What is your ranking of Mike Tyson?

Tyson's win over Spinks is probably better than any single win on Marciano's record...

 

Tyson at his best in the 1980's could of mixed it with any heavweight of any era in my opinion, He was well trained and 100% focused.

I'd rate him in the top ten easy round about 7-10

 

I have had this argument with many people before you ever joined this forum, and frankly, none of them have ever convinced me of your point...

1. Holmes was stripped of his WBC title in 1983 for failure to defend against Page.

2. Spinks beat him in 1985 for the IBF crown..

3. Spinks was stripped of the IBF in 1987 for failure to defend against Tucker..

4. Tyson cleaned up the division, unified the crown and beat the very same Tucker who Spinks ducked...

If this doesn't satisfy you, then think of it this way:

1. Rocky Marciano retired as the undefeated champ in 1955.

2. Floyd Patterson won the title in VACANT fashion against an old Moore who Marciano had already destroyed..


If you think that a man who chooses to continue fighting for money, but doesn't feel that he has any obligation to defend his crown, has more entitlement to the championship than a man who retires, then the crown obviously has no meaning.. Tyson did more than BOTH Michael Spinks and Floyd Patterson to become champ, and in fact, was announced as THE champ when fighting Spinks.... The only technicality that was announced when Spinks name was called was that the RING magazine called him the CHAMP, and make no mistake about it, that was just to hype the fight for the purpose of selling papers...... No one REALLY believed that he was the CHAMP....

 

But Spinks was the man who beat the man.
Traditionally, that's how world champions are decided.

RING magazine genuinely thought Spinks was champion, so did I at the time, in the traditional sense. Nevermind that Tyson was the better fighter. If the best fighter in the world is always the champion then the title would never change hands !

Doubting Patterson's claim for beating Moore is valid but no one at the time disputed the championship, so Patterson's claim stands.

What you're saying is all well and good but you'd have to go all through history and make a judgment as to who should be stripped and say why, and who you recognize as champion - starting from the earliest times.

To defend the ****ing IBF (and I feel the use of bad language here is justified !:yep) for stripping Spinks for not fighting Tony Tucker is a very bad call on your part, in my opinion.
Ok, if the championship means so much, why didn't they order him to fight Mike Tyson, (who was clearly the most deserving opponent) ?

We both know why. Because boxing's "world title sanctioning bodies" are a bunch of crooked illogical racket-running scumbags.
They are the problem, not the solution.

 

I couldn´t have put it better. Exactly my reasoning. :good

 

Marciano´s wins over Charles and Walcott are better than any win Tyson has.

 

Tyson is borderline Top10.

Recently, I parted my lists into two. Pre 1920 and after 1920 to make the fighters on it more comparable. So, Tyson is now between 9 and 11. :good

I´m a bit harsh with calling fighters atgs the more I think about it. Only the Top5-6 of each divsion and the Top10-20 p4p are real atgs for me. But this changes and takes nothing away from the other fighters like Tyson.

 

I'd certainly rate him in my all time top 10 heavyweight list. Albeit in the lower half of it.

 

i have him about the same.way above the likes of marciano and dempsey.

 

at his peak id give only ali louis foreman and holmes a shot of beating him i dont think he would have had a problem with lewis frazier marciano or liston holyfield would have given him a good fight but i think the 88 tyson would have stopped him in 6 to 8 rounds bowe was too easily to hit to survive peak tyson top 5 for me

 

True. I have him following on from Ali,Louis,Holmes,Frazier,Foreman,Liston,Lewis and Holyfield. In that order. A few of them are subject to change every now and then.

 

If that's the case, then the lineage of the title must have died with Marciano..

There were many who didn't.. Tyson was fighting the challengers and alpha titlists... Spinks was fighting Cooney and Tangstad, plus won his belt from a man who had been previously stripped of one himself.

Perhaps, but I think its a double standard to credit him for being the youngest champ of all time, on the basis that Tyson did NOT beat the man, when Floyd didn't do it either.

I think Dempsey and Sullivan should have both been stripped for failure to defend a title against the best.

I'm not the one who stripped him.... The sanctioning body of the ****ing belt that HE FOUGHT FOR did.. He chose to pass up a MANDATORY contender to face a dead beat for more money and less risk... He was rightfully stripped. And forfeited his right to continue being called champ... In the real world when the CEO of a company loses his job, does the next man have to beat him out of the position to take over his office? No, that isn't the way it works. This lineal title **** is all about ceremonial nonsense, and frankly I think its sometimes used for the sole purpose of selling tickets.

Because Tyson was another belt holder and not a contender.. A fellow titlist can't be made a mandatory. That's the way its always been.

Perhaps, but the one thing that will never change, is the fact that a champion has to defend his title if he wants to be called CHAMP.. Otherwise, a man can sit on his couch with his feet up all day and call himself a champion, while in the meantime the sport goes without someone at the thrown... Doesn't work..... By 1988, Michael Spinks' right to being a true claimant had been pretty far removed.

 

Obviously, some champions will retire as champion. It's rare but it happens.
In those cases a new champion needs to be found.
That's a lot different to creating a new champion while the current champion is still active.

Yes, Tyson was beating better opponents. It's historically noted and recognized, and would be regardless of alphabet bollocks. Sonny Liston gets his due for beating better opponents than Patterson, circa. 1960.

I dont give a **** about "alpha titlists", "belt" and "stripped".

Fair enough point about Floyd.
And Tyson did beat the man. He beat Spinks.

Good luck with being consistent remembering your lineage. You should consider stripping Johnson, or Willard too.

Interestingly, the NYSAC stripped Schmeling in 1932 for failing to fight Sharkey again. And in 1937 they almost stripped Braddock for not fighting Schmeling, but backed out at the last moment.
I dont where you stand on that.

Yes, they stripped him of their recognition.
I dont follow the IBF.
The IBF heavyweight title's credibility was based entirely on the fact that Larry Holmes was considered the real champion and they chose to pin their flag to him. But Larry Holmes was considered the real champion regardless. And that's what Spinks held (as well as the IBF belt). The championship. Not just some "****ing belt".

The IBF's mandate. That's their business. It means absolutely nothing to me.

Yes, he was stripped. Of the IBF's recognition. I get that.

No.
In boxing if you beat the champion you become champion. That's what every boxing fan understands, and is where "lineal title ****" comes from.

What do you mean fellow titlist ? The "sanctioning bodies" are supposed to be in competition, yet the recognize each other's champions as "other" champions ? Or do they just exclude them from being contenders ? If so, WHY ?
There can only be one world champion. And if IBF recognize Spinks as champion why not recognize Tyson as a contender ?

And your answer is "That's the way its always been" ....

Yes, (well maybe not always) and that should tell you what a bunch of crooked racketeers and poison to the sport they are.

The whole sanctioning body structure is a scam, but you seem to prefer there way of doing things to the simple principle of a champion winning or losing the title in the ring.

Only because of the sanctioning bodies and the TV companies.

Let's just imagine it was strictly lineal and there was no alphabet soup bull****. The time between Tyson exploding unto the consciousness of the public as the real goods (say, Nov. '86) and when Spinks fought him (June '88) is 19 months.
Yes, everyone would say Tyson's the best in the world and the "uncrowned champion", yes, everyone would say Spinks ducked him for too long.
But it wouldn't be the end of the world. The case doesn't call for withdrawing recognition until the man gets beat in the ring. It's not like Spinks went totally inactive for years.
Spinks' case wasn't even that bad.

 

top post:good

 

Fair points.. Some of them I agree with, while others I disagree.. I suppose if we concurred with everything all the time, this place wouldn't be much fun.