Why Tyson Isnt An ATG

Normally, we discuss why XYZ is great because they accomplished ABC etc etc etc

I thought id start a thought provoking thread as to why people feel Tyson isnt an ATG.

Your thoughts and reasons?

 

Would you agree that longetivity is mainly based on relevance within ones division?

He was a pretty much relevant force from 85-02.

The Lewis fight basically ended his career and thats when he was really no longer relevant in the heavyweight scene

In those 17 years he only lost to Holyfield, Douglas and Lewis (and two of those are ATGS)

Even after the Douglas loss up until prison, you could argue Tyson was still one of the best 2 heavyweights in the world.

 

Thats the same shitty video you posted in the other thread.

Some dude sitting at PC questioning Tysons greatness.

Evander Holyfield "Me and Tyson were the best 2 fighters of that era, i had to beat him"

Lennox Lewis "I had to beat Mike Tyson to cement my legacy"

Vitali Klitscko to David Haye "Come and fight me if you really want this belt that was held by great fighters like Muhammad Ali, Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson"

Foreman, Holmes, Lewis, Holyfield and Vitali all wanted to make their name by beating Mike Tyson.

Tysons peers knew his greatness moreso than armchair lecturers.

 

He lost 2 big fights, Lewis and Holyfield. He beat Holmes, Berbick, Tucker, Smith, Spinks, Bruno and Seldon and Ruddock x2. All of these were big fights, whether for unification or for whatever.

So Tyson is 9-2 in big fights.

When did Tyson quit? the onyl fights where he layed down were Williams and Mcbride, right at the end of his career.

He was the aggressor both the Douglas and Holyfield fights, if you knew anything boxing (which you dont). You simply cant be an aggressor if you've got no heart?

What great fighters did Holyfield beat in his prime? Holyfields prime lasted from beating Buster Douglas to Riddick Bowe. That lasted about 2 years.
In that time Holyfield beat Douglas (out of shape), Cooper (crackhead), Foreman (old man) and surprise surprise...an old Larry Holmes.

Holyfield made a career out of beating out of shape guys, crackheads, guys released from prison and old people. Coincidence Holyfield lost everytime he fought a guy in their prime? Bowe, Moorer, Lewis?

That Larry Holmes that Tyson Kod was never kod again, despite fighting into his 50s. That Larry Holmes gave a good account of himself against Holyfield, he beat Ray Mercer much more convincingly than Lewis did and gave a good account of himself against Mcall (and wasnt planked like Lewis was).

That Larry Holmes was also ducked by one George Foreman

You need to keep off the crack seriouslly. Tucker won the first round thats it, Tyson adjusted and beat Tucker by a landslide. Lewis fought a washed up Tucker and still couldnt stop him.

That blown up cruiser is/was known as as serious PED user. And he didnt knock him out, Tyson finished the fight on his feet and that was more due to exhaustion than anything. But i wouldnt expect you to know that because youve probably never even watched the fight

And? Most people agree Tysons reached his peak when he beat Spinks in '88. He was 14 years past his peak when he fought Lewis. Lewis was a couple of years removed from his prime.

The fact that you have to bring up fights from the end of someones career when you KNOW (or maybe you DKSAB) that normally a guy has declined by that time, shows your agenda and bias.

Who did Holyfield beat at his peak? what about Riddick Bowe? Holmes opposition was just plain awful and Lewis was Ko'd by Mcall around the same age Tyson was ko'd by Douglas and both had been pro for 5 years.

Wladmir was Ko'd by Purrity who had 13 losses at the time, Wladmir was also the same age as Tyson was when he fought Douglas.

That right there shows me you havent watched much boxing at all.

I think being the aggressor in a fight comes with true grit. You've obviously never laced a pair.

When did he quit? the two fights at the end of his career? gtfoh

What a load of ****

And what does that have to do with the question asked?

 

Yeah thanks for answering my points :good

 

Normally, in a debate, when someone doesnt have a leg to stand on, they resort to the above :good

You've been exposed, just like i exposed your other alt account Wass1985. Funny how hes disappeared.

 

I pretty much agree, the unavenged defeats cost him (although there are long stories behind those)

Defeats to lesser foes? the only one i can think of thats relevant is Douglas?

But also, you need to factor in that most ATGS lost their 0s to lesser foes.

Lewis had Mccall
Vitali had Byrd
Wladmir had Purrity
Liston had Marshall
Louis had Schmeling.

Was Buster really any different to the above?

I agree he had a short prime, but up until '02 he was still a relevant and top 10 heavyweight, so he still had some longetivity despite being nowhere near his best.

What fighter goes 17 years (85-02) despite having a short prime and only loses to 2 ATGs and one lesser foe?

Imagine Riddick Bowes career if hed carried on fighting. I dont think his career even lasted a decade? i know he turned pro in '89 and was finished by '97. Tysons career was twice as long as Riddicks!

 

Depends on what you class as longetivity, if its being a force then no, Tyson doesnt have longetivity, but neither did Marciano, Frazier, Bowe, (or even a prime Foreman for that matter).

My longetivity is more based on how relevant he was to the divison, Tyson wasnt a force, but outside of Lewis and Holyfield, i think he still could have handled a large majority of the guys out there.

But the fact is, despite being past his best he still only lost to Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis.