Mike Tyson had a better career than Larry Holmes.

Tyson’s career is such a disappointment relative to his talent. Probably the worst squandering of ability in all of Heavyweight history. A single two-year reign as Champion, with the belt lost to Buster Douglas, never to be recovered.

Inconceivable.

 

Skewed, how?

 

Sometimes lineage matters -- Frazier and Ali in their first fight. A situation like that, lineage matters. When the man with the lineage is way past it -- Holmes getting the lineage off Ali -- it doesn't mean much. And when a champ retires the lineage like Lennox Lewis did, it also matters.

 

Well I won’t quibble over the years (two or three, however you like to count), but the rest of this I take issue because it is a masterclass in skewing the facts.

Unifying the belts is a welcome thing but it is hardly some grand accomplishment. There were no belts for most prior Champions to unify, a bunch of corrupt vultures got together & starting making belts - that doesn’t magically make them worth anything. It’s nice to unify them, but lacking any further substance than that.

You’re citing Spinks as an undefeated HOFer…& that isn’t skewing the situation? He was also on damaged legs &, more significantly, outright bailed on the fight with an obvious lay down quitjob because he was afraid of Tyson. It’s not Tyson’s fault of course, but Spinks made no effort to win, & decided on that in the dressing room, if not a good deal earlier. It’s still a good win in my book, but selling it as a victory over an undefeated HOFer is seriously misleading. A good win yes, but it will never pass as great.

“The most dominant ten-fight stretch in the history of Heavyweight title fights…”

In very arguably the single weakest - & inarguably one of them - era in the division’s history. To say nothing of the fact Joe Louis would take issue with the claim, as would Muhammad Ali, who was stopped by force at nine defenses. It’s a good streak, doubtless. It would never confirm greatness. Not with that opposition.

Ruddock was good, but c’mon. You are overstating him hard to paint him as some kind of all-time contender. He was very limited, for all his power.

“Unified two belts…”

Against whom? & in an age where belts were becoming a dime a dozen.

”Top 5 contender for over a decade after losing the title…”

Which brings me back to my initial post. That he didn’t regain the crown ever again is a huge stain on him. He was way too gifted to have merely been a contender in the 90’s. Lifestyle choices killed his shot at greatness.

 

You’re fighting hard here.

It’s a good debate. But I wish you could do this on all of your debates.

Because on this debate, you’ll take into account circumstances. You’ll make allowances. You’ll apply context. Yet you haven’t done that on many of your other threads, most notably the ones with Floyd and the ‘Fab Four’

In those threads, you were only interested in the stats.


Getting back to Mike, his career is the biggest travesty in the sport’s history for me.

I grew up watching him. I idolised him as a kid. And he really could have possibly been GOAT at HW.

I can understand how it went to pieces though. A street kid suddenly becoming a millionaire in his 20’s. The motivation went. The discipline went. And I don’t think that most people realise just how taxing his style was on his body. The dedication and the fitness to be able to fight in that style, with his size, was immense. It’s why he was a much lesser fighter, even in his 30’s.


Regarding where to rank him, it’s so difficult.

Under traditional criteria, his lack of longevity really harms him.

He had a 20 year career, but was only magic for 5 of those years. That’s just 25%.

But then I know how great he was in his prime, and I find it really difficult to put guys ahead of him.

Based purely on his skills and his H2H ability at his best, you could make a case for him being one of the greatest ever.

But to me, again, it’s an absolute travesty.


1985-1990 he was a phenom.

1990-2000 was awful. He had 2 great fights against Ruddock, and then lost almost 4 years of his career to prison. He then beat Bruno and Seldon, before losing to Evander and then getting DQ’d. So he had a horrible 90’s overall.

2000-2005 He beat some low level guys, got destroyed by Lennox, before being beaten by 2 Euro level/non world class fighters.


Again, an absolute travesty.

And that is why many can’t rank him highly. Because 25% of magic, and 75% of mostly failure can’t be ranked that highly.

But what a talent he was.

Even on just those first 5 years alone, he’s one of the HW greats. But he really should have been a top 3 HW of all time, maybe even the GOAT, had he have kept his motivation and discipline.

 

For me, it's the achievements that count, not the failures. Leon Spinks won against Ali, took the title away from him, but he quickly became yourneyman and ended his career being beaten by bums, does that mean we should erase his fight with Ali, pretend it didn't happen or downplay 1978 every time he was knocked out by someone by accident? ? Mike Tyson probably would have lost 10 consecutive fights to Kevin McBride if a rematch had been made in 2005, but what does that change from what he did in the 1980s?

and one more thing, Tyson's career in the 80s is not 25%. he fought 37 fights, won all of them, and ended his career with 58 fights, so more than half of the fights were fought in the 1980s. His career in the 1900s included 7 fights, almost half of which he lost. For what period will you evaluate it?

 

It kind of makes you wonder what the supremely disciplined guys of his era about training (like Holyfield) thought of him. Probably something along the lines of "born with all that and you blew it to drink and do drugs like a common jackass?"

 

you can, because until 1990 he fought 37 fights and at least 15 of them were against top class boxers, the absolute best and fighters in different styles. After defeating them, he could lose to Whitney Houston but it wouldn't matter anymore. Once you climb Mount Everest, you can't go any higher, but you can still trip over the curb, especially if you like to walk under the influence of alcohol, drugs, etc.

 

I understand.

Again, if all depends on the criteria that you choose and focus upon.

If I look at Mike at his best, I really struggle to list many HW’s above him.

But then I can understand people not ranking him as high, because he had zero longevity.

I understand your point regarding Ali. No, those performances can’t be taken into account with Leon Spinks and Berbick, just like you can’t focus upon the McBride and Williams losses, as Mike was shot then. But what really hurts Mike, is that the wheels came off when he was so young. That’s what harms him. He was only in his early 20’s when he declined.

Yes, if you’re looking specifically at his number of fights, then he had the majority of them within that first 5 year period. But again, if you’re looking across a 20 year career, then you had 5 glorious years, with the other 15 being mostly poor.

 

I’m not sure.

But he was a street kid who had nothing.

But then by 23, he’d climbed Everest, where he’d achieved all of his goals, and he was one of the most recognisable people on the planet, with millions of dollars at his disposal.

You can see looking back how the Douglas loss happened.

But the biggest travesty wasn’t the Douglas loss.

It was the prison sentence.

We were absolutely robbed.

Just imagine if he’d have fought 3-4 times per year from 1992-1995.

Look at some of the opponents he could have fought.

 

it's just our perception. I remember an old sports chronicle in which George Foreman was called the best boxer in the history of sports. If he had ended his career then, some people would have said that about him. If Ali hadn't gotten his license back, how would you remember Frazier? How would you rate him if he finished his career in 1972? Or if Tyson had done it in 1989? no one then wondered whether he would win against Holyfield, they wondered whether the best Ali would have a chance against him and many said no. Sometimes it's about finding the right opponent at the right time. Like Frazier on Ali and Foreman on Frazier. Tyson didn't have it because Spinks started in LHW and had a bandaged knee But if he loses to Jake Paul in July, it won't matter to me. What matters is what you achieved and how you achieved it, not when you did it