Is Tyson's Top 10 HW Ranking Justifiable?

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

No.

1. Mike Tyson, in his prime, lost to a journeyman heavyweight named Buster Douglas.

2. In his prime, his opposition was decent (at best) with no true great challenger to rival him - thereby making his success in the 86' to 88' time frame more impressive looking than it actually was.

3. Near his prime, he still didn't face anyone of real note (aside from Ruddick, who was flawed) until Holyfield - who then preceded to put on a controlling performance over Tyson, who rarely challenged him (whereas, for example, a fading Jack Dempsey was defeating Gene Tunney until late in the fight).

4. There's ten HWY's who are better.

 

YES

Simple.

99% of the ESB members started watching boxing because of Tyson.

Not because of Evander or Lennox.

He is the Nirvana of your generation.

There are two names known every where when they talk Heavyweights.

One is Ali and the other Tyson. This in itself is reason enough to have him top ten. Forget the other ****. We more fans because of him and thats

FACT.

Thanks Mike your Top ten to me. And thanks god EA Fight Night got him in the Game.

 

This is a good post. Like you, I believe all great champions should have that fighting spirit, that will to win. The ability to overcome.
I cannot prove it, but in his early years I think he had it. His head was on straight back then. It's just that he was never put into a position where he needed to show it, which should be seen as a positive, if anything.
When he needed it later in his career, he didn't have it. The desire just didn't seem to be there.

 

The popular view is that Tunney won virtually every round in both fights.

 

I have him just outside.

Which means he's still better than virtually every heavyweight that ever lived. Is the division between being number ten and number eleven (for example) so massive?

I'm pretty confident though that, in decades to come, Tyson would be seen as a Top Ten heavyweight every time. Most fighters tend to rise up over time, plus the focus will go on '86-'90 with the rest as a kind of footnote. Kinda silly but likely.

 

I think his work between losing the title and getting convicted should be mentioned as well. Okay, Tillman was just a stepping stone but Stewart was a solid heavyweight who most likely was a ranked contender, although I'll have to check that out to be sure.
The fight was a mismatch in any event.

The Ruddock fights also need to be mentioned because Ruddock was officially rated #2, behind Tyson and champion Holyfield.
Yeah he was a flawed fighter but he was a huge puncher with decent skills, and he was being avoided by everyone, including Holyfield and Bowe.

I think it says a lot for Tyson's mentality and confidence at the time to fight such a dangerous opponent. That goes for Ruddock too. They could have avoided each other and feasted on lesser opponents, but the two biggest punchers in the division at the time decided to get at each other. They could have waited for a title shot to come to them, but they went for it.

So yeah, to have two ranked contenders on his record when no longer the champ definitely deserves mention.

 

I just don't know about that. If you are in the Tyson management, the easiest guy with a name to face at the time was Ruddock. He is/was one dimensional and telegraphed everything he was going to do. All Tyson has to prepare for is the 1 dimension & to beat Tyson, a guy is simply going to have to have more than 1 dimension. Other top shelf name opposition at the time like a Foreman/Holyfield/Bowe/or even perhaps upcoming Lewis, we're opponents that were more multi-dimensional.

If anything, it was top shelf management by the Tyson camp and its easier to question the Ruddock braintrust and their opponent selection process at the time and who they could've or should've fought instead.

 

How was Foreman, of all people, more multi-dimensional than Ruddock?
Holyfield was tied up with fighting Foreman, so that was out in any event.
Who was Lewis back in '91? His best win up to that point was Gary Mason, who was unknown to the US fight establishment. Lewis was up and coming, but he wasn't a name yet.
Bowe? Yeah, he could have gone for Bowe, but I doubt Rock Newman would have seriously considered it.

Besides all of the above, Ruddock was rated higher than any of them, except Holyfield and Tyson himself.
You can call Ruddock one-dimensional, but he was a guy people were avoiding, and with good reason.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP-ijDkL7BQ

 

What was the best Tyson fight yall have seen where he actually had to box and did it well ?

 

Your first point right off the bat is incorrect as well as the rest of your post. James Douglas was not a journeymen. He was a top ten contender throughout the prime of his career, beat Oliver Mcall and fought close with Tony Tucker for the IBF title before facing Tyson.