I've got #5, now for #6

Who did he beat though? The only real HW great he ever beat was a Holmes who had a hard time containing his own fear at that stage... and a Spinks who never had any business at HW anyway.

Post that, he lost his title to a tomato can... post that, well, let me just say, boxing could have done better regarding their main champion.

Tyson did ZERO to help boxing at any level. His real accomplishments in the sport were not great, to say the least.

About the only thing he has managed to do is stain the main division in boxing! Will any woman remember him beating Holmes? Nah, but you can bet they'll remember him as a ******... Yeah, the guy really helped the sport in an historical sense. Christ!

 

I'll agree with the point that some might choose to play some of the real GREATS victories down. This paragraph is really pointless as far as comparison is concerned.

No, Rocky beat all the HWs of his time, Tyson didn't. In fact Tyson lost to the first HW tomato can that stood up to him. Think that would have ever happened to Rocky? You don't have to waste the neurons, it never did.

I'll grant that Tyson was a good thing for boxing when he first showed up.

I remember how Tyson was a well liked young man, and how he should have been one of the greatest ever. What is very debatable is how a great talent ruined it for themself... in most eyes.

Hardly. One needs to look at the impact on the sport through everything. Tyson's impact was, primarily, negative. This will always be true. Women don't like him because he became a ****** later - that won't change. Most men will hold a few other things against him - that won't change either.

On a whole, John, Tyson did more harm than good. While this was mainly after his main boxing career was over, the simple fact is, he caused more damage to boxing in the long term than benefit.

 

In a boxing context, Tyson never had the opportunity to develop and temper his toughness and will to win, by having to prevail over adversity. He had some wins over opponents who were able to extend him, but he never needed to battle back from behind to win while he was coming up. Ultimately, he paid a competitive price for that deficit in experience. The ruggedness just wasn't there.

I omit Lewis from consideration for many of the same reasons JT has left out Jack Johnson. My interest in boxing subsided before Lewis came along, so I made my own cut-off before he arrived.

 

Stop being snooty

Tyson really didn't do all that much at HW to be considered an ATG, John. I've already talked about his victories, and while good, they aren't really that great.

Why not? The guys he beat just weren't that good, in any era.

This may have something to do with another thread But Tyson was a good sort at the beginning.

That's the main thing that bothers me about the guy. As far as the massive amount, well... we don't agree.

I already wrote on that, John. Some women and men will never like him for things he did outside of the ring. I'm not saying that is all people, but it is a large enough percentage to consider it damaging to boxing... He was the Golden Boy in the most important boxing weight. I don't see why that wouldn't have done some damage to boxing.

We are on the same page with this. As far as the other guys you mention, they were never promoted in boxing like a HW Tyson, thus whetever they chose to do, the impact wasn't great.

Anyway, back to why we agree for once... I think Tyson was a great boxer, with tremendous skill and power, that never seen it's full potential. What he did outside of the ring, before he ever accomplished what he should have, is where we differ. I really wish the guy would have just done what everybody knew he could... without all the other crap that crept in!

 

Back to the theme of this post, John has a great top 5!

 

What is his due then, John? Rating wise in your own eyes.

Top 10 is a bit out of the question at HW.

 

To be fair Johnson is causing me dilemas regarding exactly where to rate him, he always been floating around just inside or on the perifery of my list (currently at #9) but the more I think about it the more a Top 6 place seems valid for him. I've always thought him to be very formidable against most head to head.

I wouldn't be totally sure who to move down in order to put him there, though. It's a tough call. :huh

 

Disqualifying Tyson from being a "great" because he raped, assaulted people, and sometimes generally acted like an imbecile, is untenable.

I think it's been firmly established that Sugar Ray Robinson beat the **** out of his wife on many occasions. But the media had no wish or reason to concentrate on his outside-the-ring activities.
Perhaps physical abuse of women was more acceptable in the 40s and 50s.

Having said that, Tyson acted beyond the pale in his 2nd fight with Holyfield with the biting, and afterwards he went crazy and caused a mini-riot. But Riddick Bowe and Golota were just as bad, or worse.
Bowe especially has a few incidences of attacking guys in press conferences. But, then again, not many people are calling Bowe a great.

I think Tyson deserves some recognition as being some sort of a "great" simply because he had some phenomenal talent, and was active as the best fighter in the world for 3 years, and about 10 straight fights. He beat some very good fighters, convincingly.

Losing to Buster Douglas in his prime, and failing to complete any real comeback from that defeat, disqualifies him from being considered in the top echelon of the greats though, IMO.

He probably makes the top 20 heavyweights of all-time.

 

ALL-time is a long time, so I'd probably just settle on a top 10. (As I can gather from these threads, you understand the difficulties in deciding the order of a similar list).

In a top 10, Tyson wouldn't make the cut. Not on my all-time list.