MIKE TYSON...What COULD HAVE BEEN

[Bummy Davis]

In retrospect when I think of Tyson, Following his win over Spinks and a few others he was 37-0 before the Douglas fight. I remember once Cus died then Jacobs...Don King moved in they got rid of Clayton and then Rooney. Mike no longer had any friends around him and he started to become nasty and reckless, then the 1st wife Robin and BAD KArma, then Douglas....then 4 years off...Lets just say Cus did not die and Jacobs and Rooney was left on and Mike had the right guidence...What would have been? What Could have been?.......I think Mike still had some lesssons to learn, how to get off the floor to win, how to come back after a loss and having Cus and his team around would have helped...Louis came back from his first loss and Ali from his...but Mike lost the people that got him there......What would have been had Mike not lost these people....THOUGHTS

[radianttwilight]

Tyson would've been undefeated until he was at least 27-28 or so. He could've been a real terror in the 24-25 range, because with the proper team around him he could've continued technically improving from his 86-88 "actual/reality prime" until he started to lose his physical gifts.

He was bound to start fading early though, which is why I pegged him at 28 when it started to become really noticeable. He could well remain a force into his early 30s though, with discipline.

I think there's actually a good possibility that, if he retired before 35 or so, he could've been undefeated. A disciplined, primed, improved Tyson from 90-92 would've fucked that era's Holyfield up IMO, and who else would be able to beat him? Lewis wasn't ready for a fight with Mike before 95-96 or so, but even then, a disciplined (albeit aged) Tyson could very well KO his heir apparent. Although...since history is changed, we could very well see a changed, if not entirely different, scene of early/mid 1990s contenders.

[Muchmoore]

I don't see Mike losing any more than once until he starts to slow down, probably around 97. He would be definently in there against GREAT fighters, and any great loses eventually when you fight enough very good/great fighters. Guys like old Foreman, Moorer etc. I think Tyson makes mincemeat out of.

He'd have to compete with Holyfield, Bowe, and Lewis. These are the biggest threats to him, and I'll break down how I see the fights going.

Bowe: Tyson's easiest fight out of all his best opponents. Bowe was there to be hit and while he had an iron will, and great chin, Bowe doesn't hit hard enough to trade with Tyson and his defense is far too leaky. He would be taken out in the early to mid rounds.

Holyfield-Very dangerous fight. We all saw Tyson fight Holyfield in 96 and lose in a very good fight by KO. But Tyson had massive ring rust going into this fight in taking 4 years off the sport, as well as barely even breaking a sweat in the fights he had after prison. Evander fought the perfect fight against Tyson, he roughed him up, hit him enough to make him know he was in a fight, and was able to survive the early rounds where the 90s Tyson was very, very dangerous. When Tyson started to slow down, Holyfield took over and finished him off. This Tyson was fighting primarily for the money however, and didn't have the eye of the tiger/stamina of his former self. Had Cus, Jacobs, Rooney stayed with him and had Mike not been corrupted, I see him only improving when he hits the 90s and being able to take Holyfield by decision, dropping him along the way and possibly finishing him in the mid rounds. In their actual fight, Tyson was winning after 5 rounds (narrowly, but winning) before he started to fall apart mentally and get physically drained due to not training right. The Tyson under Cus would always be in near perfect fighting shape like he was in the 80s, and he doesn't fold like the older one. In the 5th round, he rocked Evander with a big shot but was unable to capitalize on it due to him lacking the technical skills of the young one, younger Tyson may have finished Holyfield there.

Lewis-Probably the biggest threat to Tyson. He was a super heavyweight with a great jab, monster uppercut, skills, and stamina for a giant. His chin also gets under rated here, he was only dropped twice in all of his fights and that's impressive when you fight Tua, Briggs, Tyson, Mercer, Bruno etc etc. But Tyson takes it here, in the 1st round of their actual fight, Tyson was able to get to Lewis and showed glimpses (very small and short glimpses) of the younger one. Of course, Lewis also hit him with a few big uppercuts that discouraged him, but the prime Tyson wouldn't get discouraged and simply became a punching bag like he did in Memphis. He also wasn't nearly as easy to hit as the one that fought Lewis. I don't see Lewis surviving the entire 12 rounds without being able to avoid Tyson, honestly. We all saw how hard it was for Lewis to finish off a nearly shot Tyson, imagine how hard it would be for him to take out the Tyson of the Berbick/Spinks fights. Lewis could certainly pull it off and in a 3 fight series it would be more than possible for him to win one. But my money is on the great finisher and puncher Mike Tyson here.

Tyson may have absorbed a loss or two along the way before succumbing to old age (this might may have been sooner than I think for Tyson actually, his style relied heavily upon his reflexes and even with Cus he may have started to slow down at a young age) But I see him being the top fighter of the era, and going down as a lock for the top 3 of all time, more than likely even number one. We all know how great Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis are, but had Tyson beat them all we wouldn't hold them at close to the same level as we do now, and that would hurt him.

[JohnThomas1]

I'm just not sure he could beat Holyfield even at his best. Holyfields guts, talent and tactical brilliance including a willingness to bomb away when Tyson did as opposed to most others would have him in decent stead. He also potted then tied Tyson up at the perfect time to smother quite a bit of Tyson's most effective range. I'm very confident he would have put away Douglas however.

[Stonehands89]

I believe that Cus knew that his boy was a variation of a swarmer, and swarmers have short primes. Think Armstrong. They would have had him fighting more regularly to pump that record up and achieve greatness. If you look at his record, you'll note that they were moving Tyson quickly and fighting him often until the problems started. He was fighting almost monthly before the title and then every few months after the title. They knew that Tyson was on a clock.

Holyfield was at the gates, barring greatness though. He was a stylistic threat to Tyson from the Dokes fight on in my opinion. Tyson may have been ill-advised to face Holyfield anytime after the Dokes fight, and Cus may have tried to avoid him at least long enough until someone else beat him and then avoid him some more. Cus was not shy about avoiding legitimate contenders (Patterson/Liston).

Or, they may have opted to have Tyson fight Holyfield when they believed that he would have been at his best -perhaps after meeting Alex "the Destroyer" Stewart and Henry Tillman who were roughly similar... keep in mind that Tyson's prime was destined to end early -like by about 25 because his high pressure, fast twitch fiber, explosive power style was the style of youth. Tyson was like a cheetah in the ring, fast and vicious but only for half a fight, and in terms of stylistic longevity -like a comet that speeds past and loses its luster.

I think that they'd really need a grand stategist like Teddy Atlas working with Tyson to exploit Holyfield's weaknesses. But either way, I think it would be hard as hell for Tyson to beat a man of Holyfield's skills, counterpunching ability, and most importantly, character.

I do believe that Tyson could have beaten Lennox believe it or not -especially the lankier, 1992 version. The older version of Lewis became larger and stronger and would have posed more problems but in our little alternative universe, Tyson would probably have been retired by his early 30s with a record of something like ...65-2, including a UD loss to Holyfield, a controversial TKO win where he regains the title from Holyfield, and a KO loss in the rubber match.

[JohnThomas1]

I believe that Cus knew that his boy was a variation of a swarmer, and swarmers have short primes. Think Armstrong. They would have had him fighting more regularly to pump that record up and achieve greatness. If you look at his record, you'll note that they were moving Tyson quickly and fighting him often until the problems started. He was fighting almost monthly before the title and then every few months after the title. They knew that Tyson was on a clock.


I'm not sure on this point. Tyson's superb Cus inspired defense, power and speed had him getting hit less than lesser offensive heavyweights even as great as Holmes. He was taking most foes out so early and getting hit so little in cutting his swathe thru the division i'm not sure he would have followed the conventional swarmers path.

Bottom line - stopping sooooo many people so early and taking sooo little punishment no matter how long the fight has me thinking he doesn't wear out per the swarmer norm.

Unfortunately in the game of life he had no-where near the intelligence or normality of guys like Frazier and co. He self destructed so soon we are left guessing as to what better circumstance would have unveiled.

[Stonehands89]

I'm not sure on this point. Tyson's superb Cus inspired defense, power and speed had him getting hit less than lesser offensive heavyweights even as great as Holmes. He was taking most foes out so early and getting hit so little in cutting his swathe thru the division i'm not sure he would have followed the conventional swarmers path.

Bottom line - stopping sooooo many people so early and taking sooo little punishment no matter how long the fight has me thinking he doesn't wear out per the swarmer norm.

Unfortunately in the game of life he had no-where near the intelligence or normality of guys like Frazier and co. He self destructed so soon we are left guessing as to what better circumstance would have unveiled.
Yes, I think that his low self-esteem was never "healed" by boxing or by Cus, who also objectified Tyson to a degree. He was bursting at the seems even before Cus died and cover-ups were already part of the Tyson system before he was a pro. However, with all of his supports around him I think they could have seen him through without Desire Washington type problems. They knew better than to leave that wolf around young women.
...

Good points in your swarmer retort. I should have specified that I didn't mean in terms of 'punishment', because Tyson did indeed have an exceptional defense. I meant in terms of the extreme speed and expense of energy not only in his fights -but in sparring as well. Tyson was trained hard by Rooney et al., and it was no accident that they formed his style around speed and output.

Fighters normally reach their peak at around 29 or 30. Guys like Frazier, Armstrong, Meldrick Taylor, Beau Jack, and Tyson can't hold keep fighting as they do at optimal levels for long. Their peak, I surmise is earlier, maybe around 25 give or take a year either way.

I just did a quick check on those names I threw out there and the theory seems to fit:

* Armstrong was 25 in 1938 (he was in stride at that point. The losses started coming with some regularity in '40).

* Beau Jack, 1946 (by '49 he was losing with some regularity),

* Frazier, 1969, (-that was the year he had Ring "fight of the year" against Jerry Quarry, but had noticably slowed down after about age 27...)

* Meldrick, 1991 (he lost to Chavez at age 24 in 1990, which heightened his demise, and the other factor was the Duva's bad decision to move him up weight classes where he absolutely did not belong. No surprise that considering THREE factors converging, he was getting wrecked at age 26).

* Tyson was about to turn 25 in Ruddock II. He was technically only 24 but had already slowed down seriously. This may be partly due to the fact that he was far from his moorings by that point in terms of training and who was training him, but I think it was also partly due to the natural burn out expected from his high-energy style. After Ruddock it was the clink for him....

[Loewe]

So, firstly I have to say that I think Tyson would always have gone nuts even if nothing of the things that happened would have happened. He just had it in him. It´s sad if you remember the young Tyson in interviews when he was talking about boxing. Very sad indeed. But I don´t pity him, it´s his own fault - and partly D'Amato´s.

If we take everything into Tyson´s favour and assume he wouldn´t go nuts he would would get undefeated until early '92 with a record of 45-0. Than there would be no way to avoid Holyfield anymore and he would lose to him by SD but win the rubber match by TKO. After that they would avoid Holy as long as they can which works since Holy would come out short of his trilogy with Bowe and so Tyson faces Bowe instead beeing 48-1 going into this fight. Bowe would be a rather easy prey. At the same time Lewis is coming up but Tyson´s camp, remembering their sparring sessions in the early 80s, would avoid him. So, Lewis would fight everybody at the way up, even Bowe because that´s Bowe only opportunity to get another shot. Holy would have rearrenged his game and in the early '95 would face and beat Tyson again. But his reign wouldn´t last long since Lewis earned his shot in his fight against Bowe and beats him. In the mid '96 Tyson get´s a shot at Lewis due to his name but get´s knocked out in 9 and retires with a record of 53-3.
His dominance and legacy would secure him a place in the top5 at hw and Lewis would have to work very hard to finish in front of him. But on the other hand Bowe never is seen as good as he is now. He would never be champ. He still would win his trilogy with Holy but not for the title but for a shot at it, would lose to Tyson and Lewis and retire at around '98 without getting every a nother shot. Similar Holyfield, he would be champ for 2 times but only briefly. He would get another shot at Lewis around '98 but would lose and fight on until now. He would have won the trilogy against Tyson but lost the one against Bowe and 2 times against Lewis. He would be seen as a great fighter but as one who was smashed between the time of the two giants Tyson and Lewis.

[Ezzard]

Tyson was always reckless in his private life... The evidence was always there but his 'family' managed to hide it. Poor Mike was always off the rails. he was always nuts... Look at the attack on Green in the street. Visit to the clap clinic before Berbick. The man enaged in risk taking behaviour out of the ring. Even as early as the berbick fight journalists were telling stories about how Tyson's on camera meekness was an act, that he was rude and nasty in interviews. Why this myth continues is beyond me...

[ChrisPontius]

I believe that Cus knew that his boy was a variation of a swarmer, and swarmers have short primes. Think Armstrong. They would have had him fighting more regularly to pump that record up and achieve greatness. If you look at his record, you'll note that they were moving Tyson quickly and fighting him often until the problems started. He was fighting almost monthly before the title and then every few months after the title. They knew that Tyson was on a clock.

I have to agree here, even if Tyson did not take the punishement that for instance Frazier took. Guys who reach extreme heights in a short period of time, at whatever area of life, always fade as fast as they come.


On top of that, Tyson was mentally damaged beyond repair. The amygdala is a part of the brain/nerve where emotional memories/responses are stored early in your life. Once they're there, they never or rarely go out. Mike's youth was scarred, in lack of a father figure, people he could trust, etc. No amount of Rooneys and D'amatos could've saved him from his inevitable self-destruction. The interesting thing is that you can really see him try to live a good life during his early 20's, but it's a fight against nature he cannot win.


And then there is the problem that once you knock out everyone without breaking a sweat, you naturally become overconfident. And no amount of reliable people warning you can prevent the negative consequences of that, no matter who you are. Unfortunately, the only way to learn it is the hard way, which is why he went through the shit with Robins, why Douglas beat him from pillar to post, etc etc. Even the mentally stable (relatively speaking) had their lesser moments, i.e. Louis vs Schmeling, Duran vs Leonard II, Foreman & Liston vs Ali, etc.


That said, if he kept his original trainers and few of them hadn't died, he might have fared a bit better, but i think he was always running on a collision course in the early 90's, and Holyfield/Lewis would've always presented a Mount Everest for him to climb, style and ability wise.

[punchy]

I agree with the last three posters here the belief Tyson would have been the greatest ever is a myth, even with D'amato and Rooney around him he wouldn't be able to stay out of trouble it is just in his nature. He was lucky enough to have them there when they were because even though he had freakish natural ability I don't think anyone else could have brought it out the way that they did.

[DamonD]

I do sometimes wonder what Mike Tyson The Person could've been like if given proper guidance and psychological support from a young age, rather than shaped into Mike Tyson The Fighter and the cracks papered over.

Perhaps a youth worker, a motiviational speaker or even a reformed member of the clergy.
Massively less well known, but massively more emotional stable and happy in his life.

[Danny]

Personally, I do feel Tyson would have gone down as the best HW in history if things had been different. Now wait a minute before you ask "what am I talking about?"

At such a young age, Tyson was extremely advanced as a fighter. I mean, who else in HW history aged 20,21,22 was as good as what Tyson was at that age?

Given that he absorbed so much from what he was taught by people like Atlas, Rooney & D'Aamto, coupled with when he was a contender & during his peak years, he appeared to want to improve & learn more as a fighter, think of the development that could have been made!

We have to go by what has actually happened in life. Tyson prime was between 1986-1989. His best performance is genrally considered to be the win over Spinks. However, if things had played out differently, I believe Tyson would have improved as a fighter even more. Even if his peak were to be a few years after the Pinks victory, Tyson was always going to reach his prime at a young age compared to other guys.

I once read that the plan was for Mike to retire when he turned 30. Damn, there were people at one time saying Mike Tyson wouldn't live to see 30, let alone be fighting beyond then!

Tyson should have retired one of the wealthiest sportsman in history. Yes, his spending habits left a great deal to desired, but no doubt the leeches were out in force, doing everything they possibly could to con Mike.

No HW in history has ever had the unique combination of hand-speed & power, not the way Tyson had it. Mike was very naturally gifted. On the flip side, asking what could have been. Nobody is perfect, everyone has weaknesses. Myabe Tyson did have some mental weakness, so with the best will in the world, exceptional people around him to guide him, they may not have been enough!

We shall never know though, which is a great shame. Great, great fighter in his heyday. No one can deny this! Tyson was the reason I first became interested in boxing, & Ive not looked back since!

[Bummy Davis]

I look at the variety of punches that he landed on Holmes and even though Holmes was old Tyson smoked him...it was the way that he did it

[Stonehands89]

I do sometimes wonder what Mike Tyson The Person could've been like if given proper guidance and psychological support from a young age, rather than shaped into Mike Tyson The Fighter and the cracks papered over.

Perhaps a youth worker, a motiviational speaker or even a reformed member of the clergy.
Massively less well known, but massively more emotional stable and happy in his life.
Absolutely.

[Loewe]

I do sometimes wonder what Mike Tyson The Person could've been like if given proper guidance and psychological support from a young age, rather than shaped into Mike Tyson The Fighter and the cracks papered over.

Perhaps a youth worker, a motiviational speaker or even a reformed member of the clergy.
Massively less well known, but massively more emotional stable and happy in his life.

And if he wouldn´t have proper guidance, psychological support and boxing he probably would be dead right now. Grilled on a electric chair.

[round15]

Tyson is one of the greatest heavyweight fighters of all time and arguably could have been ranked in the top five of all time. Everyone's list varies, but I think the only skeptic about Tyson's career if Cus had lived would have been the quality of opponents in the mid to late 90's. I think he would have beaten his toughest opponents Holyfield, Lewis, and Bowe if they fought before his exile. People forget that Holyfield is not a natural heavyweight even though he could take one hell of a punch. Lewis would have probably provided the sternest of tests for Tyson because Lennox is a naturally atheletic big man and had good feet. Bowe might have given Tyson some trouble on the inside because he was a very good in-fighter for a big man. Bowe's downfall is lack of significant foot movement and I feel Tyson would have probably caught him in the middle rounds and stopped him. Prime Razor Ruddock's smash might have sobered up Tyson if they fought well before the time he lost the title to Douglas. Razor likely loses to Tyson because he wouldn't pose the same problems Lewis might have at the time because Ruddock constantly neglected his jab.

IMO, Tyson's exile compares to Ali's from the standpoint that when Tyson came back, he used intimidation tactics more than ever to gain that mental edge on his opponents. Some of the hand and footspeed diminished and his reflexes weren't the same just like Ali when he came back meaning Tyson had to rely on other tactics namely intimidation. Young Mike Tyson was a humble, well spoken, respectable fighter that complimented his opponents after victory. I don't think Cus would have let Mike get away with the trash talking that dominated his career upon his return to the ring.

I recently revisited his fight against James "Quick" Tillis, and Mike's jab was still in the developmental process. He wasn't getting hit with serious shots early in his career because his hands were always high on the cheekbones. His guard position enabled him to avoid body shots better because he would use the double slip to either side and throw hooks to the body with either hand. Frazier did this early in his career, but started to weave a lot more in the late 60's moving in.

It's not unrealistic that Tyson would have surpassed Marciano's record and he would have beat Golota, Moorer, McCall, Briggs, Byrd, Ruiz and perhaps retired after beating both Klitschko brothers. All this only if Cus had lived.

[Loewe]

Tyson is one of the greatest heavyweight fighters of all time and arguably could have been ranked in the top five of all time. Everyone's list varies, but I think the only skeptic about Tyson's career if Cus had lived would have been the quality of opponents in the mid to late 90's. I think he would have beaten his toughest opponents Holyfield, Lewis, and Bowe if they fought before his exile. People forget that Holyfield is not a natural heavyweight even though he could take one hell of a punch. Lewis would have probably provided the sternest of tests for Tyson because Lennox is a naturally atheletic big man and had good feet. Bowe might have given Tyson some trouble on the inside because he was a very good in-fighter for a big man. Bowe's downfall is lack of significant foot movement and I feel Tyson would have probably caught him in the middle rounds and stopped him. Prime Razor Ruddock's smash might have sobered up Tyson if they fought well before the time he lost the title to Douglas. Razor likely loses to Tyson because he wouldn't pose the same problems Lewis might have at the time because Ruddock constantly neglected his jab.

IMO, Tyson's exile compares to Ali's from the standpoint that when Tyson came back, he used intimidation tactics more than ever to gain that mental edge on his opponents. Some of the hand and footspeed diminished and his reflexes weren't the same just like Ali when he came back meaning Tyson had to rely on other tactics namely intimidation. Young Mike Tyson was a humble, well spoken, respectable fighter that complimented his opponents after victory. I don't think Cus would have let Mike get away with the trash talking that dominated his career upon his return to the ring.

I recently revisited his fight against James "Quick" Tillis, and Mike's jab was still in the developmental process. He wasn't getting hit with serious shots early in his career because his hands were always high on the cheekbones. His guard position enabled him to avoid body shots better because he would use the double slip to either side and throw hooks to the body with either hand. Frazier did this early in his career, but started to weave a lot more in the late 60's moving in.

It's not unrealistic that Tyson would have surpassed Marciano's record and he would have beat Golota, Moorer, McCall, Briggs, Byrd, Ruiz and perhaps retired after beating both Klitschko brothers. All this only if Cus had lived.

You really have bought in the myth :roll:

[Dempsey1238]

Yes, I think that his low self-esteem was never "healed" by boxing or by Cus, who also objectified Tyson to a degree. He was bursting at the seems even before Cus died and cover-ups were already part of the Tyson system before he was a pro. However, with all of his supports around him I think they could have seen him through without Desire Washington type problems. They knew better than to leave that wolf around young women.
...

Good points in your swarmer retort. I should have specified that I didn't mean in terms of 'punishment', because Tyson did indeed have an exceptional defense. I meant in terms of the extreme speed and expense of energy not only in his fights -but in sparring as well. Tyson was trained hard by Rooney et al., and it was no accident that they formed his style around speed and output.

Fighters normally reach their peak at around 29 or 30. Guys like Frazier, Armstrong, Meldrick Taylor, Beau Jack, and Tyson can't hold keep fighting as they do at optimal levels for long. Their peak, I surmise is earlier, maybe around 25 give or take a year either way.

I just did a quick check on those names I threw out there and the theory seems to fit:

* Armstrong was 25 in 1938 (he was in stride at that point. The losses started coming with some regularity in '40).

* Beau Jack, 1946 (by '49 he was losing with some regularity),

* Frazier, 1969, (-that was the year he had Ring "fight of the year" against Jerry Quarry, but had noticably slowed down after about age 27...)

* Meldrick, 1991 (he lost to Chavez at age 24 in 1990, which heightened his demise, and the other factor was the Duva's bad decision to move him up weight classes where he absolutely did not belong. No surprise that considering THREE factors converging, he was getting wrecked at age 26).

* Tyson was about to turn 25 in Ruddock II. He was technically only 24 but had already slowed down seriously. This may be partly due to the fact that he was far from his moorings by that point in terms of training and who was training him, but I think it was also partly due to the natural burn out expected from his high-energy style. After Ruddock it was the clink for him....

But all the above fighters been in wars. There was a reason why Armstrong and co slow down and were loseing.
Tyson didnt take a beating yet. Most of his fights ended in a round or so.

[round15]

You really have bought in the myth :roll:

No myth man.

I encourage you to watch Tyson's early career, how he boxed, moved, used his head, his natural body weight, his hand and footspeed. How is it for a guy his size, that many trainers and other fighters compare his power to that of the best, Foreman, Shavers, Liston and Lennox Lewis?

Respect to you Loewe for your opinion, but Mike Tyson was not a fluke as a heavyweight champion. He had some bad luck with people trying to take advantage of him and he didn't have the strongest educational background.

Still, there is no myth to what Tyson accomplished in his career and much more for what could have been.

[heehoo]

If Tyson never fired Rooney, none of what happened later in his career would have happened.

[Thread Stealer]

I agree with the last three posters here the belief Tyson would have been the greatest ever is a myth, even with D'amato and Rooney around him he wouldn't be able to stay out of trouble it is just in his nature. He was lucky enough to have them there when they were because even though he had freakish natural ability I don't think anyone else could have brought it out the way that they did.

I agree for the most part. Tyson always was very disturbed and wild, even with D'Amato. Some of his actions were covered up or looked over. Cus was known to let some of Tyson's actions outside the ring slide because of his talent.

What I wonder is, to what extent having D'Amato and Jacobs did help. Tyson was crazy no matter what, but it doesn't mean that their guidance didn't help somewhat.

With them there, maybe Tyson's actions outside the ring aren't as bad as what they were (of what he know)?

I can see the argument made for Tyson or Holyfield winning. In Holyfield's favor, there's the success when they did fight in 1996-97, when Holyfield was supposed to be a shot fighter, Holyfield's superior mindset, etc...Holyfield might've always had Tyson's number. In the argument of Tyson, Holyfield got more experienced against bigger guys from 1991 to 1995, got bigger and stronger himself, and learned to control his passion for warfare. Holyfield said the losses to Bowe, especially the 3rd fight, made him learn to control his aggression more. Holyfield clinched Tyson a lot and was a lot more controlled in his aggression than the younger Holyfield. Also, the body has been a somewhat vulnerable spot for Holyfield. Bowe hurt him repeatedly to the body, Foreman doubled him over to the body, Moorer hurt him to the body in round 4 of their 1st fight, Lewis hurt him to the body in round 5 of their 1st fight, when Tyson did hurt him in their first fight in round 5, it was his patented right hook to the body, right uppercut combo. A younger Tyson went to the body with more frequency. The body attack Ruddock took was vicious.

Against Bowe: Bowe's defense is just too poor, and his mindset is too much to trade, for me to pick Bowe to win. I think Tyson wins.

Against Lewis: Depends on when they fight, really. The earlier they fight, the better for Mike. Lewis improved after he lost to McCall in 1994, since he picked up Manny Steward who was the one who helped McCall to exploit Lewis's balance problems and being so open when he threw right hands.

[Dempsey1238]

I dont think Tyson is going to run though the 90's unbeating knocking out the likes of Holyfiled, Lewis or Bowe with out loseing at least one time.
The 1990's heavyweights for the most part were better than the late 80's that Tyson destory. As said before, most of Tyson's acts outside the ring were cover up. Sooner or later Tyson was going to crack.
Perhaps around 92 or so.

[Stonehands89]

But all the above fighters been in wars. There was a reason why Armstrong and co slow down and were loseing.
Tyson didnt take a beating yet. Most of his fights ended in a round or so.
I don't think that it's all about beatings. That's part of it, but not the whole story. And anyway, the first beating that Tyson took was the beginning of his rapid decline. You could also argue that the first beating Frazier (in 1971) took began his rapid decline as well.

I think that swarmer-types are less able to bounce back as the more innovative and versatile boxer-puncher are able to. Swarmers rely on confidence and chin more than any other style and once they get a little insecure, it's the beginning of the end. Their extreme style is also necessarily time-limited. A man cannot continue to fight like that without either adapting or fading.

Dempsey is another example of a swarmer with a short shelf-life. Granted his dissipation accelerated his decline, but it's tough to fight like he did against Willard fight after fight. And you aren't doing it when you're 30. Greb is an exception. It's not iron clad but I see consistency.

[Loewe]

No myth man.

I encourage you to watch Tyson's early career, how he boxed, moved, used his head, his natural body weight, his hand and footspeed. How is it for a guy his size, that many trainers and other fighters compare his power to that of the best, Foreman, Shavers, Liston and Lennox Lewis?

Respect to you Loewe for your opinion, but Mike Tyson was not a fluke as a heavyweight champion. He had some bad luck with people trying to take advantage of him and he didn't have the strongest educational background.

Still, there is no myth to what Tyson accomplished in his career and much more for what could have been.

I never said he was fluke. So, I´m not a fan of his due to his personality but he was the most spectacular hw I´ve ever seen. He was so much fun to watch and the most impressive hw on film imo. BUT he had mental problems his whole life. It wasn´t due to Jacobs and D'Amato dying and Rooney getting fired it was all due to Mike´s mental instability. It would have always happened. I made a post earlier in this thread where I described how I think his career would have unfolded if he didn´t have the mental problems but he just had them and would have fucked up his life and career even if D'Amato would be alive today.

[Bummy Davis]

thing with Tyson is that he never overcame his weaknesses, it was not his chin, not his power, not his speed, not his size,not his style....it was his mind, it was weak and he became his worst enemy....Mike never got off the floor to win...Mike quit vs Williams, McBride...why..that was the crack in his armor...we all have weak spots in our armor, Louis did, Ali did, Marciano did but the overcame mentally but all men had solid corners and guys that cared, Dundee,Chappie Blackburn,Al Silvani, Charley Goldman and Freddie Brown....I think Mike would have had a better chance of overcoming and getting to that top 5 level had Cus lived...just an opinion

[JohnThomas1]

Yes, I think that his low self-esteem was never "healed" by boxing or by Cus, who also objectified Tyson to a degree. He was bursting at the seems even before Cus died and cover-ups were already part of the Tyson system before he was a pro. However, with all of his supports around him I think they could have seen him through without Desire Washington type problems. They knew better than to leave that wolf around young women.
...

Good points in your swarmer retort. I should have specified that I didn't mean in terms of 'punishment', because Tyson did indeed have an exceptional defense. I meant in terms of the extreme speed and expense of energy not only in his fights -but in sparring as well. Tyson was trained hard by Rooney et al., and it was no accident that they formed his style around speed and output.

Fighters normally reach their peak at around 29 or 30. Guys like Frazier, Armstrong, Meldrick Taylor, Beau Jack, and Tyson can't hold keep fighting as they do at optimal levels for long. Their peak, I surmise is earlier, maybe around 25 give or take a year either way.

I just did a quick check on those names I threw out there and the theory seems to fit:

* Armstrong was 25 in 1938 (he was in stride at that point. The losses started coming with some regularity in '40).

* Beau Jack, 1946 (by '49 he was losing with some regularity),

* Frazier, 1969, (-that was the year he had Ring "fight of the year" against Jerry Quarry, but had noticably slowed down after about age 27...)

* Meldrick, 1991 (he lost to Chavez at age 24 in 1990, which heightened his demise, and the other factor was the Duva's bad decision to move him up weight classes where he absolutely did not belong. No surprise that considering THREE factors converging, he was getting wrecked at age 26).

* Tyson was about to turn 25 in Ruddock II. He was technically only 24 but had already slowed down seriously. This may be partly due to the fact that he was far from his moorings by that point in terms of training and who was training him, but I think it was also partly due to the natural burn out expected from his high-energy style. After Ruddock it was the clink for him....

Fair points, but i really think IF for debates sake Tyson stayed in his Larry Holmes form mentally he wouldn't have burned down quite as early as the usual swarmer model. Frazier, Armstrong and many others fought many grualling battles and excepting big fights with Holyfield, Lewis and Bowe say Tyson would have cruised along relatively unscathed. The above three battles and opponents, all in his future, would have dictated IMO his physical longevity or lack of it.

[JohnThomas1]

....

Just let me also mention that Duran wasn't THAT far off a swarmer hybrid himself at times, but his uncanny anticipation and ability to time and roll with punches carried him mostly unscathed thru a very long successful career. Tyson at his utter best was tearing thru the division with barely a sweat and his own brand of defense was eye openingly effective during this time. I agree with Chris that he was going to crash and burn no matter what mentally.

[zadfrak]

Anyone with any supervisory experience knows how tough things become once somebody falls into some money. Just try motivating them & do what they used to do when there isn't any "or else" at your disposal. Same with Tyson & lots of other guys, but especially the punchers---when they get big money who is going to make them get up at 5 in the morning to jog 5 miles? Especially if they've been having easy fights with early ko's. Good luck. Those guys are almost impossible to get in great shape fight after fight & they've long since stopped listening to their corner anyway. That early dedication is gone & these guys lose fights they shouldn't have.

[TIGEREDGE]

I look at the variety of punches that he landed on Holmes and even though Holmes was old Tyson smoked him...it was the way that he did it

Holmes was still a really good fighter. he give evander holyfield hell and beat the good ray mercer a few years later

[Bokaj]

Young Mike Tyson was a humble, well spoken, respectable fighter that complimented his opponents after victory. I don't think Cus would have let Mike get away with the trash talking that dominated his career upon his return to the ring.

He said Tubbs "squeeled like a woman" when he hit him in the gut. And this was 1987. Sure Cus wasn't around, but it was way before his comeback.

I think all this, "what if Cus hadn't died" is 90% BS. Tyson just didn't have that innate mental strength that is required to become truly great. Maybe the downfall would have taken longer with Cus around, but in the end would have been pretty much the same story IMO.

[Ezzard]

He said Tubbs "squeeled like a woman" when he hit him in the gut. And this was 1987. Sure Cus wasn't around, but it was way before his comeback.

I think all this, "what if Cus hadn't died" is 90% BS. Tyson just didn't have that innate mental strength that is required to become truly great. Maybe the downfall would have taken longer with Cus around, but in the end would have been pretty much the same story IMO.

Agreed...

A formidable fighter who falls short of the elite.

[JohnThomas1]

Agreed...

A formidable fighter who falls short of the elite.

Out of interest where do you rate him at Heavyweight and who in that division would you consider elite Ezz?

[The Wanderer]

I'll agree with that too. If you read the biographies that cover and go into Tyson's life in the Catskills with the D'Amatos, he was already raising a lot of hell back then. And like some others, including Teddy Atlas, I don't think that Cus was doing Tyson any favors by not confronting him on this, or choosing to ignore or work around trouble rather than deal with it. (For example when Tyson was about to be expelled from school and Cus responded by just taking him out of school entirely, giving him nominal home lessons while telling him that school wasn't really important and to concentrate on being a fighter, or lax gym discipline that meant that other guys would get punished for not working out and following a trainer's orders while Tyson would be granted exceptions, etc).

Also, everyone dies eventually, and Cus was going to die sooner rather than later, so speculating about what would have happened if Cus hadn't died isn't very realistic, because time was bound to run out for him very quickly. Now if Jacobs hadn't died, (because Tyson seems to have respected and liked Jacobs a pretty fair amount) and Rooney kept training him, that's fair to speculate about. But Tyson always had bad habits, he always was causing problems for himself and others, and he was always a loose cannon. How much he could keep on his game and out of trouble would always be an issue.

Regardless, I think Tyson loses focus after unifying the titles. It wouldn't be as bad as it was because King kept him inactive with nothing to do, (and keeping Mike working was a big key to him), and maybe his first loss would be to Holyfield or someone else rather than Buster, but I think there was always going to be some slacking off after he climbed the mountain of unifying the titles. Add on the issues with longevity that we've already gone over for a swarmer/puncher, and I don't think Tyson was going to continue to remain dominant in the early 90s as he had during the 80s. A major force, probably champ several times over, but not blowing everyone out and with him being what the sport was all about.

Just my $.02.

[Ezzard]

Out of interest where do you rate him at Heavyweight and who in that division would you consider elite Ezz?

Ali and Louis are a lock.

Johnson was so far ahead of the field and so lauded at the time I have him as an elite HW. I think he was light years ahead of his time. And beat enough top names to deserve it. Detractors don't like his reign or his style, but in context he gets it.

Then the last one I'd consider would be Holmes. Lots of skill. Long unbeaten record... Hard man physically and mentally. I do waver on Larry though.

Those who just miss it

Dempsey (had he beat Wills he'd be in)
Tunney (an elite fighter but not quite an elite HW)
Marciano (exciting and fierce, great conditioning and heart but just lacking in ability at the very, very top level)
Liston (close but Ali fights cast a shadow)
Frazier (very close, being bounced like a basketball by Foreman a hard image to shake off)
Foreman (young version too wild, not mentally strong enough; old version too slow, physically limited: a hybrid would make it)
Lewis (very close too, the KO losses in his prime and his poor stamina)
Holyfield (just the odd inconsistency; had he fought Lewis earlier I think he would have won and that would put him in)

Tyson's career was a lot like Liston and Foreman... Seemed unbeatable until he lost a title fight and then never quite the same... Afterwards Sonny put a nice run together. Would have loved to see him get a crack at Frazier... Foreman eventually got his act back on the road and redeemed himself. Mike still beat some good fighters after Douglas but he lost all the big ones, the ones that could have taken him to the next level.

[JohnThomas1]

Ok, fair enough - you set an enormous standard as elite and only 3 1/2 heavyweights make it. I'd rank Tyson above 13 personally, but each to their own of course.

[Robbi]

Tyson's career is all 'if' and 'but' for his army of admirers. "He only lost to Douglas because he never had Rooney in his corner" who's to say he would have remained unbeaten had Rooney remained with him into the early 90's. We'll never know. The fact of the matter is that he was beaten at the age of 23 years and near his prime. He never accomplished anything significant after that, apart from regaining the title against the limited Frank Bruno. He was simply a great 'on top' fighter who in reality wasn't great fighter when looking at his whole career.

People make excuses and say Holyfield only beat him because he was shot. Nonsense. He was still a very good fighter and was an overwhelming favourite to win the fight. Holyfield was sent 'get well soon' cards before the first bell rang. Ok, Holyfield proved he had much more left in the tank with the benefit of hindsight as he performed beyond expectations. Tyson's army of fans need to realise that saying "he wasn't anywhere near his prime" when he faced Holyfield is actually making matters worse for him IMO. Simply because thats part of being a great fighter, pulling out wins against quality opposition when past your prime. He had a second opportunity to turn the tables and blew it.

[Thread Stealer]

He said Tubbs "squeeled like a woman" when he hit him in the gut. And this was 1987. Sure Cus wasn't around, but it was way before his comeback.


That comment was actually after th Tyrell Biggs fight. Another one of Tyson's early comments (1986) was when he said he wanted to drive Jesse Ferguson's nose into his brain. The build-up to the Razor Ruddock fights (1991) were filled with bizarre, homicial, homo-erotic comments from Mike.


I think all this, "what if Cus hadn't died" is 90% BS. Tyson just didn't have that innate mental strength that is required to become truly great. Maybe the downfall would have taken longer with Cus around, but in the end would have been pretty much the same story IMO.


Very much agreed. Cus and Jacobs probably could've helped prolong his success, but eventually, I think Tyson would self-destruct.

[Muchmoore]

Simply because thats part of being a great fighter, pulling out wins against quality opposition when past your prime.

He beat Ruddock twice, Golota, Stewart, and Bruno while past his best.

[Robbi]

He beat Ruddock twice, Golota, Stewart, and Bruno while past his best.

Bruno was when he regained the title, that was the most meaningful win out all those you mentioned. Yes, I do give him some credit for beating Ruddock twice, especially the first fight.

[Bokaj]

He beat Ruddock twice, Golota, Stewart, and Bruno while past his best.

I don't know if you could say he was past his best against Ruddock. He was still only 25.

[Muchmoore]

I don't know if you could say he was past his best against Ruddock. He was still only 25.

He was probably still in his physical prime, but you could see his skills and technique were eroding.

[Bokaj]

He was probably still in his physical prime, but you could see his skills and technique were eroding.

That was probably because of lax preparation and training. He was hardly past his best in the way Louis was after WWII, Ali after the exile or probably not even the way Frazier was after FOTC.

[Muchmoore]

That was probably because of lax preparation and training. He was hardly past his best in the way Louis was after WWII, Ali after the exile or probably not even the way Frazier was after FOTC.

If Tyson wanted to he could of went back to as good as he was.

But he didn't, thus he was past his best.

[Robbi]

If Tyson wanted to he could of went back to as good as he was.

But he didn't, thus he was past his best.

Not the sign of a great fighter.

[Muchmoore]

Not the sign of a great fighter.

I'd like to see what happens when these supposed "great fighters" get in the ring with an 80s Mike Tyson.

Tyson was THE MAN for a 4 year period, he lost his focus but that doesn't take away what he did from 86-89. There's only a handful of HWs that beat the number of contenders that Tyson beat, and none were more dominant.

[Robbi]

I'd like to see what happens when these supposed "great fighters" get in the ring with an 80s Mike Tyson.

Tyson was THE MAN for a 4 year period, he lost his focus but that doesn't take away what he did from 86-89. There's only a handful of HWs that beat the number of contenders that Tyson beat, and none were more dominant.

Larry Holmes was more dominant and so was Joe Louis. Holmes held the title for over 7 years and wasn't beaten until two months shy of his 36th birthday. His quality of opposition is on the same level as Tyson's. He beat a younger and fresher Berbick and Smith. Tyson dispatched his opponents with more ease because he had more power, but Tyson was less dominant in his era than Holmes was in his. It's simple calculations, a fighter who reigns for 3 years and 3 months ain't as dominant as a fighter who reigns for over 7 years. You're talking about how easily he dominated his opponents, yes?

Ali arguably dominated his opponents from 1964 until 1967 as equally as well as Tyson, although he dominated in a different manner.

[prime]

Tyson's career is all 'if' and 'but' for his army of admirers. "He only lost to Douglas because he never had Rooney in his corner" who's to say he would have remained unbeaten had Rooney remained with him into the early 90's. We'll never know. The fact of the matter is that he was beaten at the age of 23 years and near his prime. He never accomplished anything significant after that, apart from regaining the title against the limited Frank Bruno. He was simply a great 'on top' fighter who in reality wasn't great fighter when looking at his whole career.

People make excuses and say Holyfield only beat him because he was shot. Nonsense. He was still a very good fighter and was an overwhelming favourite to win the fight. Holyfield was sent 'get well soon' cards before the first bell rang. Ok, Holyfield proved he had much more left in the tank with the benefit of hindsight as he performed beyond expectations. Tyson's army of fans need to realise that saying "he wasn't anywhere near his prime" when he faced Holyfield is actually making matters worse for him IMO. Simply because thats part of being a great fighter, pulling out wins against quality opposition when past your prime. He had a second opportunity to turn the tables and blew it.

How can anyone not admire what Mike Tyson displayed from amateur to the Truth? It is fruitless to search among the most celebrated heavy bruisers for anyone with his combination of shocking power (reminiscent of Louis), speed (faster than Liston), defense (harder to hit than Frazier), chin (easily and frustratingly absorbing everything thru 37 fights) and stamina (no Foreman-fatiguing after 5 rounds).

He had no glaring weaknesses but clearly an unprecedented talent. It was not just his stats but the way he performed in the ring. He solved Holmes and Spinks easily, undisputedly, the way no other pro fighter ever did, in addition to a slew of all other comers, so conclusively that opponents were reduced to either looking for a place to lie ASAP or spoiling to see the final bell, but any fighter who actually tried to mix it up with Tyson was brutally kayoed.

It is no accident that Tyson put boxing back on the map; anyone with sight could see this man was a wrecking machine, an incarnation of the darkest fears of another fellow human being. Clearly this man would reign as long as he remained focused.

The Douglas fight proved it took a massive, skilled, sublimely-inspired fighter to overcome even a 40% version of Mike Tyson, and then only after the benefit of a long count and an impressive beating over 10 rounds. The fact it was the greatest upset in perhaps sports history shows how greatly Tyson was regarded. Yes, he was hyped, but, yes, he lived up to the hype.

Everything else is post-climactic. If Ali is given a due pass after being away 3-plus years, so must Tyson's performances post-prison be kept in perspective.

I wonder if anyone has actually tried to put himself in Tyson's shoes regarding the deaths of D'Amato and Jacobs. Every human and pro fighter needs someone, something, to fight for. I believe love is the fire that fuels the belly of the greatest gladiators. Judging by what Tyson himself said, he became champ for Cus; once champ, what other motivation was there? Just the crooked dealings of all those around him, all looking for their miserable piece. Again, I take to heart Tyson's insightful comment: "There is no mother to show your clippings to." I cannot ignore the correlation between his decline and lack of affectionate support.

Tyson with his heart in the right place would tear through very many an "elite" pugilist.

[Stonehands89]

How can anyone not admire what Mike Tyson displayed from amateur to the Truth? It is fruitless to search among the most celebrated heavy bruisers for anyone with his combination of shocking power (reminiscent of Louis), speed (faster than Liston), defense (harder to hit than Frazier), chin (easily and frustratingly absorbing everything thru 37 fights) and stamina (no Foreman-fatiguing after 5 rounds).

He had no glaring weaknesses but clearly an unprecedented talent. It was not just his stats but the way he performed in the ring. He solved Holmes and Spinks easily, undisputedly, the way no other pro fighter ever did, in addition to a slew of all other comers, so conclusively that opponents were reduced to either looking for a place to lie ASAP or spoiling to see the final bell, but any fighter who actually tried to mix it up with Tyson was brutally kayoed.

It is no accident that Tyson put boxing back on the map; anyone with sight could see this man was a wrecking machine, an incarnation of the darkest fears of another fellow human being. Clearly this man would reign as long as he remained focused.

The Douglas fight proved it took a massive, skilled, sublimely-inspired fighter to overcome even a 40% version of Mike Tyson, and then only after the benefit of a long count and an impressive beating over 10 rounds. The fact it was the greatest upset in perhaps sports history shows how greatly Tyson was regarded. Yes, he was hyped, but, yes, he lived up to the hype.

Everything else is post-climactic. If Ali is given a due pass after being away 3-plus years, so must Tyson's performances post-prison be kept in perspective.

I wonder if anyone has actually tried to put himself in Tyson's shoes regarding the deaths of D'Amato and Jacobs. Every human and pro fighter needs someone, something, to fight for. I believe love is the fire that fuels the belly of the greatest gladiators. Judging by what Tyson himself said, he became champ for Cus; once champ, what other motivation was there? Just the crooked dealings of all those around him, all looking for their miserable piece. Again, I take to heart Tyson's insightful comment: "There is no mother to show your clippings to." I cannot ignore the correlation between his decline and lack of affectionate support.

Tyson with his heart in the right place would tear through very many an "elite" pugilist.
Impressive work, Prime. And convincing.

[Loewe]

How can anyone not admire what Mike Tyson displayed from amateur to the Truth? It is fruitless to search among the most celebrated heavy bruisers for anyone with his combination of shocking power (reminiscent of Louis), speed (faster than Liston), defense (harder to hit than Frazier), chin (easily and frustratingly absorbing everything thru 37 fights) and stamina (no Foreman-fatiguing after 5 rounds).
Well, to be faster than Liston isn´t that hard. Liston was pretty slow.
But yeah, Tyson was very impressive. But look who he fought. Those guys weren´t worldbeaters. That should count for something.

He had no glaring weaknesses but clearly an unprecedented talent. It was not just his stats but the way he performed in the ring. He solved Holmes and Spinks easily, undisputedly, the way no other pro fighter ever did, in addition to a slew of all other comers, so conclusively that opponents were reduced to either looking for a place to lie ASAP or spoiling to see the final bell, but any fighter who actually tried to mix it up with Tyson was brutally kayoed.
He had his weaknesses just like everyfighter. Douglas and Holyfield showed us some of them. Yeah he looked great knocking out Spinks and homes but Spinks didn´t come to fight he was looking to get out of there. And Holmes was getting in with him after a few years without fighting and no tune up. This tarnishes these wins quite a bit. If you want these wins to count fully than Tyson´s losses late in his career have to do so either - or do you want to have a double standard here?


It is no accident that Tyson put boxing back on the map; anyone with sight could see this man was a wrecking machine, an incarnation of the darkest fears of another fellow human being. Clearly this man would reign as long as he remained focused.
I agree in his prime he was great for boxing. After '89 he was nearly eaqually bad for it with his out of and inside the ring behaviour.

The Douglas fight proved it took a massive, skilled, sublimely-inspired fighter to overcome even a 40% version of Mike Tyson, and then only after the benefit of a long count and an impressive beating over 10 rounds. The fact it was the greatest upset in perhaps sports history shows how greatly Tyson was regarded. Yes, he was hyped, but, yes, he lived up to the hype.
Nope, he didn´t. He dissapointed becouse he lost himself. And no Tyson wasn´t 40% for Douglas. He was the same as in the year before. Sure he had fun over there but do you really think he didn´t in his other fights? He wasn´t as good as before but surely not at 40%. Douglas just exploited some of his flaws and had the night of his life.

Everything else is post-climactic. If Ali is given a due pass after being away 3-plus years, so must Tyson's performances post-prison be kept in perspective.
Ali´s career after his absence was far far better than Tyson´s. ali beat atgs, Tyson lost to them. That´s not comparable.

I wonder if anyone has actually tried to put himself in Tyson's shoes regarding the deaths of D'Amato and Jacobs. Every human and pro fighter needs someone, something, to fight for. I believe love is the fire that fuels the belly of the greatest gladiators. Judging by what Tyson himself said, he became champ for Cus; once champ, what other motivation was there? Just the crooked dealings of all those around him, all looking for their miserable piece. Again, I take to heart Tyson's insightful comment: "There is no mother to show your clippings to." I cannot ignore the correlation between his decline and lack of affectionate support.
Sorry but that´s part of beeing one of the real greats. Tyson fell short here.

Tyson with his heart in the right place would tear through very many an "elite" pugilist.
Sure he would but he would lose to nearly as many.

People should be more realistic and objective about Tyson.

[Robbi]

How can anyone not admire what Mike Tyson displayed from amateur to the Truth? It is fruitless to search among the most celebrated heavy bruisers for anyone with his combination of shocking power (reminiscent of Louis), speed (faster than Liston), defense (harder to hit than Frazier), chin (easily and frustratingly absorbing everything thru 37 fights) and stamina (no Foreman-fatiguing after 5 rounds).

I do admire Tyson at his absolute best. He was very well packaged 'freak of nature' but he never quite lived up to expectations. Many had him marked down as have the potential to become the greatest heavyweight champion of all-time. Being devastating in your prime for just over three years is one thing, but evaporating quickly is another matter altogether. He could not sustain it. Overcoming problems outside the ring is what many other fighters have to cope with. Handling the spotlight is part and parcial of being considered 'great' at the time.



He had no glaring weaknesses but clearly an unprecedented talent. It was not just his stats but the way he performed in the ring. He solved Holmes and Spinks easily, undisputedly, the way no other pro fighter ever did, in addition to a slew of all other comers, so conclusively that opponents were reduced to either looking for a place to lie ASAP or spoiling to see the final bell, but any fighter who actually tried to mix it up with Tyson was brutally kayoed.

He had a glaring weakness, his mental toughness. And he never solved Holmes easily, far from it. Yes, he was the first man to KO Holmes, but he hardly looked devastating up until he got through to end the fight. The movement, clinching, and general experience of Holmes made life difficult for him. Fighters would have given Tyson more problems if they believed in themselves. But what happened, happened. Tyson's reputation made many opponents legs turn to jelly during the staredown prior to the sound of the opening bell. Not Tyson's fault of course. Mental games and fearsome reputations are all part of the fight game.




It is no accident that Tyson put boxing back on the map; anyone with sight could see this man was a wrecking machine, an incarnation of the darkest fears of another fellow human being. Clearly this man would reign as long as he remained focused.


He would reign as long as he remained focused? Are you telling me that Tyson would have remained unbeaten for as long as he wanted, excluding physically going downhill. Lets not forget, Holyfield was just around the corner had he beaten Douglas. Then we are back to where we started. "he would have lost to Holyfield anyway as he never had Rooney in his corner" Tyson on a H2H basis matches up very against other great heavyweights, but certain styles out there don't suit him too well. Tucker did grab often when Tyson got close, yet the movement bothered him equally as much IMO. Tucker proved over 4 rounds that movement, a solid jab, and the ocassional right hand were nice weapons to use against a prime Tyson. He's lucky he wasn't sharing the ring with a peak Holmes or Ali that night or he would have been beaten.


The Douglas fight proved it took a massive, skilled, sublimely-inspired fighter to overcome even a 40% version of Mike Tyson, and then only after the benefit of a long count and an impressive beating over 10 rounds. The fact it was the greatest upset in perhaps sports history shows how greatly Tyson was regarded. Yes, he was hyped, but, yes, he lived up to the hype.

So it's all about what Tyson never done? While Tyson's timing was off somewhat, Douglas had a lot to do with Tyson's timing being off. His thudding jab, fleet footed movement, and bursts of combinations were Tyson's main problems. He anticipated everything coming his way, and made Tyson ineffective. The greatest upset in sports history shows you why Tyson isn't among the elite, not just how highly he was regarded at the time.


Everything else is post-climactic. If Ali is given a due pass after being away 3-plus years, so must Tyson's performances post-prison be kept in perspective.

Ali fought Quarry in his first fight post exile. A top ranked, durable, and highly regarded heavyweight challenger. Tyson on the otherhand choose McNeely. And the fights prior to sharing the ring with Holyield were not ideal preperation for what lay ahead and brung him back down to earth, defeat. A big difference. And the comparisions between them both in terms of adversity and achievements is like night and day. Reclaiming the title from the prime Foreman at the peak of his powers and the Bruno, again like night and day.




Tyson with his heart in the right place would tear through very many an "elite" pugilist

Agreed.

[Vanboxingfan]

Haven't read the thread in it's entirety, but I did watch Tyson during his hayday and remember it well. Certainly there was the awe of invincibility and the feeling of destiny that it was only a matter of time before he'd be the greatest ever. Like a generation before him, (ie Ali - Frazier, Ali - Foreman) time stood still when he fought and everyone either watched, or knew he was fighting.

My take on where he could have gone is that I think he'd have beaten Douglas, that's probably a fairly easy prediction. Out of the fab three Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis, I'm pretty sure he could have beaten Bowe, less sure of the other two. Lewis I could see him perhaps winning the first fight and it turned into an Ali=Frazier trilogy, Lewis would probably win the other two. Although it could go 2-1 in favour of Tyson also, with the second fight being up for grabs. Now Holyfield is the real hard call. I'd say that if Tyson was focused, and since I believe he'd beat Bowe, I have to believe he'd beat Holyfield, but again, if there was a trilogy I think Holfield would win at least one fight, and possibly two. But If either Holyfield or Lewis is going to beat Tyson twice, I'd pick Lewis before Holyfield to do so. Both might, but I'd give Holyfield about a 40% chance and Lewis about a 50% chance.

Career-wise we'd probably be looking at top 3 H2H and about the same career-wise, although if he beat Bowe, Lewis and Holyfield, and won all the rematches and/or trilogies he would have probably had better comp than even Ali and if that did in fact unfold, arguments could be made of him being number 1 in both categories. albeit with a shorter career than many others, retiring at 32-33.

[Dempsey1238]

40 percent?? Thats a bit low. I put Tyson about 95 or so percent imo.

Lewis beat a 40 percent Tyson imo.

[Bummy Davis]

Larry Holmes was more dominant and so was Joe Louis. Holmes held the title for over 7 years and wasn't beaten until two months shy of his 36th birthday. His quality of opposition is on the same level as Tyson's. He beat a younger and fresher Berbick and Smith. Tyson dispatched his opponents with more ease because he had more power, but Tyson was less dominant in his era than Holmes was in his. It's simple calculations, a fighter who reigns for 3 years and 3 months ain't as dominant as a fighter who reigns for over 7 years. You're talking about how easily he dominated his opponents, yes?

Ali arguably dominated his opponents from 1964 until 1967 as equally as well as Tyson, although he dominated in a different manner.



Holmes opposition was not as good as Tyson and Holmes did not always dominate an opponent the way Mike did...Mike either knocked you out or made you hold like a Boa Constrictor (Tucker,Smith,(Green, Pre title)...the way he ko'd ,
Tubbs,Thomas,Berbick,Williams,Bruno,Spinks,Holmes and others was a domination NO DOUBT.......

[ChrisPontius]

Larry Holmes was more dominant and so was Joe Louis. Holmes held the title for over 7 years and wasn't beaten until two months shy of his 36th birthday. His quality of opposition is on the same level as Tyson's. He beat a younger and fresher Berbick and Smith. Tyson dispatched his opponents with more ease because he had more power, but Tyson was less dominant in his era than Holmes was in his. It's simple calculations, a fighter who reigns for 3 years and 3 months ain't as dominant as a fighter who reigns for over 7 years. You're talking about how easily he dominated his opponents, yes?



Holmes wasn't more dominant than Tyson.

He had a longer reign and more defences, but he failed to fight many top contenders of his day. In 1990, at the end of Tyson's reign, the only man left standing was Holyfield, and he was scheduled to fight Tyson after this quick tune-up called Douglas or something....


But if you look at Holmes' title reign, you will see that many fighters didn't get their title shot. Thomas, Page, Dokes and Coetzee at one point were pretty highly regarded but never saw their dream come true. In addition to that, Norton didn't receive a well-earned rematch, as did Weaver and Witherspoon, both who gave Holmes very close fights. Louis was dominant because he always gave rematches when there was a close fight. Tyson just beat them so bad that there was no need for a rematch. Holmes missed out on those and as such, loses his claim to be called truely dominant.

[Bokaj]

Holmes wasn't more dominant than Tyson.

He had a longer reign and more defences, but he failed to fight many top contenders of his day. In 1990, at the end of Tyson's reign, the only man left standing was Holyfield, and he was scheduled to fight Tyson after this quick tune-up called Douglas or something....


But if you look at Holmes' title reign, you will see that many fighters didn't get their title shot. Thomas, Page, Dokes and Coetzee at one point were pretty highly regarded but never saw their dream come true. In addition to that, Norton didn't receive a well-earned rematch, as did Weaver and Witherspoon, both who gave Holmes very close fights. Louis was dominant because he always gave rematches when there was a close fight. Tyson just beat them so bad that there was no need for a rematch. Holmes missed out on those and as such, loses his claim to be called truely dominant.

Sounds very reasonable.

[Robbi]

Holmes wasn't more dominant than Tyson.

He had a longer reign and more defences, but he failed to fight many top contenders of his day. In 1990, at the end of Tyson's reign, the only man left standing was Holyfield, and he was scheduled to fight Tyson after this quick tune-up called Douglas or something....


But if you look at Holmes' title reign, you will see that many fighters didn't get their title shot. Thomas, Page, Dokes and Coetzee at one point were pretty highly regarded but never saw their dream come true. In addition to that, Norton didn't receive a well-earned rematch, as did Weaver and Witherspoon, both who gave Holmes very close fights. Louis was dominant because he always gave rematches when there was a close fight. Tyson just beat them so bad that there was no need for a rematch. Holmes missed out on those and as such, loses his claim to be called truely dominant.

Agreed. However, my interpretation of being 'dominant' wasn't cleaning out the opposition in devaststing fashion. It was soley based on Holmes reigning longer than Tyson, thus being more dominant in that regard. But I see your point with fighters like Witherspoon and Norton not getting the rematches they deserved.

[JohnThomas1]

Holmes wasn't more dominant than Tyson.

He had a longer reign and more defences, but he failed to fight many top contenders of his day. In 1990, at the end of Tyson's reign, the only man left standing was Holyfield, and he was scheduled to fight Tyson after this quick tune-up called Douglas or something....


But if you look at Holmes' title reign, you will see that many fighters didn't get their title shot. Thomas, Page, Dokes and Coetzee at one point were pretty highly regarded but never saw their dream come true. In addition to that, Norton didn't receive a well-earned rematch, as did Weaver and Witherspoon, both who gave Holmes very close fights. Louis was dominant because he always gave rematches when there was a close fight. Tyson just beat them so bad that there was no need for a rematch. Holmes missed out on those and as such, loses his claim to be called truely dominant.

Absolutely spot on. Tyson steamrolled the best of what was available and deserving in no time. He took on the best.

[aj415]

BUT he had mental problems his whole life. It wasn´t due to Jacobs and D'Amato dying and Rooney getting fired it was all due to Mike´s mental instability.

thing with Tyson is that he never overcame his weaknesses, it was not his chin, not his power, not his speed, not his size,not his style....it was his mind, it was weak and he became his worst enemy....

Yes, I think that his low self-esteem was never "healed" by boxing or by Cus, who also objectified Tyson to a degree. He was bursting at the seems even before Cus died and cover-ups were already part of the Tyson system before he was a pro. However, with all of his supports around him I think they could have seen him through without Desire Washington type problems. They knew better than to leave that wolf around young women.



Since, character is widely acknowledged as one of the most integral traits in the formula for a boxer to achieve greatness / fufill his potential, do you guys think it was possible for Cus and Jacobs to have developed self-sustaining character within Tyson if they hadn't objectified him (by seeing him as having a short shelf-life and a fast track to boxing greatness), and never cut corners with his fragile and undeveloped psyche (reportedly paying hush up money to cover up his juvenile and criminal behavior)?

In other words, can the kind of character needed for someone like a vunerable and mentally weak Tyson be developed for them to be able achieve thier potential? How much can character really be nurtured or developed?

[prime]

Well, to be faster than Liston isn´t that hard. Liston was pretty slow.

For a bruiser, Liston in his time was considered to have good handspeed, thus the mention; but the point is no heavy swarmer/slugger/puncher has had greater two-fisted handspeed than Mike.

But yeah, Tyson was very impressive. But look who he fought. Those guys weren´t worldbeaters. That should count for something.

Again, it was the way he beat all comers towards unifying and defending the title that captured the boxing and nonboxing worlds' imagination.

He had his weaknesses just like everyfighter. Douglas and Holyfield showed us some of them. Yeah he looked great knocking out Spinks and homes but Spinks didn´t come to fight he was looking to get out of there. And Holmes was getting in with him after a few years without fighting and no tune up. This tarnishes these wins quite a bit. If you want these wins to count fully than Tyson´s losses late in his career have to do so either - or do you want to have a double standard here?

It counts for something that an amazingly successful light heavy champ who had the balls to climb to the heavies and take on and beat undefeated champion Holmes and huge puncher Cooney was suddenly reduced to primal fear by Tyson -who also had just quite frankly humbled the proud and boisterous Holmes. No man should do to Holmes what Tyson did inside 4, unless he's something special.

This thread is about what could have been for Tyson. My main thrust is the guy had a very unlucky childhood, like so many inner-city youths, and was destined to be just another anonymous casualty -yet I admire the way he overcame his demons enough to become champion of the world and add his name among the very great champions in history on skill displayed in the ring alone. As I said, in my view, by the time of his return from prison, he had lost the essence of what had made him great. I am not disputing his post-prison shortcomings, though he did regain the title and lost it in a fight that could have gone either way to a guy most likely bulked up by steroids.

I agree in his prime he was great for boxing. After '89 he was nearly eaqually bad for it with his out of and inside the ring behaviour.

I believe this is addressed in my previous post.

Nope, he didn´t. He dissapointed becouse he lost himself. And no Tyson wasn´t 40% for Douglas. He was the same as in the year before. Sure he had fun over there but do you really think he didn´t in his other fights? He wasn´t as good as before but surely not at 40%. Douglas just exploited some of his flaws and had the night of his life.

How many hyped contenders like Michael Grant never win a title? Tyson did so and then some. Just on the strength of what he did from '86 to '89, his name will be etched in boxing as long as civilization exists. Again, the expectations for Tyson once he arrived were result of his nonpareil ability displayed in the ring. This is standard when a new phenom arrives on the scene and threatens to eclipse cherished stars from the past. Athletically and ability-wise, Kobe is perhaps the equal of Jordan, but will he prove to have the mettle? With Tyson, it was also, "He looks great, but let's wait and see how he reacts against a challenge." My thesis is he was flawed to begin with, put himself together for an awesome run, achieved unprecedented success in record time, lost his support, his reason, his "Because of my mother! God bless her heart!", and unraveled in Tokyo. Everything else shows a rudderless man, fighting gamely, mind you, even as we post, to hold together and not fulfill his Liston fate.

Ali´s career after his absence was far far better than Tyson´s. ali beat atgs, Tyson lost to them. That´s not comparable.

Anyone's heavy resume pales next to Ali's. However, prison life in Tyson's case must be worse than having the borders of the whole country as a free man to train and keep in shape as the title-stripped undefeated heavyweight world champion, like Ali did in his exile.

Sorry but that´s part of beeing one of the real greats. Tyson fell short here.

Sure he would but he would lose to nearly as many.

Having a hole in the core is Tyson's greatest weakness head-to-head. But his ability has shown to me very few greats would be able to place a Berbick- or Holmes-version of Tyson in the dire straits necessary to expose that relative fragility.

I envision a young, hungry Tyson, bent on fulfilling D'Amato's "foregone conclusion" dream, primed for destruction in his corner, waiting for the opening bell, and I see a nightmare for any great you care to mention.

[Loewe]

For a bruiser, Liston in his time was considered to have good handspeed, thus the mention; but the point is no heavy swarmer/slugger/puncher has had greater two-fisted handspeed than Mike.
Agreed. Tyson had the best combination of speed and power, Dempsey is close though and Patterson had faster hands but not the power.

Again, it was the way he beat all comers towards unifying and defending the title that captured the boxing and nonboxing worlds' imagination.
Yeah, Tyson maybe the best ever against 2nd raters but he fell short of expectations when he stepped up.

It counts for something that an amazingly successful light heavy champ who had the balls to climb to the heavies and take on and beat undefeated champion Holmes and huge puncher Cooney was suddenly reduced to primal fear by Tyson -who also had just quite frankly humbled the proud and boisterous Holmes. No man should do to Holmes what Tyson did inside 4, unless he's something special.
Cooney was shot when Spinks beat him and Spinks lost the second Holmes fight. So, actually Spinks had one meaningful fight at hw. So, while this is a good win for Tyson, it isn´t better than wins over other contenders.
Holmes wasn´t the same than the years before and he hadn´t fought for years. That´s just fact. How can this win count more than the wins over the usual Tyson victims? Please put this into the right perspective. If Holmes would have been in his prime that would be a tremendous achievement but, well, he wasn´t.

This thread is about what could have been for Tyson. My main thrust is the guy had a very unlucky childhood, like so many inner-city youths, and was destined to be just another anonymous casualty -yet I admire the way he overcame his demons enough to become champion of the world and add his name among the very great champions in history on skill displayed in the ring alone. As I said, in my view, by the time of his return from prison, he had lost the essence of what had made him great. I am not disputing his post-prison shortcomings, though he did regain the title and lost it in a fight that could have gone either way to a guy most likely bulked up by steroids.

He lost the essence even before he went to prison imo. The Douglas fight just exposed it. But that´s part of greatness and he proved he isn´t up there with guys like Louis, Ali, Marciano and so on.

How many hyped contenders like Michael Grant never win a title? Tyson did so and then some. Just on the strength of what he did from '86 to '89, his name will be etched in boxing as long as civilization exists. Again, the expectations for Tyson once he arrived were result of his nonpareil ability displayed in the ring. This is standard when a new phenom arrives on the scene and threatens to eclipse cherished stars from the past. Athletically and ability-wise, Kobe is perhaps the equal of Jordan, but will he prove to have the mettle? With Tyson, it was also, "He looks great, but let's wait and see how he reacts against a challenge." My thesis is he was flawed to begin with, put himself together for an awesome run, achieved unprecedented success in record time, lost his support, his reason, his "Because of my mother! God bless her heart!", and unraveled in Tokyo. Everything else shows a rudderless man, fighting gamely, mind you, even as we post, to hold together and not fulfill his Liston fate.
I agree with this, also I don´t rate him as high as you do.

Anyone's heavy resume pales next to Ali's. However, prison life in Tyson's case must be worse than having the borders of the whole country as a free man to train and keep in shape as the title-stripped undefeated heavyweight world champion, like Ali did in his exile.
You brought up the comparison with Ali not me.

Having a hole in the core is Tyson's greatest weakness head-to-head. But his ability has shown to me very few greats would be able to place a Berbick- or Holmes-version of Tyson in the dire straits necessary to expose that relative fragility.

I envision a young, hungry Tyson, bent on fulfilling D'Amato's "foregone conclusion" dream, primed for destruction in his corner, waiting for the opening bell, and I see a nightmare for any great you care to mention.
I don´t pick any fighter who while he looked great against 2nd raters but never proved it against greats. I just can´t.

[prime]

I do admire Tyson at his absolute best. He was very well packaged 'freak of nature' but he never quite lived up to expectations. Many had him marked down as have the potential to become the greatest heavyweight champion of all-time. Being devastating in your prime for just over three years is one thing, but evaporating quickly is another matter altogether. He could not sustain it. Overcoming problems outside the ring is what many other fighters have to cope with. Handling the spotlight is part and parcial of being considered 'great' at the time.

We all agree Tyson looked spectacular. As an armchair psychologist, I simply see Tyson was flawed from childhood by deprivation and abuse. Had he had loving support, he might have broken Rocky's record. But with the death of his manager Jim Jacobs, his last true father figure, IMHO it became extremely unrealistic for a rags-to-extreme-riches-and-worldwide-fame youth to keep focus as undisputed world champion and do much more than he actually did.

He had a glaring weakness, his mental toughness. And he never solved Holmes easily, far from it. Yes, he was the first man to KO Holmes, but he hardly looked devastating up until he got through to end the fight. The movement, clinching, and general experience of Holmes made life difficult for him. Fighters would have given Tyson more problems if they believed in themselves. But what happened, happened. Tyson's reputation made many opponents legs turn to jelly during the staredown prior to the sound of the opening bell. Not Tyson's fault of course. Mental games and fearsome reputations are all part of the fight game.

Something intangible is hardly glaring when you are romping thru a division en route to unifying the title. And if knocking out an "escapologist" Holmes inside 4 rounds after two knockdowns and a searing right hand that reduced Holmes to a carcass for 45 seconds is not solving Holmes relatively easily, I would say you're pretty tough to please.

It was not Tyson's soft-spoken lisping that intimidated seasoned men nor the shorty's nonchalant walk-up for prefight instructions. It was the way he hit men that struck fear in their hearts.

He would reign as long as he remained focused? Are you telling me that Tyson would have remained unbeaten for as long as he wanted, excluding physically going downhill. Lets not forget, Holyfield was just around the corner had he beaten Douglas. Then we are back to where we started. "he would have lost to Holyfield anyway as he never had Rooney in his corner" Tyson on a H2H basis matches up very against other great heavyweights, but certain styles out there don't suit him too well. Tucker did grab often when Tyson got close, yet the movement bothered him equally as much IMO. Tucker proved over 4 rounds that movement, a solid jab, and the ocassional right hand were nice weapons to use against a prime Tyson. He's lucky he wasn't sharing the ring with a peak Holmes or Ali that night or he would have been beaten.

Had Douglas wobbled just a bit more and Meyran counted just a bit faster, Tyson might have gotten past Tokyo. But, yes, he was on a path to professional self-destruction and a still cruiser-like lean Holy might have pulled off the miracle shortly thereafter. But I still favor Tyson to bomb out any version of Holyfield, 'roids and all, both at their peak.

The Tucker fight proved movement, height, a jab and spoiling were good for escaping a Tyson blast-out over 12. It proved Tucker capable and durable, and Tyson a quality workman of the ring with more than enough poise and patience to pound out a lopsided, drawn-out victory when the stakes are highest.

Ali could beat Tyson thanks to his amazing movement; Holmes falls to the right hand.

So it's all about what Tyson never done? While Tyson's timing was off somewhat, Douglas had a lot to do with Tyson's timing being off. His thudding jab, fleet footed movement, and bursts of combinations were Tyson's main problems. He anticipated everything coming his way, and made Tyson ineffective. The greatest upset in sports history shows you why Tyson isn't among the elite, not just how highly he was regarded at the time.

Good analysis of what happened under those Tokyo lights. I said Tyson was 40% to illustrate the obvious: he was not nearly the same fighter who won the title; he was sluggish, predictable, used little head movement and threw few combinations. For practical purposes, hardly half the fighter he was known to be. With every fight after Spinks, after which I seem to recall he even mentioned retirement at the postfight conference, he was more and more removed from the spartan training that had made him unique. His fault? Absolutely. Is there more than meets the eye regarding his apparently defenseless squandering? Absolutely.

As has been mentioned here by others before, the eighth round against Douglas showcased Mike Tyson having that proverbial heart of a warrior. He had little left, eye almost swelled shut, yet was still looking for that opening, still believing in himself, and delivered a spectacular shot to send Douglas crashing to the canvas. That was, in Lampley's words, high drama -that was a glimpse of MIKE TYSON...WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN.

Ali fought Quarry in his first fight post exile. A top ranked, durable, and highly regarded heavyweight challenger. Tyson on the otherhand choose McNeely. And the fights prior to sharing the ring with Holyield were not ideal preperation for what lay ahead and brung him back down to earth, defeat. A big difference. And the comparisions between them both in terms of adversity and achievements is like night and day. Reclaiming the title from the prime Foreman at the peak of his powers and the Bruno, again like night and day.

This is why Tyson is no Ali. I only brought Ali in because everyone marveled at his successful comeback, not from being imprisoned like Tyson, but in a word from life as a free citizen. BIG difference. Yet Tyson, already 4 years removed from his peak, was sent to prison, emerged 3 years later, regained a title, and fought tooth-and-nail against another great -albeit 'roided- fighter in Holyfield. That in its own right is an accomplishment by a fighter IMO who lacked something essential, yes.

By Ali's own account, his first amateur fight was at 12 as a scrawny 90-pounder. En route to the ring, he saw his opponent, a kid a little bigger and older than himself. Here are his words in "Soul of a Butterfly": "I was scared to death. I looked up at my dad and said, 'Cash, do you see who I'm fighting?' Cash looked me in the eye. 'Yes, and we're going to whup him.' Hearing my father say that inspired me. Suddenly I felt good, I had my dad in my corner and I won my first fight.'"

This is what Tyson lacked.

[prime]

Holmes wasn´t the same than the years before and he hadn´t fought for years. That´s just fact. How can this win count more than the wins over the usual Tyson victims? Please put this into the right perspective.

Because no one did to Holmes, before or after, what Tyson did to him. When ranking fighters head-to-head, I believe an exhibit such as this is important.

I don´t pick any fighter who while he looked great against 2nd raters but never proved it against greats. I just can´t.

Hardly any great beat another great in his prime. We must make do with what there is.

[zadfrak]

But then why does a Mike Tyson get a get out of jail free card and go directly to go for $200 when nobody else does?

When he was the youthful guy in there fighting the guys on the other side of the mountain, he got the results. The greats win for long durations and different conditions. What happened when the shoe was on the other foot w/ Tyson? Well nothing because a 35 year old Tyson never even fought a 25 year old can't miss guy. Tyson fought his contemporaries in age and lost in Lewis and Holyfield. And badly. It wasn't as if they were 27 years old in there, they were older. Then he fought moderate talent guys in Williams and McBride when he was giving up the advantages of youth & lost badly. But those were hardly losses against greats.

And personally, I don't hold an 86 version of Trevor Berbick all that high in my estimation. Or Bonecrusher Smith. Or Tony Tucker. Or an 87 version of Pinklon Thomas. Basically, any of those guys Tyson defended his title against lose to lots of other champs & I guess some folks think these opponents had a ton of tools and would've done very well against a Dempsey or Louis or Ali or Marciano or Liston and so on. I don't.

[Ezzard]

Ok, fair enough - you set an enormous standard as elite and only 3 1/2 heavyweights make it. I'd rank Tyson above 13 personally, but each to their own of course.

John, I don't neccesarily rate all those guys above him. Just rattling off the usual suspects and saying why or why not they make the cut.

Tyson was a top, top fighter but all this could have been is like saying if Dempsey had beat Wills and fought 4 challengers a year he'd be the greatest ever... Truth is he could have done that BUT he didn't. Same with Tyson... Only Tyson's mindset was who he was. His brittle ego was just as much a part of the man as his blistering pin-point combinations. And that's what many don't/won't appreciate.

[Ezzard]

You have to remember that Holmes had become frustrating... He was no longer taking the biggest challenges and was allowing everyone else to fight one another for splintered titles, whilst he picked credible but beatable opponents. As fans we never got Holmes-Spoon II; Holmes-Page; Holmes-Thomas, Holmes-Weaver II... Also many of the fights Page-Tubbs etc... were woeful.

Tyson came along, made the top fights and swept through guys who had always seemed durable. Looking back I sometimes think that this made him seem more formidable than he was. This helped to make him all the more intimidating.

many of those guys had seen better times but even so they were not shot fighters at all...

[TIGEREDGE]

You have to remember that Holmes had become frustrating... He was no longer taking the biggest challenges and was allowing everyone else to fight one another for splintered titles, whilst he picked credible but beatable opponents. As fans we never got Holmes-Spoon II; Holmes-Page; Holmes-Thomas, Holmes-Weaver II... Also many of the fights Page-Tubbs etc... were woeful.

Tyson came along, made the top fights and swept through guys who had always seemed durable. Looking back I sometimes think that this made him seem more formidable than he was. This helped to make him all the more intimidating.

many of those guys had seen better times but even so they were not shot fighters at all...

great thread though I do rate Holmes very highly even though he dodged guys at the end

Prime Tyson never beat an ATG HW but he beat good fighters in spectacular style. thats what made him great

from 1985 to 89, in every fight bar the smith hugfest (which wasn't mikes fault), tyson amazed and excited like very few in history. You can watch him forevor without getting bored

The wins before prison where all spectacular also