I disagree vehemently. Tyson is getting lots of social media attention these days, but what does he stand for, what's the meaning we attach to him? Of course in the ring he was very good during his short prime after which his own behavior and lack of morals undermined him. As a cultural phenomenon I find him insignificant.
Tyson does not care where some Forum cowboys rank him or what some "Historians" what ever that means , have him at Num ber 1 or Number 10000..............he literally does not care. What he does know is that he is the most recognized and popular Heavyweight Price fighter on the planet despite his prime ended close to 35 years ago.
This, it's funny that 88 Tyson is almost a meme among casuals, of course it's asinine that he wipes out every heavyweight in history, but it's also perhaps the most plausible crazy thing casuals believe, he's not going 4-0 against Louis, Liston, Ali, Foreman, but he's likely not coming out of it 0-4 either
But which of the four does he beat? I see Liston and Foreman being too big and strong and Ali too resourceful. Ali would figure out a way to defeat him. That leaves Joe Louis. Would Joe outgun Mike? My heart says yes but my head isn't sure.
Top 1 - Ludicrous Top 3 - Unreasonable Top 5 - A stretch, but h2h.... Top 10 - Reasonable Top 20 - Reasonable Outside Top 20 - Ludicrous At his best he's a tough assignment for all, the exception of maybe a couple of guys who match up stylistically well against him.
Ali is get slammed by mike… mike is wayyy too fast for ali to run away and too precise for ali to stand on the ropes like a . W liston PFP btw the goat
I have him just inside my top 10. Phenomenal at his peak, which was very short. His resume falls away somewhat compared to my top 3 or 4 guys. But on his night he is a danger to any heavyweight in history. I used to think he was a bit of an underachiever, despite what he did, due to his lack of discipline outside the ring. But when I read his autobiography I kind of went the other way ... Look at what he did achieve, coming from his chaotic background and his use of drink and drugs between fights etc
This isn't a fully formed answer, but when I look at Ali-Patterson I, I just can't see Tyson getting close enough to Muhammad to be competitive. I feel likewise about 1965-1967 Ali versus 1969 to FOTC Frazier. Muhammad Ali will always be my clear Number One, the guy who would beat everybody else when at his best. I also think Larry Holmes stays away from Mike, although he might take a fall to the deck. George Foreman had the combination of massive punching power, chin plus physical strength to make it hard for me to see Tyson surviving for long. GF didn't share the power of Shavers (who Tyson does defeat), but he did have more than enough. (Pursuant to that, Jeffries might also be too strong, have too much stamina, and he was much faster than George.) Louis I also favor. The Bomber had the combination punching and power plus underrated punch resistance to prevail, although Joe, like Larry, might need to get off the deck to stop Tyson. Sonny Liston. He, at his best, went through devastating punchers like Big Cat and DeJohn. We know how Tyson would try fighting him, because Patterson tried it twice. Mike isn't Floyd, but Sonny didn't always wipe out opponents with that kind of dispatch either. He finished very strongly in the Whitehurst rematch and wasn't gassing at the end of 12 with Machen. As physically strong as Foreman was, he says he couldn't back up Liston against Sonny's will, and Wepner says Liston was a much harder puncher than George. (The footage of Sonny's mid body shot mid bout KD of Chuck does lend some credence to Wepner's claim. Foreman stopped Chuck on cuts, like everybody else not named Ali.) Right now then, I'm looking at top ten, definitely not top five. I have to contemplate non champions as well, but outside top ten might be really pushing it. (I don't rate post Championship Distance fighters, but Holyfield did win over 15, and Tyson trained for it before a last minute reduction to 12 rounds. No, I don't rate Evander at HW because of steroid use.)
Well, I don't care wether Tyson cares or not because I place him as fringe Top 10, so there. That makes us even
Somewhere between 10 and 20 for me, but probably closer to 10. Look, Tyson was a phenom but his peak was short and he benefits from being the clear top guy in that post 70s (through until Holmes) vacuum where he had his way with a number of B graders. Prime for prime from just before to just after his era I wouldn’t put money on him beating Ali, Holmes, Foreman or Lewis. I think he also has trouble with Frazier but that’s a pick em fight for mine. I don’t think any version of Mike beats Holyfield and I think he has his issues with Bowe as well. He likely beats most of the others. That said, he’s a live dog in any fight just because of that explosive speed and power.
The short answer to that, is as good as he wanted to be. Give him the mental discipline of a Louis, Marciano, or Holmes, and we would be saying "Louis, Ali, Tyson," and then crossing ourselves. As it was, he didn't have that magic ingredient. No need to feel sad for him, he is still up there with the great heavyweights of history, just as he always wanted. His record has deceptive depth to it, when you compare it to teh other great heavyweights. If I am having a conversation with him before his fateful trip to Tokyo, I am probably saying "you need to hold things together for a couple more years son."
Mike was a very good box fighter in his late eighties prime. I have him in the lower reaches of my Top 10 heavies.
In which case, Tyson's top 2 along with the guy in your avatar. Tyson sold tickets and made events just being himself like very few before or since.
