Was Mike Tyson good or great?

Definitely great based on what results exactly? The only argument I see is that he beat a lot of second-tier guys by a very wide margin, but his tally of wins wins against first-tier guys comes, in toto, to exactly 0.

 

I don't admit anything of the sort. I admit he was possibly great, and there is evidence to suggest he was, but little to no direct evidence to demonstrate that he was.

It's all based, so far as I can see, on an extrapolation of what he could have done, based upon how impressive he sometimes looked doing what he actually did. That extrapolation may be plausible, but I can't for the life of me see how it's incontrovertible.

 

Ali showed time and time again he had no quit in him, don't listen to all the stories you hear.

Tyson was a great fighter but missed that X-Factor when he was in trouble, never beat one of the best at their prime. No shame in that but it has a bearing on his legacy.

 

Agreed. Thing is with Tyson is he was built up to be this unbeatable fighter ,he would reign another twenty years ,no one could touch him etc.So how much of that does Tyson himself believe ,so the first time someone actually doesn't buy in to that and hits back hard.,then its s shock to the system .That's what we saw in Tokyo .

 

But he wasn't beating second tier guys, he was beating the best opponents available.

That has to count for something, even if you don't particularly rate the era.

 

Well the 'toe' excuse was indeed legendary.

 

Wow! Completely asinine comparison. We get it, you love Tyson. Don't disparage two greats who never showed anything but heart to build up yr boys record. The very fact you keep harping on it (Tysons flight in the face of fire) tells us you actually believe it in yr heart and are over compensating to convince YOURSELF otherwise.

 

I potentially don´t see him beating Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Thomas or Tubbs like this either.

 

When he was seasoned, under Rooney and most important: He used his power-advantage in the typical agressive manner. Some say the Buster-Debacle was a lack of defense thing. I´m not sure. In the mid-rounds of Tyson-Thomas and other occasions Rooney used to say: "Mean punches, with bad intentions." when Tyson was hanging in, wrestling or fighting too tactical. The meaning is: You have power in both hands, apply it.

 

With Tyson the question is clear about "how great?", rather than whether he is great or not.

His exact standing amongst great heavyweights will always be a matter of debate, but he clearly made his mark as a great fighter.

 

It certainly does count for something, but he did it during something of a talent dry-spell, and of course lost to Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis. Yes, he looked damn impressive taking out Berbick, Spinks, Biggs, Thomas, and past prime ring-rusty Holmes, but he never beat a truly elite fighter in his prime. We never got to see how peak Tyson would have fared against Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, and comeback Foreman.

Suppose they'd all trounced him at his best. Would you still be saying he's obviously great?

 

I think by "like this" he meant with the mental state/eroded skills of 1990.

 

For the window of 1986 to 1988, when focused and disciplined, Tyson was a great fighter. His domination over the division was a thin of brutal beauty. I feel the 1986-87 Tyson had a better than even shot of beating the best Holyfield and Lewis.

 

I agree, but "better than even" isn't undeniable, is it?

Suppose he still lost to both. Is he still obviously great?