Was Mike Tyson good or great?

This is a salient point, those saying Tyson was merely therefore good mist transitively believe that Patterson (who really was Tyson minus) was at best merely "okay".

 

Good.

 

Floyd Patterson a great heavyweight? That thought never occurred to me. I would like to hear that argument

 

Tyson was a great of his era, IF and it a big if, a fighter had been around then, who firstly could have stood up to Tysons wrecking ball, got to Tyson and challenged his negative mental frailty, and actually was able to floor him, then we would have had clearer impression of his ATG status.

However if Tyson had retired in similar time frame to Rocky Marciano, then he would compare very favourably to The Rock and would have defended his titles more times than Rocky in that time frame, plus the mental frailty of not being able to get off the deck and win, and losing his cool if under pressure would not have been an issue, as no one would have witnessed that in his title fights.

 

Better then great.
One of the greatest.
A Top 10 Elite HW.

 

Tyson had the skills and athleticism to be the G.O A.T. But as I've said before his mind was his biggest weakness. And drops him down quite a few spots. But of course he was great, just not the "Greatest ".

 

yes great ,,I think a good spot for him is around #9 or 10 ... give or take a spot or 2 .. Too bad he was his own worst enemy, he had so much more he could have done, imo, just lost focus and some big fights

 

I think it's pretty fair to have Tyson in the bottom third/quarter of the 10.

 

Tyson was a great heavyweight champion, one of the to 8 or 9? No. In my opinion

 

If you have 3 or less heavyweights ranked ahead of Mike all time, you're looking at him through rose tinted glasses. If you have 10 or more, you're looking through a lens tinted by irrational hatred.

 

Tyson is a great no doubt but he is allowed way more excuses than any HW in history, the facts are he was knocked out in his pomp by Douglas who didn't have a stellar career. That loss didn't make him stronger or a better fighter, it basically ended his career as the best in the division.

 

10 is far too many. I can rate Louis and Ali as clearly greater. Then it gets difficult.

 

I don't see a good case for putting Tyson in the top 10 given he never proved himself the best of his own era. Holyfield and Lewis were from the same era as Tyson. If your going to rank in the top 10 then obviously a heavyweight would be expected to dominate their own time but Tyson couldn't even manage that. Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe both managed to beat Holyfield and I don't see people putting them in the top 10 even though they beat a better opponent than Tyson ever did and were from the same era.

 

great but his cut longevity forces him to the fringe of top ten.

half a career, however great, isnt going to stand up against the full resumes of the best ATGs.

shame really, he had the potential to take the number 1 spot from louis.

 

Look at The Ring magazine heavyweight rankings for 1986. Tyson defeated every single guy in the Top 10, sans Tim Spoon, and beat the guys who beat those guys thus cleaning out the division. He was the best of his era.

Tyson's era was the 80's and then the prison stint took a lot out of him. He was on the decline before prison but I believe he was still the top guy.

Norton beat Ali, so shame on Foreman for losing to an ancient Ali. Foreman doesn't deserve to be...never mind.