Mike Tyson

if one were to judge a fighter simply by the level of excellence he managed at his peak.....and not take into account his overall ring career, then i rate tyson as the best heavyweight in history. using that format my top 5 would be;

tyson
foreman
ali
smokin joe
louis

 

Like I've said, I'd probably have him inside the top 15 HWs of all-time, maybe just outside the top 10, and certainly in the top 20, so I'm not saying he wasn't great at all.
I also said I can understand him being as high as number 7 or 8.
I don't force my own lists on other people.
I don't make a case that "he wasn't that great" unless of course "that great" means alongside the top 5 Hws, or guys like Ali and Louis.
By those standards, Tyson clearly fell short.

 

I'd probably rate Tyson above Lennox Lewis. I'd rate Holyfield above them both, but not necessarily by much.

You're the hipster. You hate Dempsey, probably because of your strong aversion to mainstream popularity and received wisdom. You 'know better' than the whole world of common everyday boxing fans and reporters. Isn't that what you call 'hipster' ?

 

First lesson in boxing... to go the distance means hearing the final bell. A novice that dont know what going the distance means must be craving dickhead! Your boy was a coward in the most cowardly way, He couldn't wait to the end of the round to quit, he wanted out of that ring immediately! If the tinman would have been at little bighorn,you can bet your ass we would of had one survivor. Born a coward, die a coward.

 

Im a Tyson fan and (controversially) I believe he was still in his prime up until the First Ruddock fight, second fight onwards, it was all downhill.

He was in his prime against Douglas, but not at his PEAK.

Big difference between Prime and Peak IMO

 

Tyson fell about 6 minutes short, because Holyfield had him TKO'd early in round 11.
And almost had him out of there at the end of the 10th.

Also, there's a serious difference between going the distance and getting beaten up for 10 round and then brutally stopped.

 

Precisely why I rate Tyson lower than 3 of the 4 men who you listed, but not the 4th which is Dempsey. The difference between Tyson, those other three men and Dempsey, is that Tyson, Marciano, Louis and Ali never sat on the crown for three years, avoided their best challengers or suffered early career losses to journeyman, regardless of being works in progress..

He had over 30 professional fights was in his early 20's, barely two years away from capturing the crown, yet got knocked out in only one round by a man who had lost a third of his fights... Nothing like this ever happened to Mike Tyson at ANY stage of his career, let alone when being so close to prime...

Actually, Dempsey's record against Meehan was 1-2-2. Again, no fighter ever compiled a record like this against Tyson and certainly not one of Meehan's calibur, and definitely not at or near prime...

Common....If Tyson had fought say, James Broad in a series of 4 round fights like the series that Dempsey had with Meehan and came up with the same record, not only would you have counted it against him, you'd likely have defined his entire career based upon it..

Tyson came back after 4 years of inactivity to capture two thirds of the heavyweight crown, and the only person who put him on the deck during that period was an all time great, and not a fighter of Luis Firpo's calibur. Incidentally, tyson has the claim to being the youngest heavyweight champion of all time, a repeat titlist, no early career losses to journeyman level fighters, and a grand total of 13 wins in world title fights when combining both of his careers. Dempsey has virtually no records to boast, except at one point having the most first round KO's, but most of those came against tomato cans with 0-1 records.

You're entitled to your opinion just as we all are, but I seriously think that you need to go back and re-evaluate your rating.. Having Tyson outside the top 10 is very much against the norm, and placing him as low as 18 is discrediting to the individual who suggests it.

 

I again challenge anyone to compare head to head the victims of Dempsey from 1917 to 1920 to those of Tyson 1986 to 1989 and pick Dempsey's as being superior.

 

Comparing Tyson to Dempsey is like comparing different worlds, the contrasts of the eras are so huge.
IF Tyson had turned pro in Dempsey's age or circumstances and suffered the same set-backs against guys like Meehan or Flynn or even James Broad or whoever, then I'd absolutely NOT say his career is defined at all by such setbacks.
Hey, even if Tyson had lost a decision to Hector Mercedes or Larry Sims, or even James Tillis, I would not be making any huge deal out of it,. Hopkins lost his first pro fight, Hagler lost fights on the way up, Monzon did too, in easier times than Dempsey's I would guess.
And that was a Mike Tyson of 1985 with the highly-managed financed career and years of intense preparation and D'amato and Cayton and Jacobs behind him. I wouldn't begrudge any fighter a learning curve.
If Tyson had lost a 4-round pro fight in early '85 or '86 to Henry Tillman, I wouldn't say much about it. Clearly an almost meaningless result.

Meehan IS a blemish on the Dempsey record, obviously was a stylistic nightmare but it's but nothing massively damaging. At least one of the draws and one of the losses were considered close or controversial anyway.

Call me old-fashioned, but I happen to believe big championship fights over championship distances in a fighter's prime ARE where the stakes are highest, legacy wise.
Tyson's loss to Douglas is therefore more significant that a hypothetical 4-round loss to James Broad, or Dempsey's losses to Meehan OR Flynn.
I don't think Tyson's loss to Douglas defines his whole career but it certainly ought to knock a fair bit of the gloss off his former reputation, which I feel was partly based on his potential anyway.

Having Tyson outside the top 10 all-time great HWs is not really well against the grain. I see him placed around 12 - 15 on several lists.
I think most honest judges here could easily reel off ten names that they wouldn't be too upset with seeing above Tyson.
All these extreme statements by people on ESB that go like, "I rate X fighter at number 8 or 9 all-time. Anyone who has him outside the top 10 is an *******" are ridiiculous.

 

Arguing the toss over whether Bill Brennan and Fred Fulton are better or worse than Tony Tucker and Carl Williams is likely to be a tedious enterprise. And there's unlikely to be much agreement when it's all over.

But why stop at 1989 and 1920 anyway ?
Both guys had significant results (wins/losses) after those dates.

 

I don't think it's all that controversial. Tyson was easily in his physical prime through 1991. How he trains or conditions himself for a particularly fight is another matter. It's fair to say his skills started to erode immediately after cutting ties with Rooney, but he still threw vicious combos and had his hand speed. 1991 Tyson has the stuff to reclaim his title against Evander Holyfield IMO.

 

Because I believe those were their prime years. I am open to discussion that they were not. I just don't think a fighter's prime, especially given their respective styles, lasts much longer than a few years.

 

agree

 

It seems a bit convenient that Tyson's prime ends a matter of months or weeks before he gets beaten up and KO'd by Douglas.

 

I think Tyson was capable of beating Douglas in a rematch. People tend to overate Douglas, but I think if Tyson was focused and trained hard, even with Snowell and Bright he could have beaten Douglas in a rematch.

I dont think he could have beaten Holyfield again in 96, he was not capable of fighting a long tough fight which Holyfield was always going to bring. He was no longer a savvy veteran, and Holyfield basically pulled a lot of "old pro" tricks on him, tricks that Tyson knew about and was capable of handling in the past.