Mike Tyson

I'm biased, but I always have difficulty making p4p lists because I feel no division is at a bigger disadvantage than heavyweight in regards to it. The Heavyweight Championship is historically the biggest prize not only in boxing, but sports in general. There is no divisions to climb and conquer. They're already at the top of the heap. So how many countless fighters I "rank" above Sonny Liston, George Foreman or Mike Tyson, et al., by no means do I consider them "better fighters" and on some reality ish, m2m it's manslaughter.

 

Agreed, P4P can be tricky & difficult. At the same time, The Ring I believe had Mike P4P #1 in 1988. But overall I think what you say is true.

At the same time to be contrary, most consider the HW division to be one of the weaker divisions in boxing historically. It's also a tough thing to evaluate. There's a decent reason why bigger guys are far less skilled, or appeal less talented & skilled (After all, they're bigger). At the same time, that reason could exist because they don't quite need to rely on their skills as much because power is more of a game-changer at HW than any other division. So it's different in a sense. It's weird when people criticize the HWs historically because it's the most prized possession in boxing (And in sports at one point). And that top of the heap makes it such a desire to be not just champion but HW champ. So to think it's a historically weak division seems odd, when understanding the importance of the HW prize-fighting in boxing.

 

...

 

Good points and I agree with most of it.

 

Because boxing doesnt work that way. People on this forum always say Tyson fans come up with excuses for Tyson, but then go on to give excuses why Douglas was never as good as he was against Tyson. There's plenty of them in this thread. It works both ways, but consistency tells the real tale, and Douglas was consistently inconsistent and mediocre his entire career, and Tyson wasnt. Whats more of a horse**** excuse anyway, Douglas could only put it together for one fight in his entire career or Tyson blew off the fight and didnt take it seriously?

Tyson's lack of dedication to boxing around the time of this fight was well documented, its just noone felt Douglas would still be good enough to beat him. Douglas fought an inspired fight, but Tyson's lack of preparation and focus was a big reason for his success.

 

Everyone underrates Tokyo Douglas because of his none effort against Holyfield and his prior losses. It was a master class performance in every sense, even if Tyson wasn't 100%. That Douglas was a top8 H2H of all time as far as I'm concerned

IMO he was on top against Tucker and if it was the version that showed up against Tyson he'd have beat Tucker and I think Tucker was Tyson's best win ability wise

 

Tucker had the stellar record, but he didnt have the accomplishments of of many of the other guys Tyson faced. Who knows what Tuckers record would have looked like if he had the same resume of a Tony Tubbs for example, or Pinklon Thomas or Trevor Berbick. Tucker was a very good win for Tyson, but to say he was the best skilled fighter Tyson faced is a stretch, based a lot on the fact that Tucker made it the distance.

 

So, it seems you agree that Mike had three to four great years.

How many did Dempsey have? Was he one of the greatest of all time?