debunking the myth of Mike Tyson

Holmes did one hell of a clean-up job. It is noticeable however that the two he didn't face was number 2 and 3.

 

This was an interesting take. For 12 years (1963-1975) at least seven of the top 10 + the champ lost Ali at some point. Nine of these years the whole top 5 + the champ lost to Ali at some point. In 1973 this pertained to the whole top 10 + the champ.

 

I'm surprised I missed that. Pretty impressive.

The craziest one might be Ali 1973. He beat everyone on the list all 10 other guys. Just nuts.

 

That's true. Mike Weaver knocked them both out within 12 months of this rankings list though!
Weaver deserved a rematch.

I think by now we should be using the monthly rankings in these discussions. Not that I put much stock in THE RING rankings anyway (sometimes some of the placings are mystifying), but they are nice bits of trivia and certainly used to count for something back in the day.

 

Yeah, doesn't surprised me with Muhammad Ali.

While never a champion, I think Jimmy Bivins rates pretty high in this game too. Around 1943 there was probably 7 men on the top 10 who he beat around that time, or before or after, some of them multi-wins. I'll have to re-check for the details, his record is pretty long.

 

Arguing Tysons best win is difficult.

You'd have to look at the quality of the opponent as well as the dominance Tyson displayed in the ring.

Spinks was the lineal champion and the man who beat Holmes. Tyson blitzed him in a round which is one of the most impressive perfornances at that kind of level. (Both were P4P fighters and the best in the division). The only problem is the form of Spinks which is unknown since he hadn't been very active in the lead-up to the fight. Sure looked impressive smashing Cooney a year earlier though. If he was as good as in 85, which is pretty possible, I'd say this was Tysons best win.

Otherwise it's probably Berbick or Tucker.

 

Holmes's and Tyson's periods of dominance sure were impressive. However, they don't have victories of the whole ot the top 5 for any year. Ali has so for nine years. He also have wins over the top 2 guys (champion and nr 1 contender), excluding himself, for every year 1960-1977. That is 18 consecutive years. Absolutely insane.

Louis and Wlad deserve closer looks in this regard as well.

 

Louis topped at I think at 7 but at one point he beat 1-6. So damn...

 

You can discredit just about any fighter if you nitpick his resume.

 

Why do you call them fringe contenders when you have been repeatedly shown that they were top contenders? Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Tucker, Biggs, Williams, Bruno and Spinks were the best out there with the exception of Holyfield and maybe Douglas and Witherspoon (but one should remember that both Douglas and 'Spoon were KO'd by guys that Tyson subsequently beat).

I agree that his fans go out of their way to excuse his losses to Douglas and Holy, and give neither man their full due. But prior to the Douglas loss Tyson blitzed the division in as impressive fashion as anyone have ever done with any division in a similar time frame. There's just no getting away from that, despite what you may think of hypothetical match-ups.

 

There were (and are) a lot of casual fans who still believe Tyson was invincible or near-invincible in his prime.
The excuses for his defeat to Buster Douglas are of an almost unprecedented scale.

Yes, there was a "myth" and it was deliberately constructed by his managers with the help of the New York based American media. This was no secret. They admitted as much at the time. They had every intention of making him a mainstream star as quickly as possible, and generate massive revenue. They built him up initially on guaranteed spectacular KOs over fourth-raters. There's nothing wrong with that. It is part of the business. Tyson's not the only boxer to receive such a treatment, Gerry Cooney for example got a similar build-up. Given the chance against better opponents, Tyson backed a lot of it up in the ring, infinitely more so than Cooney for sure.

But Tyson had his limits. He wasn't to become the long-reigning champion people had imagined. He won his first title at 20 and lost the undisputed championship at 23. Those are the facts.

But many people can't accept that happened naturally, so they construct reasons as to why him losing were so out-of-the-ordinary. That's where the myth lives on.

 

Which Mexican road sweepers did Tyson iron out?

Just wondering.

 

Its funny how people claim Tyson is a myth yet guys like Holyfield and Lewis became legends for beating him.

 

Tyson fought the best in his era, as have all the other greats.
His ranking all time is subject to your opinion on the quality of his era.
My belief is that he would have potential to be champion in almost any era, especially if he was fighting another champ who was a come forward slugger, as opposed to a more sophisticated boxer, but it would by no means be a certainty that he would be champion, and he could also lose the championship in just about any era.
Losing to fighters like Holyfield and Lewis is not a shame at all, and Douglas was an enigma, who put it all together that night. The losses at the very end were when Tyson was a shell of himself.
I got a lot of pleasure watching Tyson fight, the only time I really felt ripped off was after paying the cover to watch his 2nd fight with Holyfield.
I can understand the argument he is not top 10 all time heavyweight, although I may occasionally think he could slip in there, but I don't understand the hate.