How would you grade Mike Tyson’s resume?

For me it was A-. I agree that up to his 24th fight he didn't face very good opposition. But from Marvis Frazier all the way until Buster Douglas he obliterated every contender and champion there was. And it wasn't only who he was doing it but how he was doing. He could only face whoever was available at the time. Marciano also didn't have good opposition and struggled way more than Tyson in his era.
After he left Kevin Rooney his career lived on the shadow of when he was at his best. 90s Tyson is simply not good enough, some good Ws here and there but not enough to deserve all the hype.

 

Here is maybe an interesting perspective on how I see the grading scale listed above (this applies for the modern boxing era like 1990+):
A+ = ATG status
A- = HOF eligibility
B+ = Higher tier P4P fighter (usually top 3 P4P of their era) and possibly borderline HoFer
B- = Lower tier P4P fighter (maybe like P4P 6-10)
C = productive champion (fought multiple contenders)
D = contender or titlist/paper champion (have to defeat a contender or two)
F = never a titlist or contender for any weight class
Regarding how I rank Mike Tyson's resume, I would probably rate him like around an A-. Regardless what anyone says about his resume, Tyson made one of the best P4P fighters of the time Michael Spinks look like a total amateur and destroyed him (Spinks was probably top 2 P4P fighter at the time). Also, Tyson totally cleared the heavyweight scene in the 1980s and was the only man to stop Holmes (you can even argue that Holmes should still be considered world class at the time due to his admirable efforts against Spinks in the rematch and his comeback to the elite level against world class contender Ray Mercer). I believe Tyson had ATG potential but due to distractions outside the ring and lack of discipline, Tyson falls short of being an ATG in the P4P scale of all time (but you can give a good argument that Tyson was an all time great heavyweight). Tell me what you think of this as thinking about this was fun.

 

Mike Tyson fought seven current or former Champions in his first thirty five fights before the WBO was even in existence. Tyson is still the youngest heavyweight champion at age twenty.

Tyson could not legally buy alcohol and was destroying fighters with a decade worth of experience over him.

During his run he fought in a weaker era than say the 70's or the 90's but he just obliterated everyone. He reminded us what a heavyweight champion should look and fight like. No socks, no robe, just walked to the ring and destroyed men. Destroyed... he didn't try to out point them, or hug them over tweleve rounds, he handled his business and went home.

That resume, his first thirty five fights combined with the historical young age make it better in my mind than the sum of its parts.

Now, post prison Tyson and his resume can't be excluded. For lack of a better word it was atrocious. Seldon, Mcneeley etc etc, losses back to back against Holyfield, NC against Golota...

Overall Tysons resume is a B.

 

There weren't any big names in the first 24 fights but you have to keep in mind that Mike's first 24 fights occurred over 16 months and he was still a teenager.
Jesse Ferguson was tough enough to get wins over Buster Douglas and Ray Mercer so he counts as one solid competitor in those early fights.

 

Just curious, compared to Mike Tyson, how would you grade Riddick Bowe's resume?

 

F, D and A+ are the only silly calls here for me. There's no flat B option, which is what I would grade it as. I guess I would err on the side of B-. Your use of bums under my definition would be...misguided.

 

He fought the leading contenders of his time.

He was not responsible for who was around and who wasn't.....

If Wladimir gets a pass for his bum run (something HIGHLY overlooked btw) then so should Tyson.

 

I agree down to the letter, but not the sign, the only difference is that I picked B+