What is your ranking of Mike Tyson?

9 defenses is gone before arrived?

 

I can't place him in my top 5, but top 10 is very reasonable. There are very few title reigns that were more dominant and meaningful than that of Mike Tyson's.. It also seems to be swept under the carpet that he was the youngest heavyweight champion of all time and the first to unify the crown in a multiple belt system. His competition is underrated as well. I realize he never beat an Ali, Frazier or Foreman, but I think that some tend to go drastically in the other direction by referring to many of his opponents as bums. There are a lot of champions who had a worse list than Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, Tyrell Biggs, James Smith, Tony Tubbs, Carl Williams, Marvis Frazier, Razor Ruddock, Alex Stewart, Bruce Seldon, Lou Savarese, ect.... It may not be a stellar list, but its well above average and he won all of those fights in far more decisive fashion than a lot of champions have beaten their best competitors.

The thing that prevents Mike from really climbing into the upper tier of greats, was his early loss to a second rater in James Douglas, along with the element of having a short prime... These are valid criticisms, but honestly, if the man had retired after besting spinks in 91 seconds, there wouldn't be much anyone could say against him.

 

I am a big supporter of Larry Holmes, but his reign was hardly dominant. Tyson unified the crown, while Holmes was getting stripped for failure to meet his mandatories. There were at least 3-4 qualified challengers and some who were co-existing as alpha champs, and he never addressed the issue. He fought several challengers who had too few fights to be in a world title match, and a fair number of others who were just plain mediocre.. He also had a few bouts that ended in rather indecisive fashion, but no rematch ever occurred...

That said, Holmes' longevity is impressive and in truth, he did beat some good fighters like Norton, Shavers, Cooney, Berbick and Weaver, but I think Tyson accomplished a fair bit more in just 3.5 years, than Holmes did in 7.

 

I disagree Tyson was "gone before arrived". 9 defenses against the top competition, and he became the biggest, most recognized boxer of all time....even more of a draw than Ali. He took everything to never before seen heights. He was just too volatile of a personality to last for too long. In regards to his fame and popularity, he was on a path that had never been paved before, and there were no books written on how to handle that.

Perhaps we have different values, but I'm a bigger fan of burning bright and burning out than playing it safe and steady. Most of the best things in life end up imploding (rock bands, etc.). But for the brief time they work, it sure is amazing.

 

Some of the things about Tyson that are often overlooked are his lack of height and reach for such a dominant champion.
He proved he wasnt a one dimensional fighter by dismantling some very good tall technical, mobile outside fighters. His use of the jab and his unbelieveable timing and footwork, are highly underated. As anyone who boxes knows, its very hard to get close to a fighter who fights well at range.
Not that Im comparing Tua to Tyson, but how many of Tuas fights were him getting outboxed for 9-10 rounds before he landed a finishing blow?

 

I agree.

While I value longevity and impressive numbers, I am more interested in seeing EVERYTHING that a fighter has to offer against the very best, even if it's short lived. And frankly, I don't think that his championship run was as short as people often claim.. he had more title wins than Marciano, Liston, Jeffries, Dempsey, Frazier, Patterson and a fair number of others.

 

I believe that depite his relatively short reign, he should still be in the discussion as a top10 all-time HW and top 20-30 all-time p4p. Remember that the young Mike was the most elusive and explosive HW to ever step in the ring. The knocks against him , even in his prime, were his conditioning and the ease with which he could be frustrated.

 

I agree, but I dont remember Tyson getting frustrated too often during his reign. Just because he took a one sided 12 round decision, doesnt mean he was frustrated or lacking in any capacity, its just that he always set the bar so high with his fast exciting knockouts.

 

Well, I guess that's fine if you value an un-unified crown, and a reign consisting of often times fighting second raters rather than mandatories. Not to mention defenses against Ossie Ocasio, Lucien Rodriguez, Alfredo Evangelista, Scott Ledoux, David Bey, Lorenzo Zanon and Tex Cobb. Let's also not forget about some of the close and questionable outcomes that never resulted in rematches.

 

As I was pointing out in the last post, its far harder to win like Tyson did as opposed to the style of Holmes at the championship level.

 

my top ten HW list: Based on roughly: 75% ability/adaptability/stylistic range. 25% Manner of world class victories/competative losses
1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Marciano
4) Lewis
5) Frazier
6) Holmes
7) Holyfield
8) Tyson
9) Liston
10) Foreman

All time P4P i dont possess that kind of knowledge to be fair. But i'd guess 35-50