Who are the 10 with the better resume? Marciano? No! Demsey? No! Wlad? No! Vitali? No! Holmes? No! Liston? No! Louis? No! .............
Tyson's prime didn't last long, but it's made up for with his activity level. Prior to his incarceration, he compiled a 41-1-0 (36 KOs) record over the course of just seven years. You can cite the lack of greats all day long, but the blame certainly doesn't fall on Tyson, who was fighting the best opposition available to him. Need proof? Here's the rating of several fighters he fought during his prime at the time he fought them, not including himself obviously: Trevor Berbick (31-4, #1), Bonecrusher Smith (19-5, #1), Pinklon Thomas (29-1, #1), Tony Tucker (34-0, #1), Tyrell Biggs (15-0, #8 ), Michael Spinks (31-0, Lineal claimant), Carl Williams (22-2, #2), James Douglas (29-4, #7), Razor Ruddock x2 (25-1, #1). He also took care of Frank Bruno (32-2) as a mandatory, who had been and would again be a top-rated heavyweight and future titlist, beat the hell out of Tubbs (24-1) inside two for a large payday in Tokyo, who'd give prime Riddick Bowe all sorts of a fight long afterwards; Alex Stewart (26-1) inside of a round, whom was never on the canvas against Holyfield (and would go the distance with in a second fight) and lost a close decision to Foreman afterwards. People continually bring up Spinks the LHW and Holmes the washed up ATG and refuse to acknowledge a few key points here. Spinks beat an undefeated Larry Holmes at Heavyweight convincingly the first go-round, who while no longer prime, was again: undefeated. He's not exactly John Ruiz, folks. Second, it was at the time an absolute public demand that Tyson fight Spinks and The RING had recognized him as the Top Heavyweight until Tyson beat him. A good number of people in and around boxing actually gave him a fair chance to win the damn fight. To see his performance ravaged by revisionist historians is pretty dispicable. As far as Holmes, there is quite a lot made about his 21-month lay off between Spinks II and Tyson. He didn't willingly retire so much as he was basically forced into it, partly by his own hand with the comments he made. There's little doubt he won and was screwed out of the Spinks re-match and it left a bitter taste in his mouth. Perhaps the case for it being a worthless win would have credibility if Holmes hadn't decided to come back four years later at 42 and put a schooling on Ray Mercer to EARN himself a title shot against Holyfield, whom he won several rounds against and went the distance with, ditto for Oliver McCall at the age of 44. Nobody stopped or KO'ed Larry Holmes before or after, much less within four rounds. Don't think there's ever been a 215-220 lb fighter more coordinated or who moved so fluidly. He was not up against men of much more similar physical dimensions as the lower weights and he was never going to be able to put on back-foot boxing clinics against world-rated heavyweights. That's only a recipe for defeat and runs the risk of possibly getting himself KTFO in that division. He was cursed to be a come-forward, aggressive natured fighter. It was obviously not a philosophy of his to use his face as a mode of defense and he often effectively jabbed his way in, slipped and countered shots to near perfection, used a variety of angles and planes of movement to create openings, simultaneously able to shuffle his feet quickly into position to gain full leverage on his combinations to the body and head. His defense I do believe was slightly overstated, if energy wasting and used as a tool to get himself into his mid-range sweet spot but it's hard to argue it's effectiveness up through his first 35-37 fights over which he cleaned out most of the division. I think Mike's aggressive style, work rate, effective defense, good chin and lightning quick hands make him just as adept to taking wide points decisions as the next guy and it happened on a few ocassions. He was the P4P #1 fighter in his time for a reason.
I think you can rate Tyson as high as the 5-6 area. I'd personally be against it, but as long as the right people are ahead of him (Lewis and Holyfield) I can accept why they have him that highly.
It's seriously laughable to not have him top 10. Name 10 more dominant champions that beat better opposition!! Apart from the early 70s and the early 90s the heavyweight division has predomantly had 1 leading fighter with a whole load of 'contenders' Tyson was a phenomenon that EVERYBODY had in their top 10 of all time in 1989. Just because he became a figure of that figher doesn't affect his place in history. Since Ali there was never as much focus on a HW when Tyson wa sin his prime and this was prior to prsion/****/ear biting, so it was solely based on what happend on the ring. If he wasn't that good, why has there been nobody that got that attention since Ali and nobody since Tyson?
Yes, absolutely. Pre Prison legendary reign of terror Saw a 22 year old Mike as the Undefeated, unified, undisputed, and lineal heavyweight champ. Then there is his post prison career. H2H he can be as high as no1. I personally feel people downplay his greatness these days. Wlad top 10? Give me a break
Thanks! :rofl Thanks! Thanks! It's been a while Pretty much. Back then before the internet most of where we got our boxing news was from magazines, newspapers, fight commentary/analysis, documentaries, etc- Thing is back then it was centralized; and therefore opinions shaped the way we viewed certain fighters. More importantly, if you remember during Tyson's reign nobody was calling him mentally weak. That started after his 2nd fight with Evander. Atlas was training a 16 year old insecure kid from Brownsville who hadn't yet come into his own. When he turned pro, he began maturing as a fighter. Incidentally, what fighter doesn't have mental issues? Just because they aren't manifested in the ring it doesn't mean that they aren't there. And yes he was exciting but under what criteria is Jack Dempsey considered top 10, but Mike Tyson is not? Tyson's wins Thomas Tucker Spinks Holmes Bruno 2X Ruddock 2X Tubbs Biggs Berbick Botha Smith Williams Seldon Golota* Savarese 15 Names here; 2 lineal Champions, 8 titlists equaling 10 in total Compare the resume's of Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Frazier, Foreman, Holyfield etc How many names can you actually come up with before you get stuck? His era wasn't weak, it was an era of stylists which are often under appreciated; Lewis got the benefit of the doubt because he beat lots of punchers. When you examine his actual reign it was from 1999 until 2003; 4 years. Tyson's era was 1986 until 1990; when you consider the the fact that it was mostly blemish free and consisted not just beating the champions and unifying the belts individually but by beating the guys that those guys beat get the titles in the first place it becomes hard to discredit what he did simply because it was unprecedented.