How would Mike Tyson be viewed if he retired 37-0?

I think that some would have longed to see him face the real deal, given that the match was materializing even before the Williams fight. Nevertheless, he definately would have left the ring as a top 3 or 5 heavyweight legacy wise. Head to head, he might very well have been viewed as the best of all time.

Evander Holyfield was really the only key player left for Tyson to face, but wasn't really a true part of the heavyweight picture of the 1980's, and most people at the time felt that Mike would have beaten him. The crop of 1988 olympians in Mercer, Bowe and Lewis would not be ready for contention until around 1992. Morrison and Seldon were not ready and never would be. Ruddock was viewed by some as a potentially dangerous threat, but by no means was he a mandatory item or a legacy builder. Therefore, had Mike called it quits say in the fall of 1989, I don't think anyone would have had much to say about it, and his standing would have been a lot higher today.

 

Way higher imo. But than again, like a few other champions before him, Tyson would be view as one of the weakenss comps. But in his amazing display of taking them out like he did, he be rember for that(Like he is now).

There WILL be left a lot of unanswer questions, regards to heart, chin, ete.

They had that with Ali when he was ban from boxing, and thus Rocky ko a suppose weaker chin Ali in that computer fight, but Ali's comeback answer all the questions.

There would be a big question mark is all.

 

He had really showed no weaknesses by that time, but of course his opposition could be critized just as Marciano's is or Ali's would be if not for his second career.

Some would hail Tyson as the perfect fighting machine, others would say "yeah, who did he prove it against? Pretty average contenders like Berbick, Bruno, Williams, Smith and Tucker? Cokeheads like Biggs and Thomas? Past-it blubbers like the aptly named Tubbs? Rusty old men like Holmes, or against a scared-shitless blown-up LHW like Spinks?"

But most would probably have him in their top 5 and some as the nr. 1.

 

Its kinda of hard to "show" weaknesses when he blasted almost evey one out in 1 or 2 rounds. Perhaps the Holmes fight in the first 2 rounds, Perhaps.

 

Invincible.

 

Yeah, that's the thing. Some would say he didn't have the opposition to be properly tested, and in hindsight I'd say they would be right. Others would say that his opposition was as good as almost any's, but that he just was that good.

 

For thing, I'm absolutely certain a lot of people would've gone "Why on earth isn't he fighting on?"

Stopping after beating Carl Williams would seem a bit of an odd abrupt ending. And most expected him to demolish both the Marciano 49-0 and Louis 26 defences records, so there would be a lot of confused people if he'd called it a day then. They would question why he did it and perhaps even suggest reasons such as being afraid of guys like Holyfield or Ruddock for example.

 

I think they were either good or decent, far from great. but Berbick is one of fighters I cant make head or tails out.

People say he is a good fighter, but he had problems with a over the hill Ali, were Holmes just blasted him out pretty easy imo. And that should count against Berbick. And in doing so, Tyson in regards to the win.

 

From what I've forced myself to see of his fight against Ali, I think he looked quite pedestrian considering how very, very physically superior he was to Ali at that point. All in all he was an alright contender for me, and a bit erratic. No more no less.

And no, Tyson didn't beat anyone that was great when he beat him. But look at guys like Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Holmes, i e most champs, what great fighters did they beat who were in or close to their prime? You can only beat what's in front of you and until Douglas, Tyson did just that and did it extremely well.

But this is a case in point why you should value number of title wins and wins over ranked opposition, because when you fight at that level everyone is going to be dangerous. Even an average fighter can pull off a stunning upset when his whole future is riding on it, and ranked guys are always gonna have some quality that can give even the greatest fighter trouble on a given night.

 

I agree completely. The age old argument of " who did he ever beat ", is a tired and redundant one. Tyson may have beaten a few declining ex-champion types, but so did almost everyone. Tyson may not have beaten an all time great at his peak, but honestly how many champions can we name who actually did? The list is slim. The main difference for me when comparing Tyson to other champs is that his legacy does not rest on the shoulders of a win over a declining ex-champ. Yes, he beat Holmes when he was 39, inactive for 21 months, riding a losing streak, and totally deconditioned. But, that is not where his greatest accomplishements lie. Tyson was a 5'11", 215 lb, 20 year old kid fighting in an era where his counterparts were 25-31 years old, stood 6'2" -6'5", weighed anywhere from 220-240, had good records, quality managment and amateur careers - some things that old school fighters did not always have. Say what you will about his comp, but Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Michael Spinks and Razor Ruddock were no worse in a head to head sense than Jim Braddock, Max Schmeling, primo Carnera or an old Jack Sharkey. Legacy wise may be a different story.

 

I think sometimes people overrate needing a great, prime name for a resume, partly because when there's a dominant champ, one of the only ways you can get that is for the champ takes a hiatus, allowing someone to rise to the top and create a rival to measure himself and the division against. Ali-Frazier is a perfect example of this, for example. The best thing that ever could have happened for the perception of 70's heavyweights was for Ali to be exiled and lose the FOTC to Joe Frazier. That Frazier could beat someone millions still looked at as an unbeatable icon legitimized not only Ali's subsequent wins over Joe, but the careers of anyone who happened to beat Frazier- enter one George Foreman. If Ali had never been exiled and then beat Joe handily when his number came up as a contender, would we give Ali the same amount of credit as we do for winning a grueling trilogy? I don't think so. Would Foreman, whose biggest legacy win by a mile was vs Frazier, get near the credit he does if Joe lost the FOTC or was never champion in the first place? Tyson, by virture of his dominance, never allowed such a rival to develop until he lost and was subsequently imprisoned.


When a champion is active and dominant, the division gets cleared out and it's much tougher for a real career-defining rival to emerge. The second best option to find one is to weight-jump yourself, or make another great fighter make the move. This is essentially what happened with Spinks and Holyfield, who were able to start at a high level at HW because of being great champs at the lower weightclasses. The only problem is that Mike blew through Spinks so easily, he gets less credit for it now than if he'd have had to dig deep late in the fight to win.

I've been ramblin on a bit more than I planned, so I'll leave it at this: There's something to be said for the consistency it takes to routinely outclass B and B+ level fighters, and those who can do it show they deserve to be mentioned as being top class. If Mike retired a 37-0, he'd be held in mythic standing right now. He could've said he accomplished everything he wanted to by unifying the titles, becoming the youngest HW champ in history, retiring unbeaten, having cleared out the division, and had subsequently lost the fire to compete. He'd be viewed as a living legend.

 

I'm not sure I follow you, but let's put it likes this: Barcelona and Man United (as all top teams) have both dropped points or even lost to far inferior teams this season, as every season. If you only had Barcelona's game yesterday to go on you would hardly think Numancia could beat them, would you?

Likewise, Nadal and Federer looses to inferior opponents on occassion every year, Woods gets beaten in some tournaments by inferior golfers etc, etc.

But let's put it in boxing terms: No one would gave any real odds on Louis loosing to Schmeling, Ali to Norton, Frazier to Foreman (at least not in the manner he lost), Tyson to Douglas, Holyfield to Moorer, Bowe to Golota, or Lewis to Rahman and McCall if they hadn't actually met.

 

Likely 3rd behind Ali & Louis
Possibly 2nd behind Ali

I dont forget how good prime Mike was, thats why he`s in my top 4.