What is your ranking of Mike Tyson?

[Addie]

If we aren't using star status as criteria, then we'll use Ability, Resume, Dominance, Longevity instead.

Ability: Possessed some of the fastest hands you'll ever see on a Heavyweight, and in addition, made a name for himself by knocking out the majority of contenders. Trevor Berbick was blasted away, as was Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks. His one punch power was never in question, but with the capacity to throw in fast varied combinations, Tyson proved himself to be a knockout artist with technique and flair. Brilliant head movement, at his peak, could sustain effective aggression for long periods, and took a great shot throughout his whole career.

Resume: From when Tyson became the youngest Heavyweight champion in history by stopping Trevor Berbick, Mike went on to fight the who's who of the division. Spinks, Holmes, Tucker, Biggs, and Bruno were all overcome and the vast majority of them were halted before the 12 rounds were over. That being said, the division wasn't stacked with talent at the time, and there's a genuine arguement that Tyson never beat a great prime Heavyweight in his career. Holyfield and Lewis, the other two standout Heavy's of the 90s, both toppled Tyson, albeit faded versions.

Dominance: Tyson was about as dominant as a champion could be. Beating all of the contenders to his throne, knocking most of them out, Mike was being hailed as the most destructive Heavyweight Boxer since George Foreman and with good reason. Spinks, a champion in his own right, was blown away in a matter of seconds when he entered the ring with Tyson, a previously undefeated two weight world champion who had beaten Holmes twice. The breaks would eventually come off, but from 1984 to 1990, Tyson was a wrecking machine.

Longevity: Tyson was around for a long time, spanning three decades, but these weren't three decades of dominance by any means. After his initial loss to Douglas in 1990 he'd regain the title, but he was never the same after being given tough, rugged fights by respected hitter Donovan Ruddock, and eventually came undone against Holyfield and Lewis. There was controversy spewing from every corner: the rape conviction, the biting of Evander's ear, and the massive press-conference brawl ahead of his showdown with Lennox Lewis.

I think there are more fighters who beat better fighters than Tyson did, who achieved more, who were more complete, and proved it over a much longer period of time. I don't have a list but I'm not a believer in Tyson being anywhere near a top 50. Maybe outside the top 100, even.

What are your thoughts?

[Quitali Bitchko]

What are your thoughts?

Winona... :hitit

[Addie]

Winona... :hitit

:lol: Well...shitttt...

If you come on here going off topic about anything else I'd shoot you down but damn right you'd hit it, she's a goddess. A true specimen.

[anarci]

Man Addie how could anyone not put Tyson in the top 100:huh Quit being nitpicking the mans resume and watch him fight. Not too many fighters have ever possessed a combination of speed,power,ferociousness as this man. In fact no heavyweight ever has. Yey a few had his power and ferouciousness but not his speed, or no matter how you look at it no one had a combo of all 3.( yey a few will mention Dempsey but not like Tyson)

Tysons resume isnt as great as others but on ability,dominance alone he is 7 on my all time Heavyweight list, and a top 50 atg.:yep

[Son of Gaul]

He's an all-time great on the "what coulda/shoulda been" list been realistically he's in my top 10 all-time HW list regardless.

[MAG1965]

If we aren't using star status as criteria, then we'll use Ability, Resume, Dominance, Longevity instead.

Ability: Possessed some of the fastest hands you'll ever see on a Heavyweight, and in addition, made a name for himself by knocking out the majority of contenders. Trevor Berbick was blasted away, as was Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks. His one punch power was never in question, but with the capacity to throw in fast varied combinations, Tyson proved himself to be a knockout artist with technique and flair. Brilliant head movement, at his peak, could sustain effective aggression for long periods, and took a great shot throughout his whole career.

Resume: From when Tyson became the youngest Heavyweight champion in history by stopping Trevor Berbick, Mike went on to fight the who's who of the division. Spinks, Holmes, Tucker, Biggs, and Bruno were all overcome and the vast majority of them were halted before the 12 rounds were over. That being said, the division wasn't stacked with talent at the time, and there's a genuine arguement that Tyson never beat a great prime Heavyweight in his career. Holyfield and Lewis, the other two standout Heavy's of the 90s, both toppled Tyson, albeit faded versions.

Dominance: Tyson was about as dominant as a champion could be. Beating all of the contenders to his throne, knocking most of them out, Mike was being hailed as the most destructive Heavyweight Boxer since George Foreman and with good reason. Spinks, a champion in his own right, was blown away in a matter of seconds when he entered the ring with Tyson, a previously undefeated two weight world champion who had beaten Holmes twice. The breaks would eventually come off, but from 1984 to 1990, Tyson was a wrecking machine.

Longevity: Tyson was around for a long time, spanning three decades, but these weren't three decades of dominance by any means. After his initial loss to Douglas in 1990 he'd regain the title, but he was never the same after being given tough, rugged fights by respected hitter Donovan Ruddock, and eventually came undone against Holyfield and Lewis. There was controversy spewing from every corner: the rape conviction, the biting of Evander's ear, and the massive press-conference brawl ahead of his showdown with Lennox Lewis.

I think there are more fighters who beat better fighters than Tyson did, who achieved more, who were more complete, and proved it over a much longer period of time. I don't have a list but I'm not a believer in Tyson being anywhere near a top 50. Maybe outside the top 100, even.

What are your thoughts?I will give Mike an A in ability in 1985-1988. Head movement and hand speed and anticipation.
Resume? I give Mike a B.. He fought good guys but did not fight Witherspoon who I thought was the toughest opponent for him and could have beaten him. Mike did not have that other great fighter to test him.
Dominance Mike gets a A. In his prime we are talking. He beat all the contenders of the 1980's with the exception of Witherspoon like Tubbs,Thomas,Tucker,Bonecrusher,Biggs,Berbick,Spinks, Holmes ,Williams. A good list and he dominated them.
Longevity B- or C+. Had he just focused more on boxing he could have stayed champion until Bowe or Lennox took over and the big heavyweights became more the norm.

[Unforgiven]

I'd have him among the top 15 heavyweights of all-time. Possibly he'd scrape in to the top 10.

[Ezzard]

I'd have him among the top 15 heavyweights of all-time. Possibly he'd scrape in to the top 10.

Agree with that.

[RockysSplitNose]

Man Addie how could anyone not put Tyson in the top 100:huh Quit being nitpicking the mans resume and watch him fight. Not too many fighters have ever possessed a combination of speed,power,ferociousness as this man. In fact no heavyweight ever has. Yey a few had his power and ferouciousness but not his speed, or no matter how you look at it no one had a combo of all 3.( yey a few will mention Dempsey but not like Tyson)

Tysons resume isnt as great as others but on ability,dominance alone he is 7 on my all time Heavyweight list, and a top 50 atg.:yep

I have Tyson at 9 sandwiched between Foreman at 8 and Ez Charles at 10 (correction to earlier post - thought I had Ez at 12 but he's number 10 definately)

PS in agreement on Winona Ryder too - and Anarci who is the babe on your avatar - she could go a few close rounds with Winona - would probably try to get a ringside seat for that :hey:nut:shock:

[TommyV]

Ability: Extraordinary combination of speed and power, with subtle technical skills, a good defence with that peek-a-boo stance and bob & weave movement, and a good chin to back it up. H2H, he is tough for anybody. However I do feel that his foot speed is somewhat over-rated in conjunction to his hand-speed, although he's still pretty nifty on his feet. And I do feel he can be out-boxed (Ali) or taken out of his rhythm, frustrated, roughed-up and then out-boxed (Holyfield), even in his prime.

Resume: His resumé is one of the things that let's him down. In terms of achievement, it's outstanding being he unified the heavyweight championships all by himself to become undisputed, and the youngest champion ever at that. However, it's a resumé full of B level wins. Even the top names such as Holmes and Spinks aren't A level in my opinion. Holmes was past his best and Spinks, while an ATG light-heavyweight, was merely a 'good' HW in my eyes.

Dominance: His dominance was there for all to see, but short-lived. He cleaned out the division early and put in some very dominant performances, but it lasted only around 2 years from the time he become the undisputed heavyweight champion. 6 defences of his crown is okay, but it should of been a lot more. And his dominance is pale in comparison to the likes of Louis and Ali, but probably around the level of Lewis' when all is said and done.

Longevity: Poor. He had about 4 years in the 80's where he was operating at top-level, and a couple of years in the 90's. That's it, nothing more to say. He was around for a long time, but for a lot of that time he did nothing.

ATG Heavyweight Ranking: 11-14
ATG P4P Ranking: I'd imagine outside the top 100.

[lefthook31]

I think there are more fighters who beat better fighters than Tyson did, who achieved more, who were more complete, and proved it over a much longer period of time. I don't have a list but I'm not a believer in Tyson being anywhere near a top 50. Maybe outside the top 100, even.

What are your thoughts?

hmmm

[Addie]

hmmm

Elaborate.

The main criteria when discussing fighters comes in this order for me. Resume, Ability, Longevity. As others have already mentioned, Tyson had maybe 4-5 years at the very top of the tree, and he's lacking one real great win over a great prime Heavyweight. I don't think it's out of the question to cut him out of a top 100. What are your thoughts?

[Addie]

I have Tyson at 9 sandwiched between Foreman at 8 and Ez Charles at 10 (correction to earlier post - thought I had Ez at 12 but he's number 10 definately)

PS in agreement on Winona Ryder too - and Anarci who is the babe on your avatar - she could go a few close rounds with Winona - would probably try to get a ringside seat for that :hey:nut:shock:


A few rounds until her corner pulls her out. :good

[lefthook31]

Elaborate.

The main criteria when discussing fighters comes in this order for me. Resume, Ability, Longevity. As others have already mentioned, Tyson had maybe 4-5 years at the very top of the tree, and he's lacking one real great win over a great prime Heavyweight. I don't think it's out of the question to cut him out of a top 100. What are your thoughts?
His accomplishments speak for themselves. The youngest champion which you mentioned, the last to unify all three titles separately. Argueably the most dominant heavyweight champion in history. His wins over former greats Spinks and Holmes are often downplayed by Tyson's dominant destructive wins. Same goes for his competition. How do you define longevity, years or fights? Over the course of four,five years he cleaned out the entire division, unified the titles and was 36-0 before his first loss, which equates to about 12-15 years of his fellow greats fighting careers.

[Addie]

His accomplishments speak for themselves. The youngest champion which you mentioned, the last to unify all three titles separately. Argueably the most dominant heavyweight champion in history. His wins over former greats Spinks and Holmes are often downplayed by Tyson's dominant destructive wins. Same goes for his competition. How do you define longevity, years or fights? Over the course of four,five years he cleaned out the entire division, unified the titles and was 36-0 before his first loss, which equates to about 12-15 years of his fellow greats fighting careers.


It equates to exactly what it was, 4-5 years of dominance against subpar opposition, has-beens, and a Light Heavyweight. Nobody is denying his accomplishments at unifying, becoming the youngest world champion ever, but the only true measure of a fighter's greatness, in my opinion, is how he rubs up against fellow great fighters. He never did that and come out on the winning end, and that holds him back for me.

[blacklikesunday]

in tyson's prime i would rank him number 1, but thats only for the excitement he brought to the sport.

as a boxer he'd scrape into the top 20.

with his speed, amazing power, and the ability to intimidate opponents, i think he had the chance to be able to beat any heavyweight of any era. however he just couldn't sustain all of that, thats why he only just gets into the top 20.

[Addie]

in tyson's prime i would rank him number 1, but thats only for the excitement he brought to the sport.

as a boxer he'd scrape into the top 20.

with his speed, amazing power, and the ability to intimidate opponents, i think he had the chance to be able to beat any heavyweight of any era. however he just couldn't sustain all of that, thats why he only just gets into the top 20.

...Is that a top 20 finish on a P4P list?

[lefthook31]

It equates to exactly what it was, 4-5 years of dominance against subpar opposition, has-beens, and a Light Heavyweight. Nobody is denying his accomplishments at unifying, becoming the youngest world champion ever, but the only true measure of a fighter's greatness, in my opinion, is how he rubs up against fellow great fighters. He never did that and come out on the winning end, and that holds him back for me.
Your underating his opposition but thats a long discussion I dont care to revisit. The has been Holmes went on to be quite competitive in the division, never losing that one sided again. We will never know how Tyson would have rubbed up against a fellow great, just as we wont know how Lennox Lewis would, because neither faced a great at their, or their opponents respective best.

[Addie]

Your underating his opposition but thats a long discussion I dont care to revisit. The has been Holmes went on to be quite competitive in the division, never losing that one sided again. We will never know how Tyson would have rubbed up against a fellow great, just as we wont know how Lennox Lewis would, because neither faced a great at their, or their opponents respective best.

I'm underrating his opposition.

Did Mike Tyson beat one great prime Heavyweight in his three decades as a professional boxer? That's all I'm saying.

[lefthook31]

I'm underrating his opposition.

Did Mike Tyson beat one great prime Heavyweight in his three decades as a professional boxer? That's all I'm saying.
No but either did Lennox Lewis or Larry Holmes. That doesnt necessarily mean he couldnt, or make his opposition subpar which it wasnt.

[PhillyPhan69]

Tyson Top 15 HW, just outside of the top 10! Amazing talent who concievably could be ranked higher, if he had tapped all of that potential!

By the way Anarci has the avatar! Salma over Winona easy!
Although at my age I am still more of a Liz Hurley guy (and closet Robin Givens phan!)!

[lefthook31]

Beating 9 former or current champions doesnt equate to subpar opposition.

[Addie]

No but either did Lennox Lewis or Larry Holmes. That doesnt necessarily mean he couldnt, or make his opposition subpar which it wasnt.

Larry Holmes went undefeated as champ from 1978 to 1985, making 16 defenses of his WBC title and 2 of his IBF. He gets rated higher than Tyson based on his consistancy at the top level, and also because he has some good wins of his own. Bonecrusher, Cooney, Norton, Shavers, Witherspoon, etc.

If your resume doesn't stand out you should at least be dominant for a long period of time, and Holmes was the man for far longer than Tyson.

[Addie]

By the way Anarci has the avatar! Salma over Winona easy!


Blocked! Blasphemy. :patsch

[Addie]

Beating 9 former or current champions doesnt equate to subpar opposition.

Holmes (old, inactive), Spinks (blown up), Berbick, and Tubbs doesn't equate to great opposition either. With the many different belts floating around at Heavyweight, less than great fighters were champions at one point or another.

[lefthook31]

Holmes (old, inactive), Spinks (blown up), Berbick, and Tubbs doesn't equate to great opposition either. With the many different belts floating around at Heavyweight, less than great fighters were champions at one point or another.
Like I said, its a discussion thats been beaten to death, and we can pick apart everyones resume in a comparable way. No way you have enough information on 100 other fighters and their opponents, and the timing of the fights throughout history not to, thats why I think lists suck.

Tubbs was actually a very good fighter, one of the better naturally talented fighters Tyson faced with very good technical skills. He prepared with Lou Ferrigno for the Tyson fight to keep his weight in check, and although coming in over his target weight, was in good shape for Tyson.

[Addie]

Like I said, its a discussion thats been beaten to death, and we can pick apart everyones resume in a comparable way. No way you have enough information on 100 other fighters and their opponents, and the timing of the fights throughout history not to, thats why I think lists suck.

Tubbs was actually a very good fighter, one of the better naturally talented fighters Tyson faced with very good technical skills. He prepared with Lou Ferrigno for the Tyson fight to keep his weight in check, and although coming in over his target weight, was in good shape for Tyson.

I don't expect to rate Tyson as high as many others do. That's the overriding point here, and you can talk up Tubbs just like I can talk up Tapia for Marco. Instead of saying Tapia was old, above his natural weight and scraped a win to get his Featherweight belt, I'd probably just say Tapia had never been outboxed like that before in his life, and was good enough at Featherweight to hold a belt be ranked in the top 5. See what I did there?

[Jaws]

It equates to exactly what it was, 4-5 years of dominance against subpar opposition, has-beens, and a Light Heavyweight. Nobody is denying his accomplishments at unifying, becoming the youngest world champion ever, but the only true measure of a fighter's greatness, in my opinion, is how he rubs up against fellow great fighters. He never did that and come out on the winning end, and that holds him back for me.

Tyson arguably beat better opposition than Holmes, and he did it MUCH more impressively. Including Holmes himself, in a way that had never been done before or since.

I have Tyson in the bottom half of the the Top 10 Heavies, higher H2H.

[Addie]

Tyson arguably beat better opposition than Holmes, and he did it MUCH more impressively. Including Holmes himself, in a way that had never been done before or since.

I have Tyson in the bottom half of the the Top 10 Heavies, higher H2H.

As I said before, Holmes made up for his poor oppositioin by dominating like a great champion should. Tyson was gone before arrived.

[TheBradyHawkes]

Top 5 as far as ability and intangibles. Ferocious power, great speed, and the the thing any HW dreams about having. The intimidation factor.

But his resume is certainly missing any eye popping wins, save Spinks, who was scared shitless.

[lefthook31]

As I said before, Holmes made up for his poor oppositioin by dominating like a great champion should. Tyson was gone before arrived.
9 defenses is gone before arrived?

[Addie]

9 defenses is gone before arrived?

That equates to just over 3 years as a dominant champion, but I'll give Mike crediting for fighting regularly.

[mr. magoo]

I can't place him in my top 5, but top 10 is very reasonable. There are very few title reigns that were more dominant and meaningful than that of Mike Tyson's.. It also seems to be swept under the carpet that he was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time and the first to unify the crown in a multiple belt system. His competition is underrated as well. I realize he never beat an Ali, Frazier or Foreman, but I think that some tend to go drastically in the other direction by referring to many of his opponents as bums. There are a lot of champions who had a worse list than Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Tyrell Biggs, James Smith, Tony Tubbs, Carl Williams, Marvis Frazier, Razor Ruddock, Alex Stewart, Bruce Seldon, Lou Savarese, ect.... It may not be a stellar list, but its well above average and he won all of those fights in far more decisive fashion than a lot of champions have beaten their best competitors.

The thing that prevents Mike from really climbing into the upper tier of greats, was his early loss to a second rater in James Douglas, along with the element of having a short prime... These are valid criticisms, but honestly, if the man had retired after besting spinks in 91 seconds, there wouldn't be much anyone could say against him.

[Addie]

I can't place him in my top 5, but top 10 is very reasonable. There are very few title reigns that were more dominant and meaningful than that of Mike Tyson's.. It also seems to be swept under that carpet that he was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time and the first to unify the crown in a multiple belt system. His competition is underrated as well. I realize he never beat an Ali, Frazier or Foreman, but I think that some tend to go drastically in the other direction by referring to many of his opponents as bums. There are a lot of champions who had a worse list than Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Tyrell Biggs, James Smith, Tony Tubbs, Carl Williams, Marvis Frazier, Razor Ruddock, Alex Stewart, Bruce Seldon, Lou Savarese, ect.... It may not be a stellar list, but its well above average and won most of those fights in far more decisive fashion that a lot of champions have.

The thing that prevents Mike from really climbing into the upper tier of greats, was his early loss to a second rater in James Douglas, along with the element of having a short prime... These are valid criticisms, but honestly, if that man had retired have besting spinks in 91 seconds, there wouldn't be much anyone could say against him.

It certainly isn't a stellar list.

[mr. magoo]

As I said before, Holmes made up for his poor oppositioin by dominating like a great champion should. Tyson was gone before arrived.


I am a big supporter of Larry Holmes, but his reign was hardly dominant. Tyson unified the crown, while Holmes was getting stripped for failure to meet his mandatories. There were at least 3-4 qualified challengers and some who were co-existing as alpha champs, and he never addressed the issue. He fought several challengers who had too few fights to be in a world title match, and a fair number of others who were just plain mediocre.. He also had a few bouts that ended in rather indecisive fashion, but no rematch ever occurred...

That said, Holmes' longevity is impressive and in truth, he did beat some good fighters like Norton, Shavers, Cooney, Berbick and Weaver, but I think Tyson accomplished a fair bit more in just 3.5 years, than Holmes did in 7.

[Jaws]

As I said before, Holmes made up for his poor oppositioin by dominating like a great champion should. Tyson was gone before arrived.

I disagree Tyson was "gone before arrived". 9 defenses against the top competition, and he became the biggest, most recognized boxer of all time....even more of a draw than Ali. He took everything to never before seen heights. He was just too volatile of a personality to last for too long. In regards to his fame and popularity, he was on a path that had never been paved before, and there were no books written on how to handle that.

Perhaps we have different values, but I'm a bigger fan of burning bright and burning out than playing it safe and steady. Most of the best things in life end up imploding (rock bands, etc.). But for the brief time they work, it sure is amazing.

[lefthook31]

That equates to just over 3 years as a dominant champion, but I'll give Mike crediting for fighting regularly.
Some of the things about Tyson that are often overlooked are his lack of height and reach for such a dominant champion.
He proved he wasnt a one dimensional fighter by dismantling some very good tall technical, mobile outside fighters. His use of the jab and his unbelieveable timing and footwork, are highly underated. As anyone who boxes knows, its very hard to get close to a fighter who fights well at range.
Not that Im comparing Tua to Tyson, but how many of Tuas fights were him getting outboxed for 9-10 rounds before he landed a finishing blow?

[mr. magoo]

I disagree Tyson was "gone before arrived". 9 defenses against the top competition, and he became the biggest, most recognized boxer of all time....even more of a draw than Ali. He took everything to never before seen heights. He was just too volatile of a personality to last for too long. In regards to his fame and popularity, he was on a path that had never been paved before, and there were no books written on how to handle that.

Perhaps we have different values, but I'm a bigger fan of burning bright and burning out than playing it safe and steady. Most of the best things in life end up imploding (rock bands, etc.). But for the brief time they work, it sure is amazing.


I agree.

While I value longevity and impressive numbers, I am more interested in seeing EVERYTHING that a fighter has to offer against the very best, even if it's short lived. And frankly, I don't think that his championship run was as short as people often claim.. he had more title wins than Marciano, Liston, Jeffries, Dempsey, Frazier, Patterson and a fair number of others.

[Addie]

I am a big supporter of Larry Holmes, but his reign was hardly dominant. Tyson unified the crown, while Holmes was getting stripped for failure to meet his mandatories. There were at least 3-4 qualified challengers and some who were co-existing as alpha champs, and he never addressed the issue. He fought several challengers who had too few fights to be in a world title match, and a fair number of others who were just plain mediocre.. He also had a few bouts that ended in rather indecisive fashion, but no rematch ever occurred...

That said, Holmes' longevity is impressive and in truth, he did beat some good fighters like Norton, Shavers, Cooney, Berbick and Weaver, but I think Tyson accomplished a fair bit more in just 3.5 years, than Holmes did in 7.

Dominating reign, probably not, but I value the consistancy and longevity of Holmes far more than I do Tyson's three years of terror.

[Son of Gaul]

hmmm

I believe that depite his relatively short reign, he should still be in the discussion as a top10 all-time HW and top 20-30 all-time p4p. Remember that the young Mike was the most elusive and explosive HW to ever step in the ring. The knocks against him , even in his prime, were his conditioning and the ease with which he could be frustrated.

[Addie]

Some of the things about Tyson that are often overlooked are his lack of height and reach for such a dominant champion.
He proved he wasnt a one dimensional fighter by dismantling some very good tall technical, mobile outside fighters. His use of the jab and his unbelieveable timing and footwork, are highly underated. As anyone who boxes knows, its very hard to get close to a fighter who fights well at range.
Not that Im comparing Tua to Tyson, but how many of Tuas fights were him getting outboxed for 9-10 rounds before he landed a finishing blow?

Nobody is discrediting the ability of Mike Tyson, that's actually where he ranks highest according to my criteria I believe. That being said, his reign was dominating, you can argue that 9 title defenses is certainly substantial, but he wasn't destroying fantastic opposition therefore I don't think more than 3 years is too much to ask out of Tyson. Styles make fights, and Tyson had the style to get guys out of there quickly, I think Holmes outboxing a guy over a long period isn't any less impressive in tee grand scale of things, everything was more sustained with Holmes, including his reign as champion.

[lefthook31]

I believe that depite his relatively short reign, he should still be in the discussion as a top10 all-time HW and top 20-30 all-time p4p. Remember that the young Mike was the most elusive and explosive HW to ever step in the ring. The knocks against him , even in his prime, were his conditioning and the ease with which he could be frustrated.
I agree, but I dont remember Tyson getting frustrated too often during his reign. Just because he took a one sided 12 round decision, doesnt mean he was frustrated or lacking in any capacity, its just that he always set the bar so high with his fast exciting knockouts.

[mr. magoo]

Dominating reign, probably not, but I value the consistancy and longevity of Holmes far more than I do Tyson's three years of terror.

Well, I guess that's fine if you value an un-unified crown, and a reign consisting of often times fighting second raters rather than mandatories. Not to mention defenses against Ossie Ocasio, Lucien Rodriguez, Alfredo Evangelista, Scott Ledoux, David Bey, Lorenzo Zanon and Tex Cobb. Let's also not forget about some of the close and questionable outcomes that never resulted in rematches.

[lefthook31]

Nobody is discrediting the ability of Mike Tyson, that's actually where he ranks highest according to my criteria I believe. That being said, his reign was dominating, you can argue that 9 title defenses is certainly substantial, but he wasn't destroying fantastic opposition therefore I don't think more than 3 years is too much to ask out of Tyson. Styles make fights, and Tyson had the style to get guys out of there quickly, I think Holmes outboxing a guy over a long period isn't any less impressive in tee grand scale of things, everything was more sustained with Holmes, including his reign as champion.
As I was pointing out in the last post, its far harder to win like Tyson did as opposed to the style of Holmes at the championship level.

[Pachilles]

my top ten HW list: Based on roughly: 75% ability/adaptability/stylistic range. 25% Manner of world class victories/competative losses
1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Marciano
4) Lewis
5) Frazier
6) Holmes
7) Holyfield
8) Tyson
9) Liston
10) Foreman

All time P4P i dont possess that kind of knowledge to be fair. But i'd guess 35-50

[mr. magoo]

my top ten HW list: Based on roughly: 75% ability/adaptability/stylistic range. 25% Manner of world class victories/competative losses
1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Marciano
4) Lewis
5) Frazier
6) Holmes
7) Tyson
8) Holyfield
9) Liston
10) Foreman

All time P4P i dont possess that kind of knowledge to be fair. But i'd guess 35-50


This is a fairly reasonable list.

[Kalasinn]

Lefthook31, Jaws and mr. magoo have in my eyes put forth the most potent arguments in this topic. I don't feel like rewording and repeating all that those 3 guys said, so please read their responses too. He was fast, explosive, elusive and powerful, the youngest champion, separately unifying the belts and ruled in a ruthlessly dominant fashion. Granted certain individuals will always downplay his competition, pretend his skills and style didn't change for the worse after Rooney and focus on career years rather than number of fights for longevity. In ATG Heavyweight terms I rank him as number 7, but to me it's a great tragedy how badly things turned out as he could have shown so much more greatness, considering the sheer H2H lethality he showed in his first 35 ferocious victories.

[Addie]

As I was pointing out in the last post, its far harder to win like Tyson did as opposed to the style of Holmes at the championship level.

Well Tyson wasn't beating those guys into a pulp with the same physical attributes that Holmes had otherwise that would certainly be something.

[lefthook31]

I don't expect to rate Tyson as high as many others do. That's the overriding point here, and you can talk up Tubbs just like I can talk up Tapia for Marco. Instead of saying Tapia was old, above his natural weight and scraped a win to get his Featherweight belt, I'd probably just say Tapia had never been outboxed like that before in his life, and was good enough at Featherweight to hold a belt be ranked in the top 5. See what I did there?
Im not talking up Tubbs, he was a heavyweight his entire career and former heavyweight champion. Thats not in anywhere near the realm of a fighter who couldnt punch to begin with, moving up to face Barrera at featherweight. Tubbs was young and went on to give some respectable fighters fits.

[lefthook31]

Well Tyson wasn't beating those guys into a pulp with the same physical attributes that Holmes had otherwise that would certainly be something.
He was doing it better.

[Addie]

Im not talking up Tubbs, he was a heavyweight his entire career and former heavyweight champion. Thats not in anywhere near the realm of a fighter who couldnt punch to begin with, moving up to face Barrera at featherweight. Tubbs was young and went on to give some respectable fighters fits.


Tubbs. Respectable opponent, respectable victory, all fighters have them but I'm trying to work out what distinguishes Mike Tyson as a truly great fighter. His dominant performances and ability certainly give him a strong case, but beating Tubbs is not particularly noteworthy for this discussion. Respectable resume, not a great one, as I outlined in my initial post on the thread. You don't dispute this, so we don't have to keep talking about it.

[lefthook31]

Tubbs. Respectable opponent, respectable victory, all fighters have them but I'm trying to work out what distinguishes Mike Tyson as a truly great fighter. His dominant performances and ability certainly give him a strong case, but beating Tubbs is not particularly noteworthy for this discussion. Respectable resume, not a great one, as I outlined in my initial post on the thread. You don't dispute this, so we don't have to keep talking about it.
Yeah I think Im going to duck out now. You want some good recommended Tyson fights to watch? Not necessarily to prove anything just a good showcase of Tysons overall ability, jab, movement, combo punching etc.
Ribalta (went 10 I believe), Tubbs, Thomas, Biggs (even though Biggs had an old cut open up), I posted the Gross fight a couple weeks ago that was a good short one. Some good old Tyson stuff.

[Addie]

Yeah I think Im going to duck out now. You want some good recommended Tyson fights to watch? Not necessarily to prove anything just a good showcase of Tysons overall ability, jab, movement, combo punching etc.
Ribalta (went 10 I believe), Tubbs, Thomas, Biggs (even though Biggs had an old cut open up), I posted the Gross fight a couple weeks ago that was a good short one. Some good old Tyson stuff.

:good Seen most of them but I'll check some stuff out on youtube.

[Pachilles]

You have to admit even if you would not favour him in a certain fight, its not hard to imagine him, on a physiological level, knocking any human being the fuck out. And this applies to him much more than any other boxer ever. And this must count for something, in a sport where one punch consistently blows "on paper" out of the water

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Jersey Joe]

For heavyweights I have him around 9-11. In his prime he was better, but his prime was short and he kinda lost his focus, training, and skills after Rooney left. Even the Bruno fight you can see he's not as sharp, fast, elusive or as much of a combination puncher, and by the Douglas fight he was almost slow and flat-footed.

Prime Tyson is a bit like Liston - coulda, woulda, shoulda. But you have to take into account what someone did as well as what they could have done, and the guys who actually went out and did it better, for longer, are superior IMO. So if Frazier is 7-9 than Tyson has to be lower.

P4P since I have him around 10 in the heavyweights, I can't really include him in the top 100 I don't think. Maybe if I bias it slightly towards the heavyweight division (which is fair enough as it is the ultimate division).

[Jersey Joe]

Perhaps we have different values, but I'm a bigger fan of burning bright and burning out than playing it safe and steady. Most of the best things in life end up imploding (rock bands, etc.). But for the brief time they work, it sure is amazing.

"The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long"

On the other hand, the sheer difficulty of compiling a long-lasting championship record is not to be underestimated. In some ways its more impressive than blitzing people out for a few years. You have to win not just when you are at your young, athletic best, but also once you are fading out. You have to win when a new bunch of contenders come along 3-4, or 6-7 years later. You have to win when every challenger has watched all your fight-tapes and tried to figure out the way to beat you. You can't get lazy, complacent, or undertrain even for one fight or you are in serious danger of losing vs a guy who is training the hardest he ever will to take the belt.

[Bill Butcher]

Im not going thru all the different criteria, I have my own criteria & its a big mix of everything.

I rank Tyson as the 4th best HW in history, behind Holmes (3rd, he & Mike could swap), Louis (2nd) & Ali (1st)

[Pachilles]

Im not going thru all the different criteria, I have my own criteria & its a big mix of everything.

I rank Tyson as the 4th best HW in history, behind Holmes (3rd, he & Mike could swap), Louis (2nd) & Ali (1st)

Those are probably the 3 hardest hypothetical matchups for him, i'd favour him against anyone else, apart from Lennox Lewis. But then of course if you look at him in a positive light(the one usually reserved for Duran and non-footage fighters), he was past his prime losing to Lewis, Holmes was shot but he anniahlated him nonetheless and Ali said himself that Tyson would have beaten him. So depends which way you look at things or who your favourites are, but he's top 10 no doubt. I rate him 8th btw.

And as for top 100 P4P, i'd say the people not including him in it are people who have never been punched in the face before.

[sugarsean]

I have him at 10 currently in my Heavyweight list, Pd 4 Pd I don't have a list but of the top of my head I say any where between 40 - 70

[manbearpig]

He's better than Barrerra. Up ye fanboy

[Arriba]

He's in the top 10 of heavies (I don't even remember where I ranked him to be honest) and probably in the lower portion of the top 100 ATGs. As a fighter he's certainly overrated on many levels...but that's just as a fighter.

The thing to me is that his social significance greatly overrides his actual boxing ability. He's a legend and an absolute star and always made sure that boxing was in the spotlight when he was around. He had his own video game, a Simpsons character modeled after him and numerous other things that maintained that boxing had a star to look towards. He carried this sport on more than one occasion and for that, I'm grateful.

[Kalasinn]

Those are probably the 3 hardest hypothetical matchups for him, i'd favour him against anyone else, apart from Lennox Lewis. But then of course if you look at him in a positive light(the one usually reserved for Duran and non-footage fighters), he was past his prime losing to Lewis, Holmes was shot but he anniahlated him nonetheless and Ali said himself that Tyson would have beaten him. So depends which way you look at things or who your favourites are, but he's top 10 no doubt. I rate him 8th btw.

And as for top 100 P4P, i'd say the people not including him in it are people who have never been punched in the face before.

Holmes was 38, past-prime and somewhat rusty, but no way was he 'shot'.
After being KO'd for the only time in his 75 fight career by Tyson, he later lost only 3 of 24 fights, including a competitive decision loss to prime-heavyweight Holyfield and at age 42 beat prime Mercer more decisively than how prime Lewis beat the past prime version.

[Jaws]

Holmes was 38, past-prime and somewhat rusty, but no way was he 'shot'.
After being KO'd for the only time in his 75 fight career by Tyson, he later lost only 3 of 24 fights, including a competitive decision loss to prime-heavyweight Holyfield and at age 42 beat prime Mercer more decisively than how prime Lewis beat the past prime version.

I think Tyson's win over Holmes is vastly underrated.

Now, no doubt, Larry was not prime. However, an urban myth somehow persists that he was rushed into the fight, which simply isn't true. You didn't see Larry complaining after Tyson/Biggs when he called out Tyson in regards to the fight. He had an ample amount of time.

Also, Larry had a gameplan for Tyson in their fight. And he has described this gameplan himself. Larry specifically played defense for the first three rounds to let Tyson punch himself out. Larry then intended to open up on the offensive in the fourth round. And as you can see when you watch the fight, Larry executed this gameplan exactly as he wanted. And quite frankly, that is a pretty good strategy to attempt against Tyson. But the minute Larry opened up, Tyson found his mark, and we all know the rest. I think that speaks heaps towards the fighting condition Tyson was in at that time.

So I think the fight gets downplayed because Larry looks boring/slow in the first three rounds, but that was exactly what he intended to do--play defense. It surprises me more people don't acknowledge this.

The left hook Tyson initially knocks down Larry with has to be one of the hardest punches Tyson ever landed. The sound is just sickening. Larry had a HELL of a chin to get up from that.

[PetethePrince]

He's probably closer to being in the top 50 than being outside the top 100 as far as I'm concerned.

Top 10 Heavyweight, especially with that criteria.

In terms of resume... you have to mention Ruddock. A great fighter.

[PetethePrince]

Dominating reign, probably not, but I value the consistancy and longevity of Holmes far more than I do Tyson's three years of terror.

Holmes should be higher, I have him higher. But not by as much as you think.

Holmes fractured the belt, and got incredibly lazy with his opposition toward the end.

Tyson was the youngest HW champ ever. He unified the titles... Something Holmes DID NOT do, and was more dominant. Resume wise, it's quite close. Yes Holmes does have longevity.

[bodhi]

I have him between 11 and 13 which is fair I think. Definitly great but vastly overated by his fanboys which totally annoys me.

[PhillyPhan69]

I have him between 11 and 13 which is fair I think. Definitly great but vastly overated by his fanboys which totally annoys me.

I agree with that placement, and the folow up point. I would be interested in seeing your top 15 if you want to post it!

[Kalasinn]

I have him between 11 and 13 which is fair I think. Definitly great but vastly overated by his fanboys which totally annoys me.
Ah Bodhi, why don't you again share with us your ludicrous opinion that Tyson's style and skills "barely changed" through his career?
I have a feeling your definition of a Tyson fanboy will be quite broad indeed, you know including those who dare to speak truths about him which conflict with your own warped beliefs.:yep

[Pachilles]

I have him between 11 and 13 which is fair I think. Definitly great but vastly overated by his fanboys which totally annoys me.

Annoys you where? I hope not on here because there isn't a significant fanboy anal teaparty club here for Tyson. Theres only 4.
1) Duran fanboy anal teaparty club
2) Greb fanboy anal teaparty club
3) Langford fanboy anal teaparty club
4) Hopkins fanboy anal teaparty club

The only other fighters with fan clubs are heavily outnumbered by sexually frustrated hate clubs in opposition to them. These being..
1) Jones Jr sick skills club
2) Mayweather Jr get sum dat paper naw mean club
3) Pacquiao legend killers club

[lefthook31]

It was a righthand that initially dropped Holmes.

I don't think Tyson is overated on this forum but Darius michalzewski is
haha just kidding.

[anarci]

By the way Anarci has the avatar! Salma over Winona easy!
Although at my age I am still more of a Liz Hurley guy (and closet Robin Givens phan!)!:lol::lol:HAHA Robin Givens:lol: Yey me too always had a thing for them evil women. Yey everyones been trying to tell addie that but he dont listen:-(:lol:

[anarci]

I disagree Tyson was "gone before arrived". 9 defenses against the top competition, and he became the biggest, most recognized boxer of all time....even more of a draw than Ali. He took everything to never before seen heights. He was just too volatile of a personality to last for too long. In regards to his fame and popularity, he was on a path that had never been paved before, and there were no books written on how to handle that.

Perhaps we have different values, but I'm a bigger fan of burning bright and burning out than playing it safe and steady. Most of the best things in life end up imploding (rock bands, etc.). But for the brief time they work, it sure is amazing.:deal:good Agreed!!!

[ripcity]

# 5 at heavyweight. He is one of the best defensive if not the best boxers in heavyweight history. Also one of the most acurate punchers. Defened his tittle 10 times.

[bodhi]

I agree with that placement, and the folow up point. I would be interested in seeing your top 15 if you want to post it!

It probably won't look like yours :D

1. Ali, Louis
3. Marciano
4. Holmes, Lewis
6. Holyfield, Johnson
8. Frazier, Foreman, Jeffries
11. Tyson, Patterson, Schmeling
14. Dempsey, Liston

[bodhi]

Ah Bodhi, why don't you again share with us your ludicrous opinion that Tyson's style and skills "barely changed" through his career?
I have a feeling your definition of a Tyson fanboy will be quite broad indeed, you know including those who dare to speak truths about him which conflict with your own warped beliefs.:yep

Coming from a guy with a Tyson avatar and who I remember only posting in Tyson related hreads :-(

[Kalasinn]

Coming from a guy with a Tyson avatar and who I remember only posting in Tyson related hreads :-(
Well he is my favourite fighter from many, so why shouldn't I have him in my avatar, hell i'd happily use an avatar of another one of my favourites and likely will again at some point (I've used Dempsey & Frazier before), but would that really change anything? Oh and I have posted in non-Tyson threads, perhaps you didn't notice me or you're just being revisionist like you are with Mike? I'm not the nuthugger you label me as, and in fact i'm strongly against such blind fanboyism, I only stand by solid evidence. Please I implore you to argue against the facts of this article [Only registered and activated users can see links] which clearly describes changes in Tyson's technique in detail.

[Aussie Pug]

I like the look of Bodhi's posted list and would pretty much agree with it when considering all the facets that make a champion great.

There is no question that Tyson in his prime was simply awsome. However, his style was never going to give him a long career like some of the others. His small stature meant that he needed extreme aggression and a high work rate to topple his larger opponents. I think you definately have to give Tyson alot of extra points considering the fact that he was far smaller than alot of other champion heavy weights.

When you compare the physical stature of Lennox Lewis compared to Tyson, Tyson started at a huge disadvantage. That being said, I have no doubt that if Lennox Lewis had faced Tyson in his prime, that Tyson would have destroyed Lewis.

[PhillyPhan69]

It probably won't look like yours :D

1. Ali, Louis
3. Marciano
4. Holmes, Lewis
6. Holyfield, Johnson
8. Frazier, Foreman, Jeffries
11. Tyson, Patterson, Schmeling
14. Dempsey, Liston

Not that different:
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Marciano
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Johnson
8. Dempsey
9. Frazier
10. Holyfield
11. Jeffries
12. Liston
13. Tyson
14. Schmelling
15. Bowe

[Addie]

Holmes should be higher, I have him higher.

:good cool.

[Addie]

He's better than Barrerra. Up ye fanboy

If that's you, i'd ravage it proper.

Stay out of Boxing related threads.

...He ain't better than Barrera.

[fists of fury]

I think you definately have to give Tyson alot of extra points considering the fact that he was far smaller than alot of other champion heavy weights.



This is a point I was going to bring up.

Tyson is not unlike Marciano or Frazier in that they too were short guys who had to get inside their opponent's reach to get their punches in.

Where the difference lies between the three is that for the most part, Marciano and Frazier did not have to fight 6'3-6'5 guys who weighed well over 200 pounds on a regular basis.
I think he took the 'short man style' to it's epitome, or very close to it. No short heavyweight has been successful since Tyson and that's largely due to these really tall, athletic fighters that have sprung up in the last 30 odd years.
Tua had some measure of success, but nothing compared to the tremendous success Tyson enjoyed in his glory years. Since Tyson which short guy has been making headlines? In the land of giants there is no place for the little guy, but Tyson not only survived, but thrived. He used their size against them and made his shortness work for him.
Tyson deserves a lot of credit for that.

A tall guy with good reach and good skills has a variety of options available to him in the ring. He has more leeway; more of a margin for error.
The little guys have it tough on a variety of fronts, which is why so few have been successful at heavyweight.

About his quality of opposition...it was the best of his era, which is all you can ask for. Spoon aside, he beat every 'name' of his era.
I think his level of opposition was respectable...not great, but certianly respectable.
His quality of opposition is no worse than that of Holmes, Dempsey, Louis or even Frazier. Frazier's great, but that one win over Ali aside, he didn't beat anyone who was anything special.

In addition, as ex-champ, Tyson fought the dangerous Ruddock twice at a time when he was probably the most avoided man in the division. I've no doubt he probably would have fought Bowe too, had he not been incarcerated.
Four of his losses came past his best, two to fellow all-time greats. There is the Douglas loss which counts badly against him, but that one blip aside, I don't think that his losses were especially damaging to his legacy.

I think the thing with Tyson is that at first he was a very pleasant surprise on the heavyweight scene. He wasn't a fighter of great amateur pedigree of whom great things were expected.
He came along at a time when fans where yearning for someone to step up to the plate and be the man. He was the perfect answer to 80's jadeism.
Then, after his stocks had soared exponentially, he suddenly became a big disappointment.
Most boxing fans were expecting years upon years of iron-fisted domination, and then he got unexpectedly beaten by a no-hoper, and shortly after that was locked up.
His second, mostly fracical career was well...just that - farcical. He had one or two decent wins, but largely he was creating headlines for the wrong reasons.
His 'highs' were very high, but his 'lows' were rock-bottom.

Regardless of what he wasn't or was supposed to be, he belongs in the top 10 all-time.

[McGrain]

It's funny, I saw this thread go up and I thought, "nah, that's sinking, we just had five plus pages on "Who do you rank higher, Foreman or Tyson"". Basically an identical thread to this one, but with George Foreman in it. And here you guys are, six pages in! It really frustrates me the way people want to talk endlessly about Mike when there are so many other boxers out there...but I do understand it because I find him as fascinating as any of the rest of you. Maybe not his HW ranking, though.

#7 or #8.

[Addie]

Not the same thread at all, I'm talking about Tyson here...and it really frustrates me because I just can't understand why anybody would come on to make the point you've just made. ..Boggles my mind chief. Sorry for the drunken ramblings on your Yuh thread last night, was quite happy when I saw it on the page.

[Boxed Ears]

I rank Tyson slightly ahead of Salma Hayek. Pound for Pound, of course. But seriously, though I haven't finished tweaking my young list by a long shot I do currently have him in my top 100 and can't see not having him there for myself. I can understand how some might not.

[bodhi]

Not that different:
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Marciano
5. Foreman
6. Lewis
7. Johnson
8. Dempsey
9. Frazier
10. Holyfield
11. Jeffries
12. Liston
13. Tyson
14. Schmelling
15. Bowe

Good list. :good The only pick I have some problems with is Bowe.

[ricardinho]

If we aren't using star status as criteria, then we'll use Ability, Resume, Dominance, Longevity instead.

Ability: Possessed some of the fastest hands you'll ever see on a Heavyweight, and in addition, made a name for himself by knocking out the majority of contenders. Trevor Berbick was blasted away, as was Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks. His one punch power was never in question, but with the capacity to throw in fast varied combinations, Tyson proved himself to be a knockout artist with technique and flair. Brilliant head movement, at his peak, could sustain effective aggression for long periods, and took a great shot throughout his whole career.

Resume: From when Tyson became the youngest Heavyweight champion in history by stopping Trevor Berbick, Mike went on to fight the who's who of the division. Spinks, Holmes, Tucker, Biggs, and Bruno were all overcome and the vast majority of them were halted before the 12 rounds were over. That being said, the division wasn't stacked with talent at the time, and there's a genuine arguement that Tyson never beat a great prime Heavyweight in his career. Holyfield and Lewis, the other two standout Heavy's of the 90s, both toppled Tyson, albeit faded versions.

Dominance: Tyson was about as dominant as a champion could be. Beating all of the contenders to his throne, knocking most of them out, Mike was being hailed as the most destructive Heavyweight Boxer since George Foreman and with good reason. Spinks, a champion in his own right, was blown away in a matter of seconds when he entered the ring with Tyson, a previously undefeated two weight world champion who had beaten Holmes twice. The breaks would eventually come off, but from 1984 to 1990, Tyson was a wrecking machine.

Longevity: Tyson was around for a long time, spanning three decades, but these weren't three decades of dominance by any means. After his initial loss to Douglas in 1990 he'd regain the title, but he was never the same after being given tough, rugged fights by respected hitter Donovan Ruddock, and eventually came undone against Holyfield and Lewis. There was controversy spewing from every corner: the rape conviction, the biting of Evander's ear, and the massive press-conference brawl ahead of his showdown with Lennox Lewis.

I think there are more fighters who beat better fighters than Tyson did, who achieved more, who were more complete, and proved it over a much longer period of time. I don't have a list but I'm not a believer in Tyson being anywhere near a top 50. Maybe outside the top 100, even.

What are your thoughts?

Tyson was at his best when he stuck to Damato's system. Once Tyson fired Rooney he ran wild and made a fool of himself. Prior to that I would pick him over Joe Lewis and Ali. After that it was hit and miss.

He is an easy top ten....and arguably a top 5

[anarci]

Cant find the post but someone here pointed out how Tyson never fought Witherspoon but that is complete B.S. While Tyson was on his way up, Witherspoon had one of the alphabet titles, around the same time Tyson kos Berbick . Witherspoon gets ktfod by Bonecrusher. Tyson is smoking hot around this time and unifies the titles while WItherspoon takes a convenient hiatus by fighting journeyman. Witherspoon was coming off a ko loss and not worthy (at the TIme) of a shot at Tyson. IF Mike was avoiding Witherspoon believe that it would have been talked about, since Tyson was almost running out of opponents.

Who ever said he ducked Witherspoon tell me your rationale behind that?

[Unforgiven]

Cant find the post but someone here pointed out how Tyson never fought Witherspoon but that is complete B.S. While Tyson was on his way up, Witherspoon had one of the alphabet titles, around the same time Tyson kos Berbick . Witherspoon gets ktfod by Bonecrusher. Tyson is smoking hot around this time and unifies the titles while WItherspoon takes a convenient hiatus by fighting journeyman. Witherspoon was coming off a ko loss and not worthy (at the TIme) of a shot at Tyson. IF Mike was avoiding Witherspoon believe that it would have been talked about, since Tyson was almost running out of opponents.

Who ever said he ducked Witherspoon tell me your rationale behind that?

He didn't ducked Witherspoon at all.

Witherspoon was rated highly by the magazines rankings in the late 1980s when Tyson was running out of opponents but due to a bitter dispute with Don King he was not ranked by the official sanctioning bodies.

Witherspoon said recently in an interview that he wasn't even thinking about fighting Tyson at that time, he was just fighting whatever fight came up, for the money. And in hindsight he says he wouldn't have beaten Tyson at that time anyway.

[lefthook31]

Cant find the post but someone here pointed out how Tyson never fought Witherspoon but that is complete B.S. While Tyson was on his way up, Witherspoon had one of the alphabet titles, around the same time Tyson kos Berbick . Witherspoon gets ktfod by Bonecrusher. Tyson is smoking hot around this time and unifies the titles while WItherspoon takes a convenient hiatus by fighting journeyman. Witherspoon was coming off a ko loss and not worthy (at the TIme) of a shot at Tyson. IF Mike was avoiding Witherspoon believe that it would have been talked about, since Tyson was almost running out of opponents.

Who ever said he ducked Witherspoon tell me your rationale behind that?
He didnt duck Spoon. Spoon only had to defend his title that he won from Bruno and he would have fought Tyson in the tournament. Tyson ducked noone.

[anarci]

He didnt duck Spoon. Spoon only had to defend his title that he won from Bruno and he would have fought Tyson in the tournament. Tyson ducked noone.
:goodRight i just wanna debate with the person who said that, been thru this thread and didnt see it but i know someone said that, I think it was Addie.:yep

[Unforgiven]

He didnt duck Spoon. Spoon only had to defend his title that he won from Bruno and he would have fought Tyson in the tournament. Tyson ducked noone.

He didn't win a title from Bruno, he defended it against Bruno.
That was Bruno's first shot at a heavyweight title. It wasn't until his fourth attempt (9 years later) that Bruno actual became a champion.

[lefthook31]

He didn't win a title from Bruno, he defended it against Bruno.
That was Bruno's first shot at a heavyweight title. It wasn't until his fourth attempt (9 years later) that Bruno actual became a champion.
Pardon me sir, he won it against Tubbs who won it from Page. If I remembe correctly the fight with Tubbs was razor close?

[Unforgiven]

Pardon me sir, he won it against Tubbs who won it from Page. If I remembe correctly the fight with Tubbs was razor close?

Yeah, it was close and a bit tame. Tubbs was 244 pounds. At the time I thought it sucked, but it's better than a lot of the boring crap we've been treated to at heavyweight in recent years.

[Addie]

:goodRight i just wanna debate with the person who said that, been thru this thread and didnt see it but i know someone said that, I think it was Addie.:yep

:huh I only accuse fighters of "ducking" in extreme cases. Sort it out lad.

[anarci]

:huh I only accuse fighters of "ducking" in extreme cases. Sort it out lad. IF it wasnt you excusme SPENSA:good I dont think i was dreaming about this.:lol:

[Addie]

IF it wasnt you excusme SPENSA:good I dont think i was dreaming about this.:lol:

If you had any sense at all you'd have been dreaming about the women in my avatar. This will be an ongoing gag forever now, you realize this?

[anarci]

If you had any sense at all you'd have been dreaming about the women in my avatar. This will be an ongoing gag forever now, you realize this? Your obsessiveness with Winona has got me thinking:think Does she have a restraining order on you yet:blood:lol:

[Addie]

Your obsessiveness with Winona has got me thinking:think Does she have a restraining order on you yet:blood:lol:

:lol: Not yet but I'll be framing that shit when it comes through the door.

[manbearpig]

If that's you, i'd ravage it proper.

Stay out of Boxing related threads.

...He ain't better than Barrera.

You would say that you utter arse gremlin. Tyson>Barrera

[Brian123]

Tyson has a very weak resume but still top 25.

[PhillyPhan69]

Tyson has a very weak resume but still top 25.


Does this mean outside of the top 20???? If so I would love to see your list!!!...nah, nevermind, I probably wouldn't

[Azzer85]

Head To Head, Tyson is the 2nd greatest. You know whose the "Greatest"
Prime for prime, him and ali would have had some classic fights between them.
what lets him down is his resume, however during his prime and reign, he beat EVERYONE put in front of him, and thats all you can ask from a champ, that he beats everyone out in front of him. After prison he was garbage.
His prison sentence is what ruined him, for those who say Lennox and Holyfield are better than Mike, put them for 3-4 years in prison and then let them fight a prime Iron Mike Tyson after their release, see how competitive they would be.

[bodhi]

Head To Head, Tyson is the 2nd greatest. You know whose the "Greatest"
Prime for prime, him and ali would have had some classic fights between them.
what lets him down is his resume, however during his prime and reign, he beat EVERYONE put in front of him, and thats all you can ask from a champ, that he beats everyone out in front of him. After prison he was garbage.
His prison sentence is what ruined him, for those who say Lennox and Holyfield are better than Mike, put them for 3-4 years in prison and then let them fight a prime Iron Mike Tyson after their release, see how competitive they would be.

That's the difference between great and all-time great. Louis and Ali both couldn't fight for about three years. Ali in his prime, Louis at the end of his. Both did very good to great work afterwards. Tyson had also about three years where he couldn't fight in his prime. But his work afterwards was rather unimpressive to put it nice. Ali and Louis are true atgs while Tyson is a great.

[Azzer85]

That's the difference between great and all-time great. Louis and Ali both couldn't fight for about three years. Ali in his prime, Louis at the end of his. Both did very good to great work afterwards. Tyson had also about three years where he couldn't fight in his prime. But his work afterwards was rather unimpressive to put it nice. Ali and Louis are true atgs while Tyson is a great.

I agree with what you said, however Mike was shot BEFORE prison, on top of that he always had mental problems.
spending 3 years in jail didnt exactly enhance his brain cells.
What i was trying to get at was certain Lewis And Holyfield Nuthuggers jump to the conclusion that because they beat Mike they would have done in his prime, im trying to remind them that despite going to prison he still stayed competitive.
Post Prison he only lost to Holyfield And Lennox, the 2 other greatest fighters of his era (Williams and Mcbride was at the end of his career)
So in my opinion he didnt do that bad.
But he could have done BETTER, fights with Bowe, Moorer, Morrison, Foreman, Mercer, Briggs, Tua would have cemented his legacy and thats after being in prison. In his prime he would blown them all away.

[Azzer85]

"You have to understand, Frank Bruno would not have been champion if I had not been in prison. Oliver McCall would not have been champion if I had not been in prison. A lot of these guys would not have been champion. Michael Moorer would not have been champion. Those guys would not have been champion if I had been around. They would have had no legacy. None of those guys would have had a legacy."

"I would have been in shape. I would have been active. Holyfield, those guys wouldn't have been champion when I was around, but I went away for four or five years inactive and that made them competitive for a time."

"But you really have to look at the science of the situation. You guys come here to talk and report but you don't actually look at the facts of what this business is all about. The best thing that happened to those guys and they should stand on their mother's shoulders and kiss my ass because I went to prison or they would not be existing right now. They'd be a flash in the pan and would have made some money and opened up a restaurant or bar somewhere where they live at."

Mike Tyson

[Bummy Davis]

I have to say Tyson was a breath of fresh air at a time in boxing that was very fustrating for me in the heavyweight division. Heavyweights were fat and out of shape and there were split titles and no unification. Even though some of them were past there best, Tyson showed how a great fighter beats good fighters. He smashed Tubbs, Biggs, Berbick, Holmes,Thomas,Carl Williams and Spinks Made Smith and Tucker fight a survivors fight. Its a shame Don King ruined him and Cus and the gang died because I think he would have had a longer run. The only bad thing I can say about Mike is that he quit when the going got rough and never got off the floor to win but he did try to fight the best of his times, avoided no one and had a historic sense about the sport and dominated the left overs from Holmes and gang. If Tyson had fought in Holmes day he would have dominated them and unified. He declined under Don King and Robin Givens and all the troubles and i have to speculate that that is a shame but If Holmes is top 10,Tyson has to be.

His weakness of wilting in tough fights may have appeared after Cus,Kevin Jacobs,+ but still how many fighters could get past his early rush and take him into deep waters. I think some of the ATG would take him there(deep waters) but Tyson would quash quite a few in shallow waters.

[Azzer85]

I have to say Tyson was a breath of fresh air at a time in boxing that was very fustrating for me in the heavyweight division. Heavyweights were fat and out of shape and there were split titles and no unification. Even though some of them were past there best, Tyson showed how a great fighter beats good fighters. He smashed Tubbs, Biggs, Berbick, Holmes,Thomas,Carl Williams and Spinks Made Smith and Tucker fight a survivors fight. Its a shame Don King ruined him and Cus and the gang died because I think he would have had a longer run. The only bad thing I can say about Mike is that he quit when the going got rough and never got off the floor to win but he did try to fight the best of his times, avoided no one and had a historic sense about the sport and dominated the left overs from Holmes and gang. If Tyson had fought in Holmes day he would have dominated them and unified. He declined under Don King and Robin Givens and all the troubles and i have to speculate that that is a shame but If Holmes is top 10,Tyson has to be.

His weakness of wilting in tough fights may have appeared after Cus,Kevin Jacobs,+ but still how many fighters could get past his early rush and take him into deep waters. I think some of the ATG would take him there(deep waters) but Tyson would quash quite a few in shallow waters.


I dont mean no disrespect but Tyson NEVER quit in any of his fights (ok ok Mcbride, but that was his last fight and considering the amount of $hit hes been through ill give him a pass)
He never got up off the floor, thats because it took him ages to get there!
Buster Douglas beat the $hite out of him for 11 rounds and then finally dropped him
Same with Holyfield who beat him senseless till round 11 and it was stopped (he also DID get up off the floor in round 6)
Lennox also beat him bad until round 8
Tyson didnt get up off the floor because by the time he was down, he'd already taken a $hitload of punches and punishment anyway.

I feel its wrong to judge a fighter just because they dont get up, to me some show heart by taking a beating and not going down. Some have slightly not so good jaws and they get knocked down and get up, some have solid chins and can take a beating all night until theres no more. Tysons the second category

[Nay_Sayer]

Tyson didnt get up off the floor because by the time he was down, he'd already taken a $hitload of punches and punishment anyway.
Agreed.

I don't think anyone would have gotten up after the beating Douglas gave him...

[mr. magoo]

I think Tyson should actually rate a lot higher than many people place him these days.. On one hand, there have been some in the past, who have rated him as high as number 3, which I believe to be ridiculously generous, but on the other, some absolutely scalp the shit out of him for his loss to Douglas, and don't even have him in their top 10, which is equally absurd. Frankly, I think anywhere from perhaps 6-9 is fair, depending on your criteria.. he was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time, one of the first and few to unify the crown, undefeated in his first 37 fights, and had some 8-9 title defenses... He also fought a string of decent heavyweights, some of whom were of great size, reasonable age, and fair experience levels.... His comeback wasn't much to speak of, and personally I think its nuts that Bruce Seldon and Frank Bruno were hold titles, but hey, for whatever its worth, he chalked up easy wins over those men and acquired the title a second time.. Head to head ratings are a bit too speculative for my liking, but I'd give a peak Tyson from 1986-1989 a fair chance at sparking a lot of great fighters..

[bodhi]

I agree with what you said, however Mike was shot BEFORE prison, on top of that he always had mental problems.
spending 3 years in jail didnt exactly enhance his brain cells.
What i was trying to get at was certain Lewis And Holyfield Nuthuggers jump to the conclusion that because they beat Mike they would have done in his prime, im trying to remind them that despite going to prison he still stayed competitive.
Post Prison he only lost to Holyfield And Lennox, the 2 other greatest fighters of his era (Williams and Mcbride was at the end of his career)
So in my opinion he didnt do that bad.
But he could have done BETTER, fights with Bowe, Moorer, Morrison, Foreman, Mercer, Briggs, Tua would have cemented his legacy and thats after being in prison. In his prime he would blown them all away.

No.

[bodhi]

I dont mean no disrespect but Tyson NEVER quit in any of his fights (ok ok Mcbride, but that was his last fight and considering the amount of $hit hes been through ill give him a pass)
He never got up off the floor, thats because it took him ages to get there!
Buster Douglas beat the $hite out of him for 11 rounds and then finally dropped him
Same with Holyfield who beat him senseless till round 11 and it was stopped (he also DID get up off the floor in round 6)
Lennox also beat him bad until round 8
Tyson didnt get up off the floor because by the time he was down, he'd already taken a $hitload of punches and punishment anyway.

I feel its wrong to judge a fighter just because they dont get up, to me some show heart by taking a beating and not going down. Some have slightly not so good jaws and they get knocked down and get up, some have solid chins and can take a beating all night until theres no more. Tysons the second category

One thing that makes a fighter great is overcoming adversity. Tyson never really showed that ability.

[bodhi]

I think Tyson should actually rate a lot higher than many people place him these days.. On one hand, there have been some in the past, who have rated him as high as number 3, which I believe to be ridiculously generous, but on the other, some absolutely scalp the shit out of him for his loss to Douglas, and don't even have him in their top 10, which is equally absurd. Frankly, I think anywhere from perhaps 6-9 is fair, depending on your criteria.. he was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time, one of the first and few to unify the crown, undefeated in his first 37 fights, and had some 8-9 title defenses... He also fought a string of decent heavyweights, some of whom were of great size, reasonable age, and fair experience levels.... His comeback wasn't much to speak of, and personally I think its nuts that Bruce Seldon and Frank Bruno were hold titles, but hey, for whatever its worth, he chalked up easy wins over those men and acquired the title a second time.. Head to head ratings are a bit too speculative for my liking, but I'd give a peak Tyson from 1986-1989 a fair chance at sparking a lot of great fighters..

Tyson was the youngest beltholder but not the youngest champ. when he beat Spinks he was older than the Patterson who beat Moore for the title. :bart

I don't think Tyson can be ranked that high. His resume is too thin. He is borderline Top10 though.

[lefthook31]

One thing that makes a fighter great is overcoming adversity. Tyson never really showed that ability.
"One thing" is right. Tyson showed many other things that qualified him as a great fighter.

[bodhi]

"One thing" is right. Tyson showed many other things that qualified him as a great fighter.

Of course he did. He is a great fighter. Just not in the same mold as the "real" atgs.

[Jaws]

Tyson was the youngest beltholder but not the youngest champ. when he beat Spinks he was older than the Patterson who beat Moore for the title. :bart

I don't think Tyson can be ranked that high. His resume is too thin. He is borderline Top10 though.

If you are going to get that technical, Spinks no longer held the title, he was just a "recognized" champion by that point.

[lefthook31]

Of course he did. He is a great fighter. Just not in the same mold as the "real" atgs.
Real ATGS?

[bodhi]

Real ATGS?

Ali, Louis, Marciano. These guys.

[bodhi]

If you are going to get that technical, Spinks no longer held the title, he was just a "recognized" champion by that point.

Of course was Spinks the champ. He beat Holmes and nobody until Tyson beat him. He was the champ, no matter what the politics of the corrupt governing bodies did.

[lefthook31]

Ali, Louis, Marciano. These guys.
As opposed to the second half of the top ten that arent real ATG's? :blood

[Kalasinn]

As opposed to the second half of the top ten that arent real ATG's? :blood
Remember though, Bodhi rates Tyson at number 13.

[Nay_Sayer]

Ali, Louis, Marciano. These guys.
Tyson's win over Spinks is probably better than any single win on Marciano's record...

[newbridgeboxing]

Tyson at his best in the 1980's could of mixed it with any heavweight of any era in my opinion, He was well trained and 100% focused.

I'd rate him in the top ten easy round about 7-10

[mr. magoo]

Tyson was the youngest beltholder but not the youngest champ. when he beat Spinks he was older than the Patterson who beat Moore for the title. :bart

I don't think Tyson can be ranked that high. His resume is too thin. He is borderline Top10 though.


I have had this argument with many people before you ever joined this forum, and frankly, none of them have ever convinced me of your point...

1. Holmes was stripped of his WBC title in 1983 for failure to defend against Page.

2. Spinks beat him in 1985 for the IBF crown..

3. Spinks was stripped of the IBF in 1987 for failure to defend against Tucker..

4. Tyson cleaned up the division, unified the crown and beat the very same Tucker who Spinks ducked...

If this doesn't satisfy you, then think of it this way:

1. Rocky Marciano retired as the undefeated champ in 1955.

2. Floyd Patterson won the title in VACANT fashion against an old Moore who Marciano had already destroyed..


If you think that a man who chooses to continue fighting for money, but doesn't feel that he has any obligation to defend his crown, has more entitlement to the championship than a man who retires, then the crown obviously has no meaning.. Tyson did more than BOTH Michael Spinks and Floyd Patterson to become champ, and in fact, was announced as THE champ when fighting Spinks.... The only technicality that was announced when Spinks name was called was that the RING magazine called him the CHAMP, and make no mistake about it, that was just to hype the fight for the purpose of selling papers...... No one REALLY believed that he was the CHAMP....

[Unforgiven]

I have had this argument with many people before you ever joined this forum, and frankly, none of them have ever convinced me of your point...

1. Holmes was stripped of his WBC title in 1983 for failure to defend against Page.

2. Spinks beat him in 1985 for the IBF crown..

3. Spinks was stripped of the IBF in 1987 for failure to defend against Tucker..

4. Tyson cleaned up the division, unified the crown and beat the very same Tucker who Spinks ducked...

If this doesn't satisfy you, then think of it this way:

1. Rocky Marciano retired as the undefeated champ in 1955.

2. Floyd Patterson won the title in VACANT fashion against an old Moore who Marciano had already destroyed..


If you think that a man who chooses to continue fighting for money, but doesn't feel that he has any obligation to defend his crown, has more entitlement to the championship than a man who retires, then the crown obviously has no meaning.. Tyson did more than BOTH Michael Spinks and Floyd Patterson to become champ, and in fact, was announced as THE champ when fighting Spinks.... The only technicality that was announced when Spinks name was called was that the RING magazine called him the CHAMP, and make no mistake about it, that was just to hype the fight for the purpose of selling papers...... No one REALLY believed that he was the CHAMP....


But Spinks was the man who beat the man.
Traditionally, that's how world champions are decided.

RING magazine genuinely thought Spinks was champion, so did I at the time, in the traditional sense. Nevermind that Tyson was the better fighter. If the best fighter in the world is always the champion then the title would never change hands !

Doubting Patterson's claim for beating Moore is valid but no one at the time disputed the championship, so Patterson's claim stands.

What you're saying is all well and good but you'd have to go all through history and make a judgment as to who should be stripped and say why, and who you recognize as champion - starting from the earliest times.

To defend the fucking IBF (and I feel the use of bad language here is justified !:yep) for stripping Spinks for not fighting Tony Tucker is a very bad call on your part, in my opinion.
Ok, if the championship means so much, why didn't they order him to fight Mike Tyson, (who was clearly the most deserving opponent) ?

We both know why. Because boxing's "world title sanctioning bodies" are a bunch of crooked illogical racket-running scumbags.
They are the problem, not the solution.

[bodhi]

But Spinks was the man who beat the man.
Traditionally, that's how world champions are decided.

RING magazine genuinely thought Spinks was champion, so did I at the time, in the traditional sense. Nevermind that Tyson was the better fighter. If the best fighter in the world is always the champion then the title would never change hands !

Doubting Patterson's claim for beating Moore is valid but no one at the time disputed the championship, so Patterson's claim stands.

What you're saying is all well and good but you'd have to go all through history and make a judgment as to who should be stripped and say why, and who you recognize as champion - starting from the earliest times.

To defend the fucking IBF (and I feel the use of bad language here is justified !:yep) for stripping Spinks for not fighting Tony Tucker is a very bad call on your part, in my opinion.
Ok, if the championship means so much, why didn't they order him to fight Mike Tyson, (who was clearly the most deserving opponent) ?

We both know why. Because boxing's "world title sanctioning bodies" are a bunch of crooked illogical racket-running scumbags.
They are the problem, not the solution.

I couldn´t have put it better. Exactly my reasoning. :good

[bodhi]

Tyson's win over Spinks is probably better than any single win on Marciano's record...

Marciano´s wins over Charles and Walcott are better than any win Tyson has.

[bodhi]

As opposed to the second half of the top ten that arent real ATG's? :blood

Tyson is borderline Top10.

Remember though, Bodhi rates Tyson at number 13.

Recently, I parted my lists into two. Pre 1920 and after 1920 to make the fighters on it more comparable. So, Tyson is now between 9 and 11. :good

I´m a bit harsh with calling fighters atgs the more I think about it. Only the Top5-6 of each divsion and the Top10-20 p4p are real atgs for me. But this changes and takes nothing away from the other fighters like Tyson.

[Stevie G]

I'd certainly rate him in my all time top 10 heavyweight list. Albeit in the lower half of it.

[turpinr]

I'd certainly rate him in my all time top 10 heavyweight list. Albeit in the lower half of it.i have him about the same.way above the likes of marciano and dempsey.

[duran duran]

at his peak id give only ali louis foreman and holmes a shot of beating him i dont think he would have had a problem with lewis frazier marciano or liston holyfield would have given him a good fight but i think the 88 tyson would have stopped him in 6 to 8 rounds bowe was too easily to hit to survive peak tyson top 5 for me

[Stevie G]

i have him about the same.way above the likes of marciano and dempsey.
True. I have him following on from Ali,Louis,Holmes,Frazier,Foreman,Liston,Lewis and Holyfield. In that order. A few of them are subject to change every now and then.

[mr. magoo]

=Unforgiven;6328010]But Spinks was the man who beat the man.
Traditionally, that's how world champions are decided.


If that's the case, then the lineage of the title must have died with Marciano..

RING magazine genuinely thought Spinks was champion, so did I at the time, in the traditional sense. Nevermind that Tyson was the better fighter.

There were many who didn't.. Tyson was fighting the challengers and alpha titlists... Spinks was fighting Cooney and Tangstad, plus won his belt from a man who had been previously stripped of one himself.


Doubting Patterson's claim for beating Moore is valid but no one at the time disputed the championship, so Patterson's claim stands.



Perhaps, but I think its a double standard to credit him for being the youngest champ of all time, on the basis that Tyson did NOT beat the man, when Floyd didn't do it either.



What you're saying is all well and good but you'd have to go all through history and make a judgment as to who should be stripped and say why, and who you recognize as champion - starting from the earliest times.



I think Dempsey and Sullivan should have both been stripped for failure to defend a title against the best.


To defend the fucking IBF (and I feel the use of bad language here is justified !:yep) for stripping Spinks for not fighting Tony Tucker is a very bad call on your part, in my opinion.


I'm not the one who stripped him.... The sanctioning body of the fucking belt that HE FOUGHT FOR did.. He chose to pass up a MANDATORY contender to face a dead beat for more money and less risk... He was rightfully stripped. And forfeited his right to continue being called champ... In the real world when the CEO of a company loses his job, does the next man have to beat him out of the position to take over his office? No, that isn't the way it works. This lineal title shit is all about ceremonial nonsense, and frankly I think its sometimes used for the sole purpose of selling tickets.



Ok, if the championship means so much, why didn't they order him to fight Mike Tyson, (who was clearly the most deserving opponent) ?


Because Tyson was another belt holder and not a contender.. A fellow titlist can't be made a mandatory. That's the way its always been.


We both know why. Because boxing's "world title sanctioning bodies" are a bunch of crooked illogical racket-running scumbags.
They are the problem, not the solution.


Perhaps, but the one thing that will never change, is the fact that a champion has to defend his title if he wants to be called CHAMP.. Otherwise, a man can sit on his couch with his feet up all day and call himself a champion, while in the meantime the sport goes without someone at the thrown... Doesn't work..... By 1988, Michael Spinks' right to being a true claimant had been pretty far removed.

[Unforgiven]

If that's the case, then the lineage of the title must have died with Marciano..

Obviously, some champions will retire as champion. It's rare but it happens.
In those cases a new champion needs to be found.
That's a lot different to creating a new champion while the current champion is still active.

There were many who didn't.. Tyson was fighting the challengers and alpha titlists... Spinks was fighting Cooney and Tangstad, plus won his belt from a man who had been previously stripped of one himself.

Yes, Tyson was beating better opponents. It's historically noted and recognized, and would be regardless of alphabet bollocks. Sonny Liston gets his due for beating better opponents than Patterson, circa. 1960.

I dont give a fuck about "alpha titlists", "belt" and "stripped".


Perhaps, but I think its a double standard to credit him for being the youngest champ of all time, on the basis that Tyson did NOT beat the man, when Floyd didn't do it either.


Fair enough point about Floyd.
And Tyson did beat the man. He beat Spinks.


I think Dempsey and Sullivan should have both been stripped for failure to defend a title against the best.


Good luck with being consistent remembering your lineage. You should consider stripping Johnson, or Willard too.

Interestingly, the NYSAC stripped Schmeling in 1932 for failing to fight Sharkey again. And in 1937 they almost stripped Braddock for not fighting Schmeling, but backed out at the last moment.
I dont where you stand on that.


I'm not the one who stripped him.... The sanctioning body of the fucking belt that HE FOUGHT FOR did..

Yes, they stripped him of their recognition.
I dont follow the IBF.
The IBF heavyweight title's credibility was based entirely on the fact that Larry Holmes was considered the real champion and they chose to pin their flag to him. But Larry Holmes was considered the real champion regardless. And that's what Spinks held (as well as the IBF belt). The championship. Not just some "fucking belt".


He chose to pass up a MANDATORY contender to face a dead beat for more money and less risk...


The IBF's mandate. That's their business. It means absolutely nothing to me.

He was rightfully stripped. And forfeited his right to continue being called champ... In the real world when the CEO of a company loses his job, does the next man have to beat him out of the position to take over his office? No, that isn't the way it works.

Yes, he was stripped. Of the IBF's recognition. I get that.


This lineal title shit is all about ceremonial nonsense, and frankly I think its sometimes used for the sole purpose of selling tickets.


No.
In boxing if you beat the champion you become champion. That's what every boxing fan understands, and is where "lineal title shit" comes from.



Because Tyson was another belt holder and not a contender.. A fellow titlist can't be made a mandatory. That's the way its always been.

What do you mean fellow titlist ? The "sanctioning bodies" are supposed to be in competition, yet the recognize each other's champions as "other" champions ? Or do they just exclude them from being contenders ? If so, WHY ?
There can only be one world champion. And if IBF recognize Spinks as champion why not recognize Tyson as a contender ?

And your answer is "That's the way its always been" .... :lol:

Yes, (well maybe not always) and that should tell you what a bunch of crooked racketeers and poison to the sport they are.

The whole sanctioning body structure is a scam, but you seem to prefer there way of doing things to the simple principle of a champion winning or losing the title in the ring.



Perhaps, but the one thing that will never change, is the fact that a champion has to defend his title if he wants to be called CHAMP.. Otherwise, a man can sit on his couch with his feet up all day and call himself a champion, while in the meantime the sport goes without someone at the thrown... Doesn't work..... By 1988, Michael Spinks' right to being a true claimant had been pretty far removed.


Only because of the sanctioning bodies and the TV companies.

Let's just imagine it was strictly lineal and there was no alphabet soup bullshit. The time between Tyson exploding unto the consciousness of the public as the real goods (say, Nov. '86) and when Spinks fought him (June '88) is 19 months.
Yes, everyone would say Tyson's the best in the world and the "uncrowned champion", yes, everyone would say Spinks ducked him for too long.
But it wouldn't be the end of the world. The case doesn't call for withdrawing recognition until the man gets beat in the ring. It's not like Spinks went totally inactive for years.
Spinks' case wasn't even that bad.

[duran duran]

I laugh when these Tyson haters downplay his resume.These are the same people who will rank a Joe frazier in the top five or a Larry Holmes as highly as number three on their little heavyweight list.Tyson actually has a very good resume.Tyson in his prime didn't cherry pick and duck other fighters like so many of these supposed great heavyweights did.Tyson like the real fighter that he was completely cleared out his division in just under three years.top post:good

[mr. magoo]

Obviously, some champions will retire as champion. It's rare but it happens.
In those cases a new champion needs to be found.
That's a lot different to creating a new champion while the current champion is still active.



Yes, Tyson was beating better opponents. It's historically noted and recognized, and would be regardless of alphabet bollocks. Sonny Liston gets his due for beating better opponents than Patterson, circa. 1960.

I dont give a fuck about "alpha titlists", "belt" and "stripped".



Fair enough point about Floyd.
And Tyson did beat the man. He beat Spinks.



Good luck with being consistent remembering your lineage. You should consider stripping Johnson, or Willard too.

Interestingly, the NYSAC stripped Schmeling in 1932 for failing to fight Sharkey again. And in 1937 they almost stripped Braddock for not fighting Schmeling, but backed out at the last moment.
I dont where you stand on that.




Yes, they stripped him of their recognition.
I dont follow the IBF.
The IBF heavyweight title's credibility was based entirely on the fact that Larry Holmes was considered the real champion and they chose to pin their flag to him. But Larry Holmes was considered the real champion regardless. And that's what Spinks held (as well as the IBF belt). The championship. Not just some "fucking belt".





The IBF's mandate. That's their business. It means absolutely nothing to me.



Yes, he was stripped. Of the IBF's recognition. I get that.



No.
In boxing if you beat the champion you become champion. That's what every boxing fan understands, and is where "lineal title shit" comes from.





What do you mean fellow titlist ? The "sanctioning bodies" are supposed to be in competition, yet the recognize each other's champions as "other" champions ? Or do they just exclude them from being contenders ? If so, WHY ?
There can only be one world champion. And if IBF recognize Spinks as champion why not recognize Tyson as a contender ?

And your answer is "That's the way its always been" .... :lol:

Yes, (well maybe not always) and that should tell you what a bunch of crooked racketeers and poison to the sport they are.

The whole sanctioning body structure is a scam, but you seem to prefer there way of doing things to the simple principle of a champion winning or losing the title in the ring.




Only because of the sanctioning bodies and the TV companies.

Let's just imagine it was strictly lineal and there was no alphabet soup bullshit. The time between Tyson exploding unto the consciousness of the public as the real goods (say, Nov. '86) and when Spinks fought him (June '88) is 19 months.
Yes, everyone would say Tyson's the best in the world and the "uncrowned champion", yes, everyone would say Spinks ducked him for too long.
But it wouldn't be the end of the world. The case doesn't call for withdrawing recognition until the man gets beat in the ring. It's not like Spinks went totally inactive for years.
Spinks' case wasn't even that bad.


Fair points.. Some of them I agree with, while others I disagree.. I suppose if we concurred with everything all the time, this place wouldn't be much fun.

[Seamus]

I always find it odd when people rank Dempsey over Tyson. Demspey had a decent run up to the title, a devastating capturing of the title and then sat on the thing as long as possible, interspersing underwhelming defenses until he was twice emphatically beaten. Tyson followed the same path (more impressively in my opinion) but continued to lay waste to championship fighters in emphatic fashion while champ and even well after losing the title and while on his decline. Sure, he hung around too long and lost interest at times, but overall his record and the nature of his performances impresses me far more than Dempsey's run. I rank Tyson in my top 6 all time heavyweights.

[Unforgiven]

Fair points.. Some of them I agree with, while others I disagree.. I suppose if we concurred with everything all the time, this place wouldn't be much fun.

:shock: Wait a second. You mean this place is supposed to be fun ?





















:good

[Danny]

I have Tyson in the top 10 Greatest HW's of all time!

Head-to-Head, I see only two guys beating him at his peak!

[Stevie G]

Tyson's win over Spinks is probably better than any single win on Marciano's record...
Although I'd rate Tyson over Marciano in my all time list,I can't put the Michael Spinks win over some of Marciano's victories. Jersey Joe Walcott,for example is a far more complete heavyweight than Spinks was.

[ironchamp]

I rate Tyson as high as number 6.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Mike Tyson
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Evander Holyfield
9. George Foreman
10. Joe Frazier
11. Sonny Liston
12. Jack Dempsey
13. James Jeffries
14. Floyd Patterson
15. Ezzard Charles

[Bill Butcher]

No 3 or 4, usually no 4, narrowly behind Holmes at 3, Louis at 2 & Ali at 1.

Simply outstanding in his prime.

[ironchamp]

One thing that makes a fighter great is overcoming adversity. Tyson never really showed that ability.

I don't think overcoming adversity is a prerequisite for greatness when it comes to boxing. The criteria should be:

1. Tenure as Champion
2. Quality of Opposition (amongst available opposition)
3. Ability as a fighter.

Those 3 things are the best barometers when assessing a fighter's career. Overcoming adversity and other intangibles are compensating factors but they are nor should the be what a fighter is solely judged upon. I say this because often times that intangible is used so loosely that when assessing mythical match ups people sometimes say (when they lack a proper analysis) things like

"Ali will just find a way to win..."
When they can't respond with plausible scenario as to whether Ali could beat Lewis.

"Marciano has too much heart...."
When responding to why they think he'd beat Vitaly Klitschko.

And in any case adversity is often relegated to coming off the floor to win a fight. That is not always the case. Remember heart is overcoming your short comings to the best of your ability regardless of the result.

And in that case Tyson has it.

1. Against Tiilis; Tyson had later admitted that he wanted to quit in that fight but he was urged on by Rooney and somehow found the strength to eek out a decision. He was met with adversity in that fight and he rose to the challenge. And before you undermine Tillis; find me another 19 year old Heavyweight past or present that would have beaten Tillis more decisively than Tyson did.

2. Against Spinks; when you consider what was going on in Tyson's personal life leading up to the Super Fight with Micheal Spinks, almost as amazing as his performance was his ability to keep it together to produce that spectacular KO. Adversity doesn't always come in the ring. Sometimes it comes out of the ring and the level of discipline that he manifested that night shows that at his best he was committed to his craft.


3. Against Douglas; getting off the floor to win a fight has become overrated when you look at the context. Lennox Lewis and Jim Jeffries never got off the floor to win a fight but I hardly doubt that people aren't calling them great.

Mike Tyson was not the kind of fighter that easily hit the ground. In order for you to drop him, you needed to administer a significant amount of punishment. Tyson's ability to absorb punishment has kept him upright, when other fighters would have hit the canvas.

I don't think Tyson would have been floored by Walcott's left hook that dropped Marciano or Frazier's left hook on Ali in FOTC. Stunned, perhaps but not floored. On the other hand I don't think that Marciano would have been upright against Bonecrusher Smith when he landed a big right hand in the 12th round, or Tucker's right uppercut in the 1st or Ruddock's patented smash in Round 6 of the first fight. He may very well have beaten these fighters but if they landed the same blow's on Rock as they did on Mike, Rock would have hit the canvas.

In any event, against Douglas, Tyson after trailing hopelessly behind on the cards tries to close the show with his right uppercut. He lands one that sort of grazed Buster's chin a few seconds towards the end of the 8th round and Buster sort of falls into him. Then he lands another one and drops Douglas. With his eye swollen, trailing on points mathematically needing a few KD's or a KO to win he drops Douglas and was intent on finishing him then and there. Look at his aggression in the 9th round, how he came out. His failure shouldn't suggest that he lacked the will and effort to do so. Tyson seemed to woken up too late in the fight and was too battered to have turned it around. But the point is that he showed heart.

4. Against Botha, he overcame adversity courtesy of a right hand.

Bottom line:

Tyson dominated his division and was unequivocally the best fighter in the world. He was number 1 on p4p lists from 87-89 (Ring Magazine). So his ability cannot be questioned.

New to the boxing politics of multiple title holders, Tyson removed any doubt as to who the man was by beating the other champions, and then beating the guys they beat to get that championship. And when you consider he had 9 title defenses; that is an impressive feat.

For good measure take a look at your "Real" ATG Heavyweights in your top 10 and look at how many ranked contenders they beat. You'd be surprised to see how Tyson measures up.

And one last thing when it comes to this topic of adversity:

Compare what Tyson did after he lost the title to

What Sonny Liston did after he lost the title,
What Joe Frazier did after he lost the title,
What about Jack Dempsey?

[Nay_Sayer]

To defend the fucking IBF (and I feel the use of bad language here is justified !:yep) for stripping Spinks for not fighting Tony Tucker is a very bad call on your part, in my opinion.
Ok, if the championship means so much, why didn't they order him to fight Mike Tyson, (who was clearly the most deserving opponent) ?

We both know why. Because boxing's "world title sanctioning bodies" are a bunch of crooked illogical racket-running scumbags.
They are the problem, not the solution.
What he said...

[Nay_Sayer]

Marciano´s wins over Charles and Walcott are better than any win Tyson has.
Charles was shop worn and Walcott was ole.

Spinks was coming off of two victories over a long reigning and "A" class champion in Larry Holmes and was undefeated.

Spinks > Charles

Spinks > Walcott

[bodhi]

I don't think overcoming adversity is a prerequisite for greatness when it comes to boxing. The criteria should be:

1. Tenure as Champion
2. Quality of Opposition (amongst available opposition)
3. Ability as a fighter.

Those 3 things are the best barometers when assessing a fighter's career. Overcoming adversity and other intangibles are compensating factors but they are nor should the be what a fighter is solely judged upon. I say this because often times that intangible is used so loosely that when assessing mythical match ups people sometimes say (when they lack a proper analysis) things like

I rate fighters by different criterias than you. Resume, longevity, dominance, achievements. I don´t make a difference between the tenure as a champ or the rest of his career and I don´t take public opinion into account. Ability is very subjective. Ali needed different abilities than Frazier. Does that mean Frazier has less ability? It also depends on what you like. I don´t rate ability hiohger than intangibles when it comes to ranking fighters, which means it doesn´t influence my rankings much. C

Coming back from adversity is one thing a fighter that an atg should be able to do, it´s not a prerequisite for greatness but for all-time greatness.


1. Against Tiilis; Tyson had later admitted that he wanted to quit in that fight but he was urged on by Rooney and somehow found the strength to eek out a decision. He was met with adversity in that fight and he rose to the challenge. And before you undermine Tillis; find me another 19 year old Heavyweight past or present that would have beaten Tillis more decisively than Tyson did.

2. Against Spinks; when you consider what was going on in Tyson's personal life leading up to the Super Fight with Micheal Spinks, almost as amazing as his performance was his ability to keep it together to produce that spectacular KO. Adversity doesn't always come in the ring. Sometimes it comes out of the ring and the level of discipline that he manifested that night shows that at his best he was committed to his craft.

3. Against Douglas; getting off the floor to win a fight has become overrated when you look at the context. Lennox Lewis and Jim Jeffries never got off the floor to win a fight but I hardly doubt that people aren't calling them great.

None of your examples are what is meant here. Tillis? I mean ... Tillis? If he would have quit in that fight against that kind of opponent I wouldn´t rate him in the Top20.
Personally, I think what was going on before the Spinks fight made him more focused and better.
No, it did not. Lewis never got up. Right but he came back and beat both fighters who beat him. You hold the Johnson fight against Jeffries? Are you kidding? Or just desperate?


Mike Tyson was not the kind of fighter that easily hit the ground. In order for you to drop him, you needed to administer a significant amount of punishment. Tyson's ability to absorb punishment has kept him upright, when other fighters would have hit the canvas.

Agreed.


I don't think Tyson would have been floored by Walcott's left hook that dropped Marciano or Frazier's left hook on Ali in FOTC. Stunned, perhaps but not floored. On the other hand I don't think that Marciano would have been upright against Bonecrusher Smith when he landed a big right hand in the 12th round, or Tucker's right uppercut in the 1st or Ruddock's patented smash in Round 6 of the first fight. He may very well have beaten these fighters but if they landed the same blow's on Rock as they did on Mike, Rock would have hit the canvas.

In any event, against Douglas, Tyson after trailing hopelessly behind on the cards tries to close the show with his right uppercut. He lands one that sort of grazed Buster's chin a few seconds towards the end of the 8th round and Buster sort of falls into him. Then he lands another one and drops Douglas. With his eye swollen, trailing on points mathematically needing a few KD's or a KO to win he drops Douglas and was intent on finishing him then and there. Look at his aggression in the 9th round, how he came out. His failure shouldn't suggest that he lacked the will and effort to do so. Tyson seemed to woken up too late in the fight and was too battered to have turned it around. But the point is that he showed heart.

Where did he comeback from adversity? I never doubted he had a good chin or heart.


4. Against Botha, he overcame adversity courtesy of a right hand.

:rofl:rofl:rofl



Bottom line:

Tyson dominated his division and was unequivocally the best fighter in the world. He was number 1 on p4p lists from 87-89 (Ring Magazine). So his ability cannot be questioned.

New to the boxing politics of multiple title holders, Tyson removed any doubt as to who the man was by beating the other champions, and then beating the guys they beat to get that championship. And when you consider he had 9 title defenses; that is an impressive feat.

For good measure take a look at your "Real" ATG Heavyweights in your top 10 and look at how many ranked contenders they beat. You'd be surprised to see how Tyson measures up.

I know all that. That ´s why I think pretty high of him, still not as high as you and some others though, but that has nothing to do with the post you answered to.


And one last thing when it comes to this topic of adversity:

Compare what Tyson did after he lost the title to

What Sonny Liston did after he lost the title,
What Joe Frazier did after he lost the title,
What about Jack Dempsey?

I rank Tyson above Liston and Dempsey. Frazier ranks above Tyson. Slightly better resume, as dominant, better achievements but worse longevity than Tyson.

[Addie]

I wonder if people knew that the thread starter meant in a P4P sense?

[enquirer]

I dont really have a top 100 p4p list,its hard enough to have ten!
But,i was thinking about mikes career the other day,and even though its know become fashionable to denigrate his greatness,heart and skills,i have to say that there was a spell from 87-prison where he looked simply sensational.
I think that prime specimem would be a tough match for any heavweight in history. And tyson would blow away several acknowledged atgs. (but would also probably lose to a few stylistic foils.)

[Addie]

I dont really have a top 100 p4p list,its hard enough to have ten!
But,i was thinking about mikes career the other day,and even though its know become fashionable to denigrate his greatness,heart and skills,i have to say that there was a spell from 87-prison where he looked simply sensational.
I think that prime specimem would be a tough match for any heavweight in history. And tyson would blow away several acknowledged atgs. (but would also probably lose to a few stylistic foils.)

Perhaps, but the most effecient way to measure the greatness of those who've been and gone is to evaluate what they actually achieved as opposed to speculation. Mike Tyson probably would have beaten Frazier and Louis in my judgment, but it can't be proven conclusively either way. Best stick to the facts, and Tyson didn't do well when rubbed against fellow greats.

[enquirer]

I think its best with what they achieved AND some speculation. (hence the 'classic' forums existance!)
I think you understand where i am coming from with the fact you mentioned mike would probably have beaten louis and frazier.
I think sometimes guys either didnt get the opportunity to fight fellow atgs in their prime,or didnt get to meet a bucketfull of top quality opponents to make up for this.
Look at joe louis,larry holmes and even better,marciano and dempsey. Those guys didnt really have wins over top echelon guys,and with marciano/dempsey didnt really have long reigns either. So we have to speculate a little i think.
Anyway,hows my spacing of sentences coming along?

[lefthook31]

Perhaps, but the most effecient way to measure the greatness of those who've been and gone is to evaluate what they actually achieved as opposed to speculation. Mike Tyson probably would have beaten Frazier and Louis in my judgment, but it can't be proven conclusively either way. Best stick to the facts, and Tyson didn't do well when rubbed against fellow greats.
Spinks and Holmes were greats. It could be argued Tyson was just as if not more diminished against the likes of Holyfield and Lewis.

[Addie]

Spinks and Holmes were greats. It could be argued Tyson was just as if not more diminished against the likes of Holyfield and Lewis.

Don't play stupid, LeftHook. You're better than that.

[lefthook31]

Don't play stupid, LeftHook. You're better than that.
Well let me ask you this. Would you pick the Holmes that Tyson fought to beat the Tyson that Lewis fought?

[Addie]

Well let me ask you this. Would you pick the Holmes that Tyson fought to beat the Tyson that Lewis fought?

Hey, I'm not denying that Tyson was woefully past his best. I think he was even by Ruddock I. That being said, for whatever reason, Tyson didn't do well when he faced great fighters who were in relatively good nick. Holmes after the lay off? He was thought to be sliding by 85. Michael Spinks was never a great Heavyweight, but the way Tyson handled him was more than impressive.

To answer your question, I think Holmes would have won handily on the cards.

[lefthook31]

Hey, I'm not denying that Tyson was woefully past his best. I think he was even by Ruddock I. That being said, for whatever reason, Tyson didn't do well when he faced great fighters who were in relatively good nick. Holmes after the lay off? He was thought to be sliding by 85. Michael Spinks was never a great Heavyweight, but the way Tyson handled him was more than impressive.

To answer your question, I think Holmes would have won handily on the cards.

Me too. Id even give Spinks a good shot at that Tyson. Id give Holmes a decent shot against the Tyson that fought Holy too..

[Addie]

In any event, Mike Tyson never beat a great, prime Heavyweight in his entire professional career, but his title reign is enough to give him a look in on a top 10 Heavyweight list.

[enquirer]

I just watched tyson tucker and tyson tubbs back to back.
Both guys came to fight,had good speed,skills,size and durability. Neither was intimidated. Tucker really had a tremendous go for the first five rounds,but seemed to tire from tysons pressure.
Tyson had a lot of intensity,physical prowess,speed and arkward skills.
Tysons overall punching prowess is second to none in the history of the heavyweight division,indeed second to none p4p either.
The funny thing i noticed was that between rounds rooney seemed to talk to tyson like he was a little child,and indeed tyson talked like a quite immature petulent child.
Tyson seemed to be a child in a mans body. Wonder why tyson took so long to grow up,because that seems to be the reason why he imploded.

[mr. magoo]

Hey, I'm not denying that Tyson was woefully past his best. I think he was even by Ruddock I. That being said, for whatever reason, Tyson didn't do well when he faced great fighters who were in relatively good nick. Holmes after the lay off? He was thought to be sliding by 85. Michael Spinks was never a great Heavyweight, but the way Tyson handled him was more than impressive.

To answer your question, I think Holmes would have won handily on the cards.



Lefthook31 :Me too. Id even give Spinks a good shot at that Tyson. Id give Holmes a decent shot against the Tyson that fought Holy too..


You both make good points..

Frankly, I think a 1991 Razor Ruddock would have definitely beaten THAT version of Tyson who lost to Lewis. I doubt Spinks would have, simply because even a 2002 Tyson would have placed tremendous pressure on him, and the slower starting Spinks was never going to have much of a chance against that type of fighter.. When I look at how Tyson briefly staggered Lewis in that first round, I am inclined to thinking that if Spinks were in there, he might have gotten in trouble and not recovered.... As for Holmes, I think he got better as his comeback progressed and had time to get his fight game back... The 1988 version who was off for two years without even a single tune-up might have had a chance, but it would still look ugly.. The Holmes who beat Mercer was sharper due to regular activity.

[Seamus]

In any event, Mike Tyson never beat a great, prime Heavyweight in his entire professional career, but his title reign is enough to give him a look in on a top 10 Heavyweight list.

Who is great prime heavyweight that Dempsey beat? That Marciano beat?

Tyson did beat a whole lot of championship level fighters even past his own prime.

[Addie]

Who is great prime heavyweight that Dempsey beat? That Marciano beat?

Tyson did beat a whole lot of championship level fighters even past his own prime.

Not a huge advocate of either fighter's skills if I'm honest.

You're point is well made though, there wasn't too many Heavyweights who came claim to have beaten prime greats either.

[duran duran]

i dont think the debate should be who would have won the holmes who fought tyson in 88 or the tyson who fought lewis i think its obvious that the holmes of 88 would have slaughtered the tyson who fought lewis judging on his performances years after against holyfield mccall and mercer the holmes who fought tyson in 88 was well past his prime but still very capable it was just that tyson in 88 was one of the greatest heavyweights ever tyson was completely shot when he fought lewis a better debate would be who would of won the holmes of 88 or the lewis of 02

[Son of Gaul]

He's probably closer to being in the top 50 than being outside the top 100 as far as I'm concerned.

Top 10 Heavyweight, especially with that criteria.

In terms of resume... you have to mention Ruddock. A great fighter.

Ruddock was a scary good fighter...not so sure about great though. Valid point either way.

[lefthook31]

Ruddock was a scary good fighter...not so sure about great though. Valid point either way.
Ruddock, Im sorry to say was more on the lines of most of Lewis title defenses. Good power mediocre overall skills. Thats why I rank Tyson highly, because I think during his title reign, he beat a very good crop of technically sound fighters, all the while using a very unfavorable style when facing those types, very difficult.

[Addie]

Razor possessed the skills he just neglected them, Leftthook.

[mr. magoo]

i think its obvious that the holmes of 88 would have slaughtered the tyson who fought lewis judging on his performances years after against holyfield mccall and mercer the holmes who fought tyson in 88 was well past his prime but still very capable it was just that tyson in 88 was one of the greatest heavyweights ever tyson was completely shot when he fought lewis a better debate would be who would of won the holmes of 88 or the lewis of 02

I don't think its obvious at all.. Holmes in 1988 was fresh out of retirement, whereas in 1992, he was preped for a comeback campaign, better trained and fighting actively. The Holmes who fought Mercer was better prepared for competing at the world level than the 1988 version was, despite being 4 years older... In addition, while the Tyson who fought Lewis in 2002 was woeful, he still went 8 rounds with a much more formidable opponent than a 40+ Holmes and even staggered him once... Tyson was also easily dispatching men like Golata around this general time frame.. As for an 88' Holmes beating a 2002 Lewis, I don't think its happening..

[choklab]

tyson is my number 10.
1.louis
2.ali
3.marciano
4dempsey
5holmes
6johnson
7lennox lewis
8hollyfield
9foreman
10tyson
unlike the guys i have ahead of him tyson ended up geting KAYOED by more linear champs than he beat.

[Muchmoore]

Ruddock is one of the more under rated fighters here. Not a great fighter, he was nonetheless the definition of a dangerous one.
In the few years prior to his fights with Tyson after the asthma attack against Jaco, his record was something like 16-0 with 15 knockouts with 3 wins over former champs in Dokes, Smith, and Weaver.

His power/recuperative ability made him an incredibly dangerous opponent, but one that's vulnerable as well as shown against Smith early on due to carelessness.

The fact that he came so close to beating Morrison in the condition that he was in speaks to how good he was at his best.

[Seamus]

for what it's worth, here is my list today (no active fighers... including Holyfield... and Botha):

1: Louis
2: Ali
3: Holmes
4: Lewis
5: Tyson
6: Marciano
7: Foreman
8: Jeffries
9: Dempsey
10: Liston

on the cusp... Frazier, Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Jersey Joe Walcott...

[PetethePrince]

for what it's worth, here is my list today (no active fighers... including Holyfield... and Botha):

1: Louis
2: Ali
3: Holmes
4: Lewis
5: Tyson
6: Marciano
7: Foreman
8: Jeffries
9: Dempsey
10: Liston

on the cusp... Frazier, Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Jersey Joe Walcott...

What is your criteria? Why Jeffries so high? Didn't know you thought so much of Liston. How is Dempsey ranked above Frazier? Frazier has the best win out of any fighter on that list.

[Seamus]

What is your criteria? Why Jeffries so high? Didn't know you thought so much of Liston. How is Dempsey ranked above Frazier? Frazier has the best win out of any fighter on that list.

Again, that was my list a couple hours ago. May have changed. Criteria is a mishmash of quality of performances against the best contemporaries available and my estimation of their abilities regardless of the era. Regarding Jeffries, he beat everyone he faced and faced most of the very best fighters of his era... I don't really count the Johnson fight against him, as he was not an active fighter at the time. Just an ill-advised decision on his part. Liston destroyed the division at his time (regardless of what I think of the division at that particular time). I still get caught by the Dempsey myopia bug, so many of his contemporaries thought so highly of him. His record just doesn't add up to the hype. I had Frazier on the list momentarily. I don't exactly think Ali was unbeatable in 71, especially by a truly great swarmer. Still, point taken.

[PetethePrince]

Again, that was my list a couple hours ago. May have changed.

:lol: My bad, I didn't know you were the analytical type.


Criteria is a mishmash of quality of performances against the best contemporaries available and my estimation of their abilities regardless of the era. Regarding Jeffries, he beat everyone he faced and faced most of the very best fighters of his era... I don't really count the Johnson fight against him, as he was not an active fighter at the time. Just an ill-advised decision on his part. Liston destroyed the division at his time (regardless of what I think of the division at that particular time). I still get caught by the Dempsey myopia bug, so many of his contemporaries thought so highly of him. His record just doesn't add up to the hype. I had Frazier on the list momentarily. I don't exactly think Ali was unbeatable in 71, especially by a truly great swarmer. Still, point taken.Yes, it's the legend of Dempsey that keeps him on my list. He has been as high as #6 I think, maybe #5 at one point. Now he's at #10 with Holyfield starring at the rear. Honestly, Holyfield "deserves" it more but the mystique of Dempsey and his legend/impact have me hesitant on pulling the trigger.

With Jeffries, he's got such a split between posters. Very few have him in their top 10 while many "experts" have him their or did... or at least have him close. The 21 or so fights hurts him. Add the fact that you know less and less about the era than succeeding ones and it makes it tough.

Ali wasn't unbeatable, but even that version probably beats some of those ATGs on that list.

If Holyfield and both Klitiscko's retired today, how might your list change?

[johnmaff36]

in ranking a fighter, we have to take into account his whole career and not just when he was at his best. So taking into the equation Tysons 10 or more years of mediocrity i dont think hes top 10 material, just outside it. But boy ,was he exciting in his prime.

[duran duran]

I don't think its obvious at all.. Holmes in 1988 was fresh out of retirement, whereas in 1992, he was preped for a comeback campaign, better trained and fighting actively. The Holmes who fought Mercer was better prepared for competing at the world level than the 1988 version was, despite being 4 years older... In addition, while the Tyson who fought Lewis in 2002 was woeful, he still went 8 rounds with a much more formidable opponent than a 40+ Holmes and even staggered him once... Tyson was also easily dispatching men like Golata around this general time frame.. As for an 88' Holmes beating a 2002 Lewis, I don't think its happening..
mr magoo larry holmes was 42 when he beat mercer he was a lot heavier as well compared to when he fought tyson you aint seriously saying holmes improved since the tyson fight he might have shedded some rust but he was slower when he beat mercer than when he fought tyson also you stated lewis in 02 would have beaten the holmes of 88 how can you be so sure the 42 year old holmes toyed with mercer lewis was fortunate to get a decsision against mercer and the mercer who fought holmes was far fresher than the one who fought lewis

[duran duran]

my all time top ten would be 1 ali 2louis 3holmes 4tyson 5foreman 6holyfield 7 frazier 8liston 9lewis 10bowe

[ironchamp]

I rate fighters by different criterias than you. Resume, longevity, dominance, achievements. I don´t make a difference between the tenure as a champ or the rest of his career and I don´t take public opinion into account. Ability is very subjective. Ali needed different abilities than Frazier. Does that mean Frazier has less ability? It also depends on what you like. I don´t rate ability hiohger than intangibles when it comes to ranking fighters, which means it doesn´t influence my rankings much. C

Even by your criteria, it becomes difficult to rank him outside the top 10.
Ability may be subjective, but so is intangibles. In any case Tyson has character.

Coming back from adversity is one thing a fighter that an atg should be able to do, it´s not a prerequisite for greatness but for all-time greatness.
Judging by the rest of the post, I guess the question should be; what do you consider adversity? How do you define it?

None of your examples are what is meant here. Tillis? I mean ... Tillis? If he would have quit in that fight against that kind of opponent I wouldn´t rate him in the Top20.He was a 19 year old Heavyweight Contender. He was in with an opponent who showed resistance and pushed him more than he thought he was going to be pushed. The point is that Tillis tested Tyson's character that night. James didn't have to be a great fighter because inevitably you'll find unheralded opponents doing the same to other ATG fighters. Tyson responded well.



Personally, I think what was going on before the Spinks fight made him more focused and better.If it made him more focused then, its a mark of his discipline his character and his focus. Most fighters Tyson included seldom can manage their lives spiraling out of control outside the ring and maintain their discipline. Most fighters lose it. And wind up losing.

No, it did not. Lewis never got up. Right but he came back and beat both fighters who beat him. You hold the Johnson fight against Jeffries? Are you kidding? Or just desperate?Tyson never got a chance to rematch Douglas, that can't be held against him. Though I concede that he lost to Holyfield a fellow ATG fighter.

Lewis came back to beat two average fighters who shouldn't have beaten him. Even if Jeffries never fought Johnson my previous statement would still hold true.

Agreed.Finally


Where did he comeback from adversity? I never doubted he had a good chin or heart.Again please redefine what you mean by adversity


:rofl:rofl:roflHe lost the first 4 rounds against Botha and stopped him with a crushing right hand. Just for reference Holyfield was dropped by Cooper and subsequently stopped him, Lewis was staggered by Briggs and subsequently stopped him, Louis dropped by Galento and well you get the point.



I rank Tyson above Liston and Dempsey. Frazier ranks above Tyson. Slightly better resume, as dominant, better achievements but worse longevity than Tyson.I rank Tyson above Liston, Dempsey and Frazier.

Frazier has a great win against Ali but lacks the longevity that Tyson maintained. Was not as dominant a champion and his resume is thinner than Tyson's. He has a great win over Ali but when you look at the rest of the names they are frankly lacking compared to Tyson.

[Seamus]

in ranking a fighter, we have to take into account his whole career and not just when he was at his best. So taking into the equation Tysons 10 or more years of mediocrity i dont think hes top 10 material, just outside it. But boy ,was he exciting in his prime.

But again, Dempsey is basically given his great ranking due to about 2 years of activity, two years that don't come close to the reign of terror Tyson had for 4 years, not to mention later results against Ruddock, Seldon Botha, Bruno...

Tyson 86-90 KO's Berbick, Thomas, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno, Williams, decisions Smith and Tucker, all but two once or future champs.

Granted Dempsey fought in an era of one belt but compare his much shorter (and much less impressive) reign of terror (1918-19)... Levinsky, Miske, Morris, Smith, Willard. Pretty much everyone in another thread agreed these were his 5 greatest performances. Smith and Morris were on losing streaks. Miske was top-notch. Willard wore the crown but was hardly very active. Still, Dempsey was brilliant in these fights.

I do give some credit to defenses against a sick Miske, an unimpressive Brennan return, the diminutive Gibbons and Carpentier and life and death with Firpo, but not much more than Tyson against Ruddock x2.

[Flea Man]

On my top ten, he's no 7