's look at the present day: Why hasn't Manny Pacquia fought a black man? Why hasn't the worlds p4p best fighter given a black man a shot at him?

Now...is Pacquia the best still, despite of this fact? Yes he is. The whole concept of a man needing to take on a black man to prove himself as being the worlds best is completely useless and unfounded argument that only guys like Ken Burns (director of Unforgiveable Blackness) could only appreciate and accept as fact.

[janitor]

Sullivan cannot possibly be ranked because he ducked Black Fighters. He completley drew the color line. "I never fought a negro and I never shall". I HATE THIS, Tunney and Dempsey did the same thing too. You cannot rate a man highly if he did not defeat the top black contenders of his era....this eliminates alot of the comptetiion if your only picking on white softies.

But here is the twist in the tale.......

Although Sullivan was as categorical in drawing the colour line as any champion in history it damages his legacy less than most because there really wernt many dangerous black contenders around in his prime.

If he had lost to Jackson it would be just like him loosing to Corbett. Hell he even fought Corbett who had held Jackson to a draw so its not like he wasnt up for a challenge.

[HomicideHenry]

But here is the twist in the tale.......

Although Sullivan was as categorical in drawing the colour line as any champion in history it damages his legacy less than most because there really wernt many dangerous black contenders around in his prime.

Also true, too!

Godfrey and Jackson were really the only contenders who were black around at the time, who would have had a chance at beating Sullivan. I think at CBZ there is only one other time in Sullivan's career where a black opponent was mentioned, a man named 'Johnson' who failed to show to fight Sullivan in his early career before ever winning the American HW crown.

There were black fighters, but they were few and far between. Wasnt until the dawn of the 20th century, that many began to crawl out from the wood work and began making fighting careers. Jackson, Godfrey were the only high profile black contenders in Sullivan's time frame that would have mattered. By the time he lost the crown, though, and following Corbett's reign, guys like Frank Childs and others began to appear.

[Rubber Warrior]

IMO, had it been anyone else who defeated the stiffs that Tyson defeated, it wouldnt have been looked upon as a great feat. What made Tyson great was the way he defeated these men, not that the caliber of opposition he was facing was what you could define as being all-time world beaters.

Ali defeated the Foreman's, Frazier's, Liston's, Patterson's, Norton's.

Marciano defeated the Walcott's, Charles's, Louis's, and Moore's.

Foreman defeated the Frazier's, the Moorer's, the Norton's.

Holyfield defeated the Bowe's, the Douglas's, the Moorer's, the Tyson's, the Foreman's, the Holmes's.

Holmes defeated the Norton's, the Ali's, the Mercer's.

All the ATG HW's, the true elite guys, defeated real name opposition, guys with real credability, who had no blips to take away from their victories over them. The guys Tyson batted around the ring, even in his prime, all had faults, all were inconsistant, or were all out of their element.

Let's take a genuine look at these men Tyson defeated, and let's not make excuses for them, let's look at them for what they really were:

Tony Tubbs= a feather fisted fat guy who was more or less brought in to break the inactivity of Tyson; this fight also was the first HW title bout brought to Japan since Foreman flattened Roman

Tyrell Biggs= a known drug abuser whose trainers and management had trouble trying to keep in control, they more or less cashed Biggs in before a lesser fighter got to him first

Pinklon Thomas= another known drug abuser

Trevor Berbick= Lost to Holmes, but his best win was arguably over a shot Muhammad Ali

Michael Spinks= scared shitless, wasnt fighting the top contenders after winning the lineal HW crown, and was getting old himself

Bonecrusher Smith= a late starter being in his 30's, was inconsistant as hell

Frank Bruno= probably his best opponent of the group, losing to guys like Witherspoon and Smith though he was ahead on cards before getting kayoed

Larry Holmes= been inactive for 2-3 years, basically using 'champion emeritus' to get to Tyson

Yes, I know, I'm missing Carl Williams and Tony Tucker, but imo, Williams was an easy mark for Tyson and Tucker, for the most part, was alot the same as Thomas and Smith.

You are overlooking one thing. Those guys were ranked top ten guys of the day or co-titlists. Beating them, sending them packing as Mike did....THAT'S DOING THE WORK.

It's not like he was beating up guys like Danny Williams when there was REAL work to be done and hoping he'd be lauded for it. ;)

[Chris Warren]

My mom used to date Joe Montana.

[Rubber Warrior]

My mom used to date Joe Montana.

How long did it take for the soreness to subside?

[Chris Warren]

She still hurts. Joe Montana Rules. And Mike Tyson is a top 10 level guy.

My top 10 list in no particular order is .

Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Riddick Bowe
Joe Frazier
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis


And i dont have any more to add to that list

[janitor]

She still hurts. Joe Montana Rules. And Mike Tyson is a top 10 level guy.

My top 10 list in no particular order is .

Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson
Riddick Bowe
Joe Frazier
Larry Holmes
Lennox Lewis


And i dont have any more to add to that list

You seem to have missed off Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano in your haste.

[Chris Warren]

When Rocky Marciano is actually a heavyweight instead of a cruiserweight and Joe Louis actually fights guys who were actually heavyweights then i will add them to the list. I said heavyweight champions not cruiserweight champions or people who are considered good because the media tells you so

[janitor]

When Rocky Marciano is actually a heavyweight instead of a cruiserweight and Joe Louis actually fights guys who were actually heavyweights then i will add them to the list. I said heavyweight champions not cruiserweight champions or people who are considered good because the media tells you so

I would point out that Rocky Marciano was not protected by any weight limit that said that he only had to fight people under 200 or 190 lbs. That is the main benefit of being a cruiserweight.

I would also point out that Joe Louis beat a lot of verry big fighters. He is one of the few champions pre 1990 who was actualy beating up world class opponents the size of Lennox Lewis or Riddick Bowe.

I think that the point of the heavyweight division is not howe much you way but the fact that youy will take on any commer above a given weight regardless of size. The heavyweight division at various times has been pegged at 154 lbs, 158 lbs, 160 lbs, 175 lbs, 190 lbs, and 200 lbs. What it has always meant is that you give up the protection of a weight limit and fight the biggest oponents out there.

[Chris Warren]

Right Janitor and what happened when Bob Foster moved up and fought heavyweights? He lost and why is Marciano different? Wait dont tell me I already know. There is no 5'10 180 fighter who cant beat some 6'5 240 pound fighter period. There are weight classes for a reason you know. 205 has been the miniman weight for about 20 years or more right? Marciano weighed 180 to 185 and that makes him a heavyweight?

I asked this question before and i will do i again, Name some 205 plus pound modern heavyweights that Marciano beat besides Louis who was pushing 40. Marciano isnt a top 100 heavyweight because he wasnt a heafyweight and Joe Louis beat some bigger guys like the Baer bros but they were unskilled. Louis also had glass for a chin. Could you imagine a 170 pound feathered fisted fighter like Conn hurting Foreman, Bowe, Tua ect ect ect? I doubt it

[janitor]

[quote=Chris ******;4727011]Right Janitor and what happened when Bob Foster moved up and fought heavyweights?

Bob Foster lost at heavyweight because he would have done so in any era. He wasn't just loosing to elite heavyweights he was also loosing to second teir heavyweights. He lost because just didnt have the style to make the transition.

Jimmy Ellis on the other hand enjoyed considerable sucess in the same era and was even recognised as champion breifly. I think that Ezzard Charles or Michael Spinks would have done as well as Jimmy Ellis or better.

He lost and why is Marciano different? Wait dont tell me I already know. There is no 5'10 180 fighter who cant beat some 6'5 240 pound fighter period.

History says otherwise.

Jack Dempsey beat Jess Willard who was clearly a world class fighter.

There are weight classes for a reason you know. 205 has been the miniman weight for about 20 years or more right?

Wrong.

Anybody over 193 lbs can fight at heavyweight today.

You just can't fight at cruiserweight if you are over 200 lbs (not 205).

Marciano weighed 180 to 185 and that makes him a heavyweight?

I asked this question before and i will do i again, Name some 205 plus pound modern heavyweights that Marciano beat besides Louis who was pushing 40.

What you have to get your head round is that the guys he fought got in the ring with him by beating up the big heavyweights.

There were a lot of good heavyweights over 210 lbs like Nino Valdez and Bob Baker but guys like Archie Moore beat them.

Marciano isnt a top 100 heavyweight because he wasnt a heafyweight

But he was.

He was the best fighter on the planet over 175 lbs.

That makes him a heavyweight.

and Joe Louis beat some bigger guys like the Baer bros but they were unskilled.

Why don't you watch some footage of Buddy Baer and you will see that he had prety good all round skills.

He would easily be an alphabet champ today.

Louis also had glass for a chin.

No he didn't.

A glass chinned fighter is a guy who gets knocked out by single punches or combos. Louis was only ever stopped after sustained beatdowns over multiple rounds.


Could you imagine a 170 pound feathered fisted fighter like Conn hurting Foreman, Bowe, Tua ect ect ect? I doubt it


Well Foreman was dropped by Jimmy Young and Billy Conn probably hit harder than Young.

David Tua was hurt and dropped by Chris Byrd.

Oh and they both lost.

Getting wobled by a hard punching light heavy is nothing.

[JimmyShimmy]

Of course Tyson is top ten, look at his neck! And another thing, the only reason he lost was because his heart wasn't in it.

That was the "Tyson can't be arsed' era, so you have to consider these things.

[cross_trainer]

Of course Tyson is top ten, look at his neck! And another thing, the only reason he lost was because his heart wasn't in it.

That was the "Tyson can't be arsed' era, so you have to consider these things.

Agreed on both points.

Moreover, it's really too bad Tyson didn't compete in MMA. After all, he bit a guy once, so clearly he's going to be able to compete against world-class grapplers. If you're mean, you can win any fight under any rules (except against Wepner).

On an unrelated note, have you seen this?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Any chance of lending your insights into Fitz-Fu?

[he grant]

You know Chris, or whoever you are, you actually make some decent points. Maybe if it was not written in a hostile, quasjoking manner it would not be such a drama here ...

[junior-soprano]

IMO, had it been anyone else who defeated the stiffs that Tyson defeated, it wouldnt have been looked upon as a great feat. What made Tyson great was the way he defeated these men, not that the caliber of opposition he was facing was what you could define as being all-time world beaters.

Ali defeated the Foreman's, Frazier's, Liston's, Patterson's, Norton's.

Marciano defeated the Walcott's, Charles's, Louis's, and Moore's.

Foreman defeated the Frazier's, the Moorer's, the Norton's.

Holyfield defeated the Bowe's, the Douglas's, the Moorer's, the Tyson's, the Foreman's, the Holmes's.

Holmes defeated the Norton's, the Ali's, the Mercer's.

All the ATG HW's, the true elite guys, defeated real name opposition, guys with real credability, who had no blips to take away from their victories over them. The guys Tyson batted around the ring, even in his prime, all had faults, all were inconsistant, or were all out of their element.

Let's take a genuine look at these men Tyson defeated, and let's not make excuses for them, let's look at them for what they really were:

Tony Tubbs= a feather fisted fat guy who was more or less brought in to break the inactivity of Tyson; this fight also was the first HW title bout brought to Japan since Foreman flattened Roman

Tyrell Biggs= a known drug abuser whose trainers and management had trouble trying to keep in control, they more or less cashed Biggs in before a lesser fighter got to him first

Pinklon Thomas= another known drug abuser

Trevor Berbick= Lost to Holmes, but his best win was arguably over a shot Muhammad Ali

Michael Spinks= scared shitless, wasnt fighting the top contenders after winning the lineal HW crown, and was getting old himself

Bonecrusher Smith= a late starter being in his 30's, was inconsistant as hell

Frank Bruno= probably his best opponent of the group, losing to guys like Witherspoon and Smith though he was ahead on cards before getting kayoed

Larry Holmes= been inactive for 2-3 years, basically using 'champion emeritus' to get to Tyson

Yes, I know, I'm missing Carl Williams and Tony Tucker, but imo, Williams was an easy mark for Tyson and Tucker, for the most part, was alot the same as Thomas and Smith.

well i agree on the fact that mike ain't top 10 but he is somewhere between 10 and 15. eventough i am not a great tyson fan you most be honest when judging him. and mike was very very fast. explosive power, knock out punch in both hands. great chin.
and you're list says nothing.. a champ fights who are around at the moment. for example you have rocky on you're list. well let's be honest eventough rocky had more heart then mike if they would fight mike would beat the rock 9 out of 10 times.
you also say in you're list as an example holyfield beating foreman and holmes. all respect for holyfield but a prime foreman and a prime holmes would be something else for evander.

[Hank]

I would put Tyson top 5, maybe top 3. His opponents were not bad, he just made them look that way.

[essexboy]

Of course Tyson is top ten, look at his neck! And another thing, the only reason he lost was because his heart wasn't in it.

That was the "Tyson can't be arsed' era, so you have to consider these things.

If his heart wasnt in it thats his problem. Just outside the top ten though.

[Hank]

As for arciano, he weighed 185-188 most of fights becaus ethey slimmed guys down back then, and weight lifting was not done. He weighed 196 for second fight with Charles (although both were announced 3 pound lighte reach, so fans would not think they were 'Fat") He looked great in that fight. reason for extra weight--all muscle--was 3 day postponment of bout due to rain. Him and Charles just kept sharp, nothing but light shadowboxing and speed bag stuff in 3 days before fight.

Another thing about weight is that we don't see enough guys coming in at natural 180-190 to take on 220 pound guys. Marty Marshall, Bob Satterfield, and others did good. Bob Stallings, a high level club fighter at light heavy, beat a prime Ernie Shavers, knocking him down twice. Today, or past 15 years, that bout would not take place. Or Stallinngs would come in at a fat, bulked up 210.