Mike Tyson retires 37-0 before the Buster Douglas fight. What is his legacy

He would have been considered arguably the greatest ever, certainly top 5. I cant adequately explain how invincible he was considered.

 

Lmao

 

Honestly, he'd be less highly regarded than he is right now in terms of how great he was, for me.

If it makes sense, what his potential to go be would have been considered, is the greatest ever, but what he actually had achieved by that stage, would have him on a lower level of greatness than where I have him right now.
Simply because he wouldn't have had enough of the big name fights on his record (obviously every Tyson fight was a huge fight, but I mean big 2 man battles). Only really Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks would stand out. His Holyfield losses, Lennox Lewis loss and Ruddock wins add more names to the record which are what would have been lacking in his career up to that point.

A forced retirement at that point would have been a travesty and would have left almost everybody believing they had missed out on seeing someone pretty certainly go on to be the most dominant and the greatest heavyweight to ever live though, no doubt

 

can you imagine that. All greats or most could have retired at the right time and it would have helped their legacy. I think Leonard would have been best after Duran in 1989 .. That Norris fight to lose every round. I don't get that fight. Tyson before Douglas? Great legacy. Hagler after Hearns. Hearns had losses sprinkled in his career so he does not have that type of time he could retire. Duran after Leonard would have been a good time. I am sure people would say Duran would have beaten Hearns,Leonard and Benitez and Hagler all by knockout had he never fought them after June 1980. Since we have the results, then we get the excuses. Ali after Foreman. Hopkins after Tito. Oscar is like Hearns not great time to retire. Floyd? He still has not had that great win in my mind. Not with the peak.

 

He'd have achieved no less at 37-0 and his reputation would be higher. Having names on his record doesn't enhance his reputation when he lost to them all. I agree with your last point though.

 

I think his legend would have shot through the roof and the question for many people would have been not whether he could beat guys like Ali and Louis, but how badly he would beat them. Nobody would believe that Douglas could have beaten him in a million years.

 

Unless you were around at the time, it's hard to imagine how invincible Tyson appeared at that time. Him losing, particularly to the heavyweights around then was inconceivable. It's no coincidence that the defeat to Douglas is still considered the greatest upset in boxing history.

Had he retired at 37-0 he'd have been undefeated world champion for 3 years (more than two of those as unified champ) with 9 defenses and been considered unbeatable. He'd be a lock in everyone's top 10 and would make most people's top 5.

In terms of being the greatest ever, he would arguably have lacked a signature win (Spinks?) to put him in that position. He'd also wouldn't have the longevity to match Louis or Ali. But he'd go down as the greatest 'what if?' in boxing history.

 

it is amazing how the unknown helps us write whatever we want about someone. Having the loss to Douglas, means, well if Douglas can beat him so can Ali, Foreman, Louis, Holmes (younger) etc. That loss did hurt his legacy. I remember after Tyson was beaten, he landed in the United States a day later or something and King was trying to say that Douglas was down for the count, and Mike was counting along to the count on video, but that never really caught on. He got the loss to Douglas.

 

Maybe he'd be regarded similar to rocky. Undefeated heavyweight champ, retired early.
Though I think Tyson would be regarded higher cause of his explosiveness and bad intensions thing he had.
Prob bit more skillful n precise as well.

 

Good post.

I think he'd be a lock for top 3 on most lists. Plenty would consider him the greatest heavyweight H2H ever. I'd say plenty would also find ways to rate him #1 without a defeat. Tho he had no wins over a great many would bypass this via how dominant his wins were. It was huge news when someone went the distance with him.

 

This is where what psychologists call "the hot hand theory" comes into play.

All that people would have seem would be him destroying the best available opposition, so that is all that they would be able to imagine.

It might even be assumed that the title reigns of men like Holyfield and Bowe were an artifact of Tyson's retirement, and that he would almost certainly have reigned for a few more years.

Nobody would have given Evander Holyfield much chance against him, citing that he was too small and not elusive enough, and nobody would even bother to ask whether Douglass could have beaten him.

More astute observers would point out that his game was slipping in his last two fights, and that he always had a couple of limitations that the right fighter could have exploited, but nobody would listen to them.

 

Not at all.

Losing to Douglas, Holyfield and later Lewis didn't enrich Tyson 's standing. The Ruddock fights were decent wins.
If Tyson retires Undefeated Heavyweight Champion he would have been in the rare air with Louis and Ali. Maybe a half notch below.

 

thats half a career, not really top ten atg.

a little less than as if he hadnt retired.


but it does make you think twice about why marciano is top five atg, if mikey doing more in 37-0, wouldnt be.


its a practical impossibility anyway, no man retires in their twenties with promises of more riches on the door. You can ask the same of all ATGs before their defeats, and that makes you realise a defeat or two isnt an issue, whats more important is staying power.

 

Oh it definitely does. Someone who took the big fights and lost them ranks much higher than someone who didn't take them at all, or in this scenario, wouldn't have had the chance to take them of the retirement was forced at 37-0. Being in big fights weighs very heavily in gaining a legacy and having a great record.

Otherwise, you going to be ranking Deontay Wilder on Tyson's level right now? He's unbeaten but hasn't got them Holyfield, Lewis etc fights behind him, the major difference (in terms of their records).