Mike Tyson, Top Ten Worthy?

Ruddock was good.

 

Monte wrote a good article:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/tyson.html

 

Joe Louis was old when marciano beat him, archie moore and ezzard charles were not heavyweights and walcott was old too. Mike Tyson would go 49-0 against the same comp that rocky fought. Ezzard and Archie would get ko'd by tyson.

 

I have no problem with him being on the lower end of the top ten, or just outside it.

 

As a matter of fact, Larry Holmes did beat many of the same guys Tyson did, yet many people were critical of him and his quality of opposition during his heyday.

Taking this a step further, I've never seen a fighter so thoroughly embarrassed the way Tyson was by Douglas while smack dab in his prime, and yet be totally "forgiven" for it, without even proving he could avenge it. Would Marciano get the same treatment if he had been whupped by Cockell, or Ali if he had been whupped by Mildenberger, or so on?

 

Tyson never fought Lewis in a meaningful match.

And Tyson's opposition is arguably better than Lewis' and Holmes', but yet they are both usually considered easy Top Ten All-Timers.

 

Tyson didn't duck anyone during his first championship reign the way Holmes did. Tyson fought all the contenders around worth fighting. He unified the heavyweight title within, what, a year after he beat Berbick. Holmes didn't do that. Tyson beat the best available comp around at that time (1987-1989); Holmes didn't do that. Also, Tyson won the freakin' heavyweight title (WBC) when he was 20-years-old; that was a special, herculean achievement, even though Berbick was ordinary, he was till way more experienced than Tyson and very durable and strong. And don't forget Tyson regained the heavyweight title after 3-years of inactivity, against a good, capable fighter in Frank Bruno.

Tyson should definitely be in the top ten.

 

I think you are seriously undermining the quality of the opponents that Tyson fought. Its probable that you are unaware of any of the fighters that Tyson fought other than their night with Mike Tyson.

If you really examine other ATGs and their wins as Champ; then you can scrutinize and find ways to undermine other accomplishments as well.

Marciano won 6 times and only beat 4 fighters as champion. Tyson beating Michael Spinks was a better win than Marciano beating Charles. The Walcott who faced Rocky was no better than the Pinklon Thomas who faced Mike Tyson.

George Foreman's body of work has very little depth. He has some signature wins which are great but his overall body of work is pretty shallow compared to Tyson. Try it yourself take the top 15 names of Tyson's resume and compare them to the top 15 NAMES on Foreman's resume.

Jack Dempsey, Average competition, avoided black fighters held the title hostage before losing it to Gene Tunney.

Evander Holyfield, you mentioned "the Bowe's, the Douglas's, the Moorer's, the Tyson's, the Foreman's, the Holmes's.

Well Evander lost 2 out of 3 to Bowe. Douglas is only there because he beat Tyson, otherwise he's a footnote. Tyson beat better fighters before and after he fought Douglas. Evander is 1-1 with Michael Moorer. Tyson beat Holmes far more convingcingly than Evander did.

Holmes's win over Ali isnt noteworthy, I seriously doubt that that any top flight boxer in the past 20 years would have had trouble with the Ali that fought Larry. Norton was no better than Ruddock and also if you are going to undermine Tyson's opponents by calling them inconsistent don't include Ray Mercer, who is as inconsistent as they come.

There is really so much to type but I'm not even sure where to begin with this.

Anyway to answer the thread. Yes Mike Tyson is definately top 10 worthy.

 

The Joe Louis that Marciano beat was no better than the Larry Holmes that Tyson beat.

You can't fault Tyson for Michael Spinks perceived fear of him. The fact is that he was an undefeated LHW Champ turned HW Champion. He didnt participate in the HBO because he was weighing his options and he didnt want to be mandated to participating. He wanted big money fights. He was a pretty solid win.

Thomas, Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Biggs, Ruddock, Bruno were all top names when he beat them. They were either title holders or former titleholders and they were the best fighters that division had to offer.

 

So what if spinks was scared shitless? He was undefeated and the linear champ, joe louis would retire after tha marciano loss cuz he was old. Ezzard Charles had many losses between 1951-1954, hardly the same guy as the fighter from the 1940's. Its funny that walcott all of a sudden becomes an elite name when he was a journeyman for most of his career.

All you are doing is looking at names anyways. Niether of those guys are ATGs at heavyweight, they were light heavies and over the age of 37.

Tyson fought ranked heavyweight contenders one after another, as a matter of fact, hes beaten nearly twice as many ranked fighters as Marciano has. Tyson doesn't lose to an aging joe louis and two light heavyweights, rocky's 49-0 is so overrated. At least 35 of those fights were against unranked nobodies.

Spinks was coming of a KO win over Cooney and he was supposed to lose that fight. Larry Holmes was coming off two very close fights with spinks and some believe he won that fight. He never took any serious beatings prior to fighting tyson. Praising Rocky's wins over old guys and then downplaying Tyson's wins over his atgs his laughable and completely biased.

 

He was inactive for a year and half, not 3 years and he arguably won that fight against spinks. Eddie machen and Oscar Bonavena were not the most consistent fighters in thier careers, they would have dropped decisions here and there. Tony Tubbs was an excellent slick boxer, hes the type that would have given someone like Foreman problems, not saying he necessarily wins, but slick boxers always gave foreman hell.