Rating Tyson ..

Totally agree.
He made decent fighters look poor.
I'm the same age as him so his era was ' live' to me and he was seen as a freak, his name synonymous with terror and superiority.
Even now if someone of my generation saw someone with an injury to their face they would probably say " you look like you've been a few rounds with Tyson" his name was a byword for fighting and fear.
When opponents made it through the first round or two you were almost shocked ( at the time).
86-9 he was awesome and you couldn't confidently take anyone in history to beat that version of him.

 

I think many posters have made a good point: people insist on separating tysons 2 careers wether its for or against him. I think if we're comparing peak vs peak, thats fine. But if we're talking "ALL TIME" ranking its ridiculous to ignore everything that happened after prison. Its like cherry picking an actors best movies or an athletes championship performances (while ignoring any bad seasons).

It certainly changes the discussion if were looking at tysons entire career. After all, we do the same thing for ali, lewis, klitchko, etc.

 

I think Lennox's is deeper

 

I think one of his best wins/ performances was against Ty Biggs. Unbeaten and Olympic winner. Tyson showed all his skills that night.
I can't fathom this talk of Tyson's first reign being short. He was way ahead of anyone in his profession for 3 and a half years and what was it ? Around ten title fights wins, way more than the likes of peak Foreman Frazier etc . That's not a bad record for someone who's career was short ? Yes it doesn't matchup to Ali Louis etc, but nobody pushing Mike's case would ever say it did.
He didn't get punched around the ring or get embarrassed and exposed in just his 3rd or 4th defence like a Frazier or a Foreman or even a Liston, he didn't get out of shape like a Bowe or suffer a flash knockout like a Lewis.
The fact that all these things happened to those guys show how hard it is to be dominant even for as long as Tyson 1 was.
Love him or hate him ( and I'm neither) I'm just looking at facts, His life away from the ring was what finished Tyson 1 , just as health and a lack of his original dedication finished Frazier . Sustaining a life as a champion fighter is a hell of a task.
If I had to sum him up I would say he was the most dominant and least vulnerable champ at his peak , in my lifetime.

 

I couldn't agree with Biggs being one of his best wins. Showing your skills against a 14-fight pro contender, with a past (and some felt still present) coke habit, who had neither beaten a ring ranked contender nor gone past 10 rounds is nothing to write home about.

It depends how you want to look at it. He was prolific and it was clear he was being groomed for unification and so his fights were being lined up one after the other, with ease. His undisputed reign lasted from, '87 - '90; two and a half years (I'm not too concerned with the Lineal aspect of his reign - that's a label overshadowed, in this case, as I far as I see it). He was 23 when he lost to Douglas, after which he went flat and never seemed to recapture the same form.

So, it's no mystery to me why his reign is considered short, when discussions of Greatness arise. And, this is what this thread is discussing - his All Time status.

Was Tyson really that far ahead of anyone in his profession and, if so, was that more to do with the timing of his arrival on the heavyweight scene than him being untouchable? I suppose that's a matter of opinion. But, his equals (and probably betters) were fast approaching and, had he not run into the criminal problems that he did, Tyson would have found himself needing to face the Holyfield's, Bowe's and Lewis's; not to mention a crop of other strong heavyweights, arising in the '90s.

Tyson wasn't facing an Ali or a Foreman or a Frazier in any of his defenses, either. The fact the 70s heavyweights encountered difficulties were, amongst other things, due to them being around at the same time. Had Tyson been trying to achieve the same dominance in the '90s, I doubt he'd have made it.

Moreover, whilst Tyson might not have struggled in his dominance, during his initial incarnation as champion, he was getting taken apart in his prime by an opponent like Douglas, who was given no hope. His Post-Prison career saw him rely heavily on the Tyson brand; rather than performances and results. His dominance is squarely rooted to that short timeframe in the '80s.

I'm looking at the facts too, in the light of how Tyson might be viewed as an ATG Heavyweight and one fact that remains is, at 23 years old, his dominance was over. He would soon be having to contend with some very serious up-and-comers in the division, which I doubt would have seen him dominate again, anyway.

As it stands and for whatever reason, he was unable to re-establish his incarnation of Dread with quite the same level of credibility, even while he was still a relatively young man. His self-destructive nature is ultimately his responsibility and, however much one wants to place the blame for his demise on this, it still counts against him when rating him All Time.

 

Good post. I have Tyson outside my top ten. Where you place Tyson greatly impacts Holyfield.

Holyfield was 2-0 vs Tyson, but just 1-4 vs Lewis and Bowe on fair score cards and just 2-2-1 vs Moorer and Ruiz.

 

Tyson had a unique advantage over any heavyweight champion, as Cus D'Amato a legendary trainer and manager adopted him when his mother passed. Not only was D'amato's one of the greats, his preferred training style meshed very well with Tyson's physical stature and gifts.

D'Amato taught Tyson the mental side of the game, including how to overcome fear.

 

At his peak he was great. I'll take a peak Tyson over a peak Holy and a peak Lewis.

 

Why? He beat better guys than Ruddock did in the 90's and he soundly beat Ruddock himself two times. Ruddock landed some good punches, but all in all those two fights were beat downs.

 

I can definitely see a case for Tyson being ranked ahead of Frazier and Foreman. The opposite also being true, though.

The fact is that it's tough to rank a host of fighters that come after Ali and Louis. Well, Holmes is probably a bit ahead of the rest of the pack.

 

Riddick Bowe, not Ruddock.

 

My bad. That certainly makes a lot more sense.

A 90's close to what Bowe had plus the 80's Tyson had is a very good career.

 

Completely agree. If we're talking legacy or even h2h, if u want to compare him to his peers; the bottom line is you either only look at BOTH fighters' primes or their ENTIRE careers. No more cherry picking the best moments of tysons career to prove he's better than another fighter while scathingly reviewing the other fighter's entire career.

 

I think a fighter's career mainly should be judged on his best years. Often that is a period of about five to seven years. For Tyson that would be ca 86-91. During that time he has, mostly dominating, wins over Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Tucker, Tubbs, Holmes, Biggs, Spinks, Williams, Bruno, Stewart and Ruddock x 2. Not all those were in their prime, but that's a very good list nonetheless. And only a single loss during this time, but it was a bad one.

A comparison to, say, Marciano or Frazier isn't all that easy. Rocky probably didn't have as many quality wins, but he also didn't have any losses. Frazier also has fewer quality wins and some losses, one pretty bad, but he has THAT win. So personally, I don't really know what to make of that.