IF IRON MIKE WAS UP AND COMING NOW,WHAT WOULD YOUR THOUGHTS BE?

It's who he lost to though, that's what makes it disappointing.

Ali lost to Frazier, Frazier lost to Foreman, Foreman lost to Ali, Holyfield lost to Bowe etc....

Anyway what's your point? Tyson is a deserved ATG no doubt about that.

 

Who has lost in a one sided fashion ? In their primes ? Against a fighter of Douglas's calibre ?
There are some, and I would rank them down because of it.

Obviously, the loss is weighed against the weight of wins and the quality of opposition and the manner of victories, and at the end of the day Tyson would come out ranked pretty high anyway.

It's not unfairly viewed in the context where people are putting Tyson among the top heavyweights of all-time.
Example comparisons :

*You won't find anything like that on Muhammad Ali's record around his prime.

*Joe Louis had the loss to Schmeling, of course, which would cost him in the ATG pound-for-pound rankings but as a heavyweight he re-established himself and reigned as the number 1 for at least another decade. Tyson doesn't have that kind of career.

*Larry Holmes went 48-0 over 12 years and was almost 36 when he was handed his first loss as a professional, and it was a pretty close fight still.

*Joe Frazier was blasted out by Foreman and loses places because of it. Still, Foreman is greater than Douglas, and Frazier's WIN COLUMN includes someone as great as Muhammad Ali. Ergo, Frazier still ends up clear ahead of Tyson.

*Evander Holyfield lost to Bowe but that was a far more competitive fight than Tyson losing to Douglas. Of course, Holyfield also knocked out Douglas and Tyson, has better wins, so I think he sits ahead quite clearly too.

*Floyd Patterson was blasted by Johansson. That's more akin to losing to Douglas. I rate Tyson clear ahead of Patterson, mind you.

*Lennox Lewis was stopped by McCall and Rahman. He possibly has a couple of wins better than what Tyson has, but I'd rate Lewis and Tyson around the same place, to be honest.

^ This is my method of reasoning. I know people will try to pick holes and find "bias" and "unfairness" in it but it's so simple you'd do best to take it at face value. It's simply assessing who a man beat, who he lost to in his prime, how he won, how he lost, and then measuring it up against the best in history.

Others might have other criteria. That's fair enough too.

 

The thing is Douglas was a decent fighter in truth, he gets called a bum that had a lucky night but the reality is he was an underachiever that was a lot better that people realised, and he surprised everyone.

It doesn’t help that he got flattened against Holyfield right after but he would arguably give any all timer a hard night in Tokyo form. So when you say he was a lacking in calibre fighter, that’s not really the truth of what the man was that night. Everything he did looked pretty awesome that one night. Stats of course tell another story but the reality is different, Douglas was a beast in that form.

The rest of your argument I can’t really disagree with much to be honest, you take into account the losses of those fighters and rank them accordingly. Like I said, I wouldn’t rank Tyson above some of those guys but he deserves to be in their company at least, which I find many disagree with.

 

Douglas was underrated, have you ever wondered what other all timers would have done with Tokyo Doulags's great jabs and stinging combinations, timing etc? I'm not saying he would beat them all but facing that version of Douglas wouldn't be a walk in the park that's for sure. Tyson lost to a legitimate fighter that night, not the bum everyone thought he was. I think Buster deserves more credit personally but can see its his fault he has the reputation he does, the Holyfield fight was pathetic, he clearly couldn't care less by then.

 

Douglas was enormously talented lets not mistake it.

 

If Tyson were to suddenly appear today he would have the same effect on the HW division.
He would work himself into the inside, deliver the lightning fast, devastating hooks and uppercuts and win via KO or TKO. Perhaps this time, if he would avoid the distractions which eventually diminished his abilities the first time, he would remain on top a far longer period of time and maybe even be able to retire unbeaten like Marciano.

 

Alrighty then....... he'd also save all the Polar Bears, sort out North Korea and give us the best Brexit deal imaginable........

 

Maybe become the first African American Pope!

 

And the first Islamic Pope, Tyson would definitely be bigger than Jesus!

 

I agree that Douglas was a pretty good heavyweight and fought a brilliant fight.

But I think the same about Tim Witherspoon the night he challenged Larry Holmes.
I also think Holmes wasn't 100% that night, he was already past his prime.

There are people here who will highlight Holmes's close disputed win over Witherspoon as a mark against him sooner than they'll acknowledge Tyson's loss to Douglas.
It's okay saying everyone DOES acknowledge Tyson Douglas but when people talk about Tyson's superior DOMINANCE compared to other champs they clearly cannot be including the Douglas performance.
Tyson dominated the division apart from Douglas, who we all agree was one of the better boxers in the division when on form.
Tyson dominated the division BUT there are serious questions as to whether he'd have ever defeated Holyfield, especially in 1989 and 1990, who was the fighter first in line for a shot when Tyson was matched with the lower ranked Douglas at that time.

Therefore losing to Douglas, who was a pretty good heavyweight yes, is just part of his prime period that needs to be included to assess him.

If Holmes had been dominated and knocked out by Weaver or Witherspoon he'd be ranked lower by me.

 

On the night that Douglas defeated Tyson he was a man possessed with deep grief over the death of his mother. Douglas provided that explanation for his exceptional performance against Tyson. He went on to lose his title to Holyfield and later lost to Lou Savarese by KO.