What is your ranking of Mike Tyson?

I always find it odd when people rank Dempsey over Tyson. Demspey had a decent run up to the title, a devastating capturing of the title and then sat on the thing as long as possible, interspersing underwhelming defenses until he was twice emphatically beaten. Tyson followed the same path (more impressively in my opinion) but continued to lay waste to championship fighters in emphatic fashion while champ and even well after losing the title and while on his decline. Sure, he hung around too long and lost interest at times, but overall his record and the nature of his performances impresses me far more than Dempsey's run. I rank Tyson in my top 6 all time heavyweights.

 

:shock: Wait a second. You mean this place is supposed to be fun ?





















:good

 

I have Tyson in the top 10 Greatest HW's of all time!

Head-to-Head, I see only two guys beating him at his peak!

 

Although I'd rate Tyson over Marciano in my all time list,I can't put the Michael Spinks win over some of Marciano's victories. Jersey Joe Walcott,for example is a far more complete heavyweight than Spinks was.

 

I rate Tyson as high as number 6.

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Larry Holmes
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Mike Tyson
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Evander Holyfield
9. George Foreman
10. Joe Frazier
11. Sonny Liston
12. Jack Dempsey
13. James Jeffries
14. Floyd Patterson
15. Ezzard Charles

 

No 3 or 4, usually no 4, narrowly behind Holmes at 3, Louis at 2 & Ali at 1.

Simply outstanding in his prime.

 

I don't think overcoming adversity is a prerequisite for greatness when it comes to boxing. The criteria should be:

1. Tenure as Champion
2. Quality of Opposition (amongst available opposition)
3. Ability as a fighter.

Those 3 things are the best barometers when assessing a fighter's career. Overcoming adversity and other intangibles are compensating factors but they are nor should the be what a fighter is solely judged upon. I say this because often times that intangible is used so loosely that when assessing mythical match ups people sometimes say (when they lack a proper analysis) things like

"Ali will just find a way to win..."
When they can't respond with plausible scenario as to whether Ali could beat Lewis.

"Marciano has too much heart...."
When responding to why they think he'd beat Vitaly Klitschko.

And in any case adversity is often relegated to coming off the floor to win a fight. That is not always the case. Remember heart is overcoming your short comings to the best of your ability regardless of the result.

And in that case Tyson has it.

1. Against Tiilis; Tyson had later admitted that he wanted to quit in that fight but he was urged on by Rooney and somehow found the strength to eek out a decision. He was met with adversity in that fight and he rose to the challenge. And before you undermine Tillis; find me another 19 year old Heavyweight past or present that would have beaten Tillis more decisively than Tyson did.

2. Against Spinks; when you consider what was going on in Tyson's personal life leading up to the Super Fight with Micheal Spinks, almost as amazing as his performance was his ability to keep it together to produce that spectacular KO. Adversity doesn't always come in the ring. Sometimes it comes out of the ring and the level of discipline that he manifested that night shows that at his best he was committed to his craft.


3. Against Douglas; getting off the floor to win a fight has become overrated when you look at the context. Lennox Lewis and Jim Jeffries never got off the floor to win a fight but I hardly doubt that people aren't calling them great.

Mike Tyson was not the kind of fighter that easily hit the ground. In order for you to drop him, you needed to administer a significant amount of punishment. Tyson's ability to absorb punishment has kept him upright, when other fighters would have hit the canvas.

I don't think Tyson would have been floored by Walcott's left hook that dropped Marciano or Frazier's left hook on Ali in FOTC. Stunned, perhaps but not floored. On the other hand I don't think that Marciano would have been upright against Bonecrusher Smith when he landed a big right hand in the 12th round, or Tucker's right uppercut in the 1st or Ruddock's patented smash in Round 6 of the first fight. He may very well have beaten these fighters but if they landed the same blow's on Rock as they did on Mike, Rock would have hit the canvas.

In any event, against Douglas, Tyson after trailing hopelessly behind on the cards tries to close the show with his right uppercut. He lands one that sort of grazed Buster's chin a few seconds towards the end of the 8th round and Buster sort of falls into him. Then he lands another one and drops Douglas. With his eye swollen, trailing on points mathematically needing a few KD's or a KO to win he drops Douglas and was intent on finishing him then and there. Look at his aggression in the 9th round, how he came out. His failure shouldn't suggest that he lacked the will and effort to do so. Tyson seemed to woken up too late in the fight and was too battered to have turned it around. But the point is that he showed heart.

4. Against Botha, he overcame adversity courtesy of a right hand.

Bottom line:

Tyson dominated his division and was unequivocally the best fighter in the world. He was number 1 on p4p lists from 87-89 (Ring Magazine). So his ability cannot be questioned.

New to the boxing politics of multiple title holders, Tyson removed any doubt as to who the man was by beating the other champions, and then beating the guys they beat to get that championship. And when you consider he had 9 title defenses; that is an impressive feat.

For good measure take a look at your "Real" ATG Heavyweights in your top 10 and look at how many ranked contenders they beat. You'd be surprised to see how Tyson measures up.

And one last thing when it comes to this topic of adversity:

Compare what Tyson did after he lost the title to

What Sonny Liston did after he lost the title,
What Joe Frazier did after he lost the title,
What about Jack Dempsey?

 

What he said...

 

Charles was shop worn and Walcott was ole.

Spinks was coming off of two victories over a long reigning and "A" class champion in Larry Holmes and was undefeated.

Spinks > Charles

Spinks > Walcott

 

I rate fighters by different criterias than you. Resume, longevity, dominance, achievements. I don´t make a difference between the tenure as a champ or the rest of his career and I don´t take public opinion into account. Ability is very subjective. Ali needed different abilities than Frazier. Does that mean Frazier has less ability? It also depends on what you like. I don´t rate ability hiohger than intangibles when it comes to ranking fighters, which means it doesn´t influence my rankings much. C

Coming back from adversity is one thing a fighter that an atg should be able to do, it´s not a prerequisite for greatness but for all-time greatness.

None of your examples are what is meant here. Tillis? I mean ... Tillis? If he would have quit in that fight against that kind of opponent I wouldn´t rate him in the Top20.
Personally, I think what was going on before the Spinks fight made him more focused and better.
No, it did not. Lewis never got up. Right but he came back and beat both fighters who beat him. You hold the Johnson fight against Jeffries? Are you kidding? Or just desperate?

Agreed.

Where did he comeback from adversity? I never doubted he had a good chin or heart.

:rofl:rofl:rofl

I know all that. That ´s why I think pretty high of him, still not as high as you and some others though, but that has nothing to do with the post you answered to.

I rank Tyson above Liston and Dempsey. Frazier ranks above Tyson. Slightly better resume, as dominant, better achievements but worse longevity than Tyson.

 

I dont really have a top 100 p4p list,its hard enough to have ten!
But,i was thinking about mikes career the other day,and even though its know become fashionable to denigrate his greatness,heart and skills,i have to say that there was a spell from 87-prison where he looked simply sensational.
I think that prime specimem would be a tough match for any heavweight in history. And tyson would blow away several acknowledged atgs. (but would also probably lose to a few stylistic foils.)

 

I think its best with what they achieved AND some speculation. (hence the 'classic' forums existance!)
I think you understand where i am coming from with the fact you mentioned mike would probably have beaten louis and frazier.
I think sometimes guys either didnt get the opportunity to fight fellow atgs in their prime,or didnt get to meet a bucketfull of top quality opponents to make up for this.
Look at joe louis,larry holmes and even better,marciano and dempsey. Those guys didnt really have wins over top echelon guys,and with marciano/dempsey didnt really have long reigns either. So we have to speculate a little i think.
Anyway,hows my spacing of sentences coming along?

 

Spinks and Holmes were greats. It could be argued Tyson was just as if not more diminished against the likes of Holyfield and Lewis.