RING MAGAZINE Had Mike Tyson At 72 In Their All Time PFP Ranking. That's Absurdly Low

That ranking basically invalidates the list.

 

Ali's high ranking is mostly due to him being the consensus #1 heavyweight of all time. That has to count for something, and in a big way. I'd hazard a guess that they were pretty friendly toward Ali and Joe Louis as they were heavyweights and as we see on the forum day after day, heavyweight seems to be where it's at for the vast majority. It's the biggest prize in all of sport (or was), the prestige division.

 

If anything the list might be too heavyweight friendly.

But looking over it it's a pretty poor list IMO. Trouble is making such a list is immense work and there's going to be a lot of varying opinions. I wouldn't have had Tyson above Oscar. Oscar at 75 and Trinidad at 51 gives me a headache as well. There's not a snowflakes chance in hell Trinidad is better.

72 is a very friendly placement for Tyson.

 

He's top 10. No one destroyed a division as talented as the one he came into and in such short shrift as he did. Not Johnson, not Dempsey, not Louis, not Marciano, not Liston, not Clay/Ali.

 

I think you're talking about a cross era, peak version fantasy h2h, pfp, list. In which case, yes, during his brief peak, Tyson was incredible and would rank highly.

Conventional all time p4p lists are based on actual achievements over entire careers, relative to the eras in which each fighter competed. Tyson typically ranks much lower on well researched lists that are compiled on that basis.

 

If anything, that's absurdly high.

He'd above Saldivar ffs.

 

I glanced at the first 20 names and there's alot wrong with the list namely Monzon being 11 and Marciano, Dempsey, being close to the top 10.

I have Tyson above Dempsey in my all time Heavyweight rankings so I can't comprehend how Dempsey can be that far apart from Tyson on a P4P list when Tyson has a better resume more world title wins and is a better H2H fighter.

I don't know where I would rank Tyson as I haven't got the knowledge to rank 80 fighters and put them all in order. But as a guess he would probably be outside my top 50 so I don't think 72 is the worst for Tyson but some other names are baffling.

 

They have Khaosai Galaxy above Roy Jones lmao this list sucks

 

so, let’s say Tyson just up and retired right before Tokyo. He’d have ranked higher?

I get what you’re saying, but many fighters keep on long past their best, and judging them based on that tail end seems a bit off.

 

All these types of list are stupid, but so is getting worked up about these kind of lists.

 

If for an example you had Mike number 10 or thereabouts as a HW all time, then I think this ranking is actually kind considering how many divisions in the sport's history

 

I was surprised when I saw the list.

 

I actually have Tyson at 71 myself, so I can't really complain at 72!
71. Tyson
72. LaMotta
73. Hopkins
etc...

 

Considering all the fighters we have had since 2002 Tyson might have been outside the top 100 on this same list now.

 

Again, it's important we make a distinction between what type of ranking crtieria you're talking about, in order to adequately answer the question you pose in your first paragraph:

1. In a peak version, p4p, H2H list, Tyson should be ranked in actuality, exactly the same as he would had retired after the Williams, and before the Douglas, fights. I don't have such a list, but suspect Tyson would rank highly if I did.

2. In an ATG p4p list, based on actual career achievements, Tyson's entire career should be factored in. He had fights post Williams that both enhance (e.g. Ruddock x 2 and Bruno 2) and detract from (e.g. Douglas and Holyfield x 2) his standing.

In simple terms, and as an example, losing to Douglas aged 23 and to a lesser extent a 33/34 year old Holyfield aged 30, detracts from Tyson's ATG p4p standing. I wouldn't base a peak version, h2h, p4p ranking on the version of Tyson from these fights.

Does that make sense and does that seem reasonable?