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

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 if 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).

 

Interesting scenario ,that he has to retire due to some kind of accident .And then every single champ that came after him would be compared to Tyson and most found lacking .Holyfield losing to Bowe and moorer and going the distance with Holmes ..phaaa .He'd be destroyed by Tyson. Bowe doesn't stand a chance .Moorer doesn't get past the first .Lewis s Chin would be cracked in minute s. And the K Brothers ..nil chances.
He'd also be seen ,as time goes on ,as the blue print for the perfect fighter .When compared to the old timers only Ali would be given a chance ,no other classic heavyweight would be in with a shot .That's how I feel he'd be viewed at least .

 

Wilder hasn't proven himself the best heavyweight in the world yet, not by a long shot. Tyson unified in no time and proved himself the top dog. Completely different scenario.

 

terry marsh is an exmaple of being in the same position, though not of the same magnitude of course.

noone rates terry above great light welters, though he had profligate early title wins. The most that can be said is that he potentially could have matched the greats had he kept going.


Also would tyson go on to become convicted and go to jail - that might unconsciously reflect on how we view his career success. I know it shouldnt, but him being seen as a rappist in the 90s seriously affected both his own mental health, and the view others took of him.

 

This is what I think would happen...

Holyfield: People would say Tyson would knock him out very quickly because he was too small and aggressive. The wrong style to fight Tyson. Similar to how Tyson blew Spinks away, people would think the same would happen to Holyfield.

Bowe: Tyson would have also blown him away due to his aggressive nature and he's a bigger target than Holyfield. Maybe fans would think because of his size he could hold on a bit better, but Bowe didn't have a defensive nature so it is quite unlikely.

Lewis: He would maybe cause Tyson a bit more trouble with his skill as well as his size, he knew how to use his size. But in the end the result would be the same, people would say Lewis' chin could not hold up to a Tyson barrage.

 

I think this is exactly what people would have said.

Some might have added that Lewis could have outlasted him, due to his style being better suited for longevity, but even they would envisage Lewis being the Jersey Joe Walcott figure to Tyson's Louis.

 

This covers it nicely.

I do think some might question his level of opposition. But, with his rate of dispatch and the Hot Hand Phenomenon running rampant, the considerable majority would not be able to think past the aura of invincibility and dismiss any such criticism.

The answers to open questions on how he would have fared against Boxer A, B and C would have all been steeped in the legend he'd forged, as a result.

 

This thread reminds me of the Whitey Bimstein quote: 'Show me an undefeated fighter and I'll show you a guy who's never fought anybody'.

 

The questions of " But who did he fight". Would dominate his career. With only one ATG on his resume a past prime Holmes

 

There were not too many undefeated heavyweight champions, still fewer who were as intimidating and so dominant. He would have been considered among the elite and spoken of by some in hushed tones of respect. Of course, there would be those who would have classed him with Ali and there would have been endless speculation as to who would have won.....and there wouldn't have been a Douglas-Tyson to use as a frame of reference. It would look pretty good for Tyson.

 

The people would see Holmes beat Ray Mercer, and last the distance against Holyfield, and it would be held up as further evidence that the 90s champions were not in Tyson's class!

 

I didn't see it from that angle, your absolutely right.

 

I think the style of his wins would override the 'who did he beat' questions. Most unbeaten types in sport get the ' who have they beaten' questions..happens in other sports also, Tyson was seen as a freak of nature.

 

I agree with you. Sometimes it's not who you beat, but how you beat them. If he struggled with 2nd or 3rd tier opponents a question can be asked. But he normally destroyed that type of competition.

 

This is true.