Rating Tyson ..

I completely disagree that the entire arc of a career must be judged. Within reason yes but then we have guys that retired at better times than others being unfairly advantaged. Guys like say Monzon never showed us what they looked like well past it where as hundreds of others did. It would be silly to hold Ali's fights against Holmes and Berbick against him and likewise many of SRR's along withthousands of others.

The good thing is most don't. SRR is top of the tree for many, Ali top of the heavyweight tree for many, etc etc. You can always smell bias via people trying to make too much of a certain fighters losses or performances way past his best.

Tyson can be tough to rate because of his imprisonment. Just when he was showing us what sort of intestinal fortitude he had he was gone. His four fights post Douglas were a good start and the true tests were about to begin. It's a shame such a dominant champion wasn't given an immediate rematch but them's the breaks i guess.

What he did in 3 years was quite immense. Nine defenses from his first crown forward including two unification's within three fights to gain all the Tupperware and later a complete decimation of the lineal champ. Most were absolutely thrashed in a 3 year reign of terror.

If we compare to say, Frazier, then Joe had 9 defenses before the Foreman loss as well. Joe also collected the other title as well as the lineal crown three wins prior to his loss like Tyson. He has that win but there is also the stigma of potentially not reigning at all if Ali wasn't exiled or splitting fights earlier and having his reign shortened. We are talking about the GOAT admittedly tho. Frazier too was quite dominant before Foreman. Frazier lost to a far better man and has a better single win.

Joe had a couple of good wins post Foreman like Tyson did pre prison. If Joe fought on like Tyson did he would have had some not overly handsome losses.

I think the weight of what Tyson did in his 3 year 9 defense run gets him in the top 10 personally. He was so dominant.

He has negatives too obviously. Last time i did a top 10 Heavyweight list Tyson came in at #7. At first i had him closer to the bottom but he slipped up a little. I'd find it very hard to argue a top 5 spot tho and could easily drop him to #9 or #10.

To be honest once you get past Ali/Louis at one and two it's a lottery as to how you rate them. For me Marciano earns a top 5 spot. You can have the likes of Holmes, Lewis and Foreman anywhere from 3-10 and make a decent claim imo. It's very tough to really nail down the likes of Foreman and Holyfield.

 

I've said this before, prime Mike Tyson had the physical ability to be the greatest heavy of all time. great hand and foot speed, and esp when considering his combinations had excellent power . (its easy to look fast when a fighter is mostly slapping AKA D.Wilder, Joshua has improved a little ) Skill level was very good, knock out power in either hand, defensively for a aggressive fighter probably top 3, (Dempsey and Frazier in their primes the other2) good endurance, above average chin, he had a excellent jab when considering his height disadvantages. But great heart, great will ,great determination, the attributes that separate the ATG'S , from the greats and very goods when physical abilities and skill level is about the same is where he falls down the ATG list in my opinion . And their were signs even in the prime of his career that was his Achilles but it was fortunate for him their was no one available at the time who had the ability to push him to that level. So yes I could could easily see him blow out J.Frazier in a hypothetical fight in less than 4 rds. But what if Frazier some how make it to the 5th rd ? What would Tyson do by the 10th rd when Frazier started to "SMOKE"? That biting off both ears of Holyfield and trying to break a fighters arm, and eating kids comment showed me and confirmed to me what I saw in the 80's. Tyson was a very skilled bully. And when the fires get real hot, and when the other fighter saw through the nonsense he would do what a bully does, try to find away to quit. He wouldn't go out on his shield. So against an A master boxer who would't get intimidated like a Ali, or Holmes. Against bigger bully's like a Liston or a Foreman, Or against fighters who were not as physically talented but had miles on him n the heart dept like a Frazier, or Holyfield or against a Louis, Lewis or Marciano, if they happened to land 1st, I can easily see him fold his tent. He is top 15, but certainly not the G.O.A.T

 

Tyson is number 4 behind Ali, Louis, and Foreman. Cleaned out his division by the time he was 21! And came out of prison to be champ. The only IMO fighter you I could see beating him in from 87 to 91 is Ali. He’s the most and the last transcendent HW champ. And that’s done in the ring. H2H is big for me too and I think besides Ali and Forman there is no one in history you would be smart to bet on against prime Tyson (including those that beat him... he would have won Holyfield 2 if he didn’t bite him imo).

 

I'd have Holmes and Lewis above Tyson and Frazier for the simple reason that they never ran into someone that just had their number. Yes, both Tyson and Frazier were past their best for Holy and Foreman, but so was Holy, and Frazier just got so completely dominated by Foreman it's hard to see how it ever could be much different.

Holmes was so far past his best imo when he was taken out by Tyson that I don't hold that loss against him. This isn't exact science by any means, but that is where I end up more or less.

I would have no complaints about Rocky in the top 5, I guess. Wlad had a very dominant prime period of about 10 years and that takes him far in my book. On the other hand, he never beat the outstanding challenger and it will always be a question what to make of his early losses. His losses to Fury and Joshua doesn't really take anything away from his legacy imo. I think he was unfortunate not get a Fury rematch, since he likely would have won. Joshua was a galant losing effort for a 41-year old.

And what do you make of Johnson? Just how good was his run to the title? His seems to have a case for number 3, certainly. I miss Boilermaker here, he was a great student of those times as is McVey.

 

A great fighter at 19 who quickly lost interest and became less than great at 23.

Sorry to anyone this thinks he is not, but a guy with wins over Holmes, Spinks, Berbick, Thomas, Tubbs, Tucker, Smith, Ruddock, and Bruno is great, period. That is just too many greats and champions with assorted styles to not be great.

 

at his best in that small window he could be one of the top 3 in heavyweight boxing history. From 1986-1988.. His style was just so precise that when he got a little lazy or slipped in concentration he was hit a lot more.. But in his prime he was incredible.

 

It is acceptable to fight greats from other weight classes. Joe Louis gets credit for Billy Conn, for example.

The rest of the fighters I mentioned were champions (accept for Ruddock, who was just a notable contender). Note how I said "greats and champions."

 

Holmes never ran into anyone who had his number but he also never ran into tubbs who would have been quicker AND have thrown more punches if in shape, nor did he fight Thomas.

He struggled badly with a green Witherspoon who might have just had his number if he had been given another chance to prove it.

He had a really hard time with Williams also. Again no rematch.


And the saying is that the younger fighter benefits in the rematch of a close fight.


I won't argue with you onLewis. He was nearly perfect

 

Holmes was 33 and 35 for 'Spoon and Williams. Close fights with world class fighters at that age isn't really surprising.

 

Yep that's all fair.
I'm not pro or against the guy.
I think he's fairly judged on balance on here.
His peak came just before the rise to peak of Holyfield Bowe Lewis etc, but Mike did despatch some decent guys . It's easy to say they weren't all that after he had despatched them , Biggs is a good example as is Tucker , but these guys were unbeaten and you never know how good an unbeaten guy is. Also nobody ever did to Holmes what Tyson did. I think that's a pretty good yardstick. Don't fall for the balony that Larry took the fight at short notice, it was mentioned in the press many times in the lead up to the Biggs fight that Holmes was next .
If you lined up Berbick , Bonecrusher, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs,Holmes,Spinks,Bruno,Tubbs, Williams for most heavyweight champs in history , chances are they'd find a defeat in there , whereas Mike didn't.
His lack of longevity is against him.
His sheer dominance at the time was more overwhelming than most champs I remember , which counts for him.
Sure he didn't have to face a Frazier ( peak v peak , Mike does everything better anyway) or a Foreman ( if Lyle and Young can , then peak Tyson certainly can) but Mike beat a decent line of opponents with ease.
Longevity ( Ali or Louis style) NO
Supremity in his time YES , outstandingly.

 

Honestly, I think you have to work hard to exclude him.

I'm not sure you can really do it without being inconsistent (e.g. focusing on his weak resume and not Dempsey's), or using an odd criteria.

I've gone down the path before of focusing on his flaws and underrating him, but honestly, comparing him to other's I think he for sure deserves to be in the top 10.

 

Mike was an all-time great, but his weakness was mental toughness. I think even when Tyson was at his best if other greats like Ali, Holyfield, Marciano (but maybe he would be too small?), and Louis, and some of the huge HW champs of the last 15 years (I don't even know their names) could survive the early rounds, fight back effectively enough to give him something to think about, and take him deep into the fight, that the insecurities he later showed against Douglas and Holyfield would come to the fore. That said, the young Tyson would be tough for any of these fighters to take deep since he dealt out so much punishment early in the fight.

An interesting fight from a mental toughness standpoint would be Tyson and Foreman. They both seemed to have a tendency to let down when the going got really rough.

 

Biggs is not a good example. I wonder how many boxers I could find that were or are currently unbeaten with less than 15 pro bouts under their belt. I don't think its highly unusual. Tucker had had more fights and so we'd seen what kind of level he could fight at (including his potential limitations), against guys like Broad and Douglas.
In general, however, there were no real standouts in Tyson's opposition.

I don't need to fall for any "short notice" story, re Holmes, either. Before the fight, it was pretty obvious Holmes was going to be past it - because he was past it - and had demonstrated just how jaded he was, two years earlier. It's not like Holmes had retired in '85/'86, upon a blaze of glory, leaving a heap of unanswered questions, is it?. And, that's before we consider the lay-off itself.

Your head-to-head summary, e.g. "if Lyle and Young can , then peak Tyson certainly can", is unfortunate. Tyson was in no way comparable to Lyle or Young. In many respects, the comparisons between Frazier and Tyson, whilst understandable, are not a true likeness for likeness - and, to suggest that "Mike does everything better anyway" appears to be a flippant disregard for Frazier's skillset.

Lining up Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Spinks, Bruno, Tubbs, Williams, at the time Tyson fought them, against most of the great heavyweight champs of the past, at their respective peaks, poses interesting scenarios, but not a particularly strong argument. Indeed, it's a whole lot of separate speculations and arguments.

To highlight this, I think an '88 Holmes vs his prime self, of some 9-to-10 years earlier, would get leathered. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't think anyone is disputing Tyson's dominance, during a few years in the late '80s. But, knowing what was coming down the line and, given his loss to Douglas, I think it would be blinkered to not carry a degree of skepticism in regards to Tyson's overall rating; speculative 'Tyson Head-to-Heads' notwithstanding.

 

I agree. A peak Tyson could very well be the GOAT. I mean, one could make a solid, logically sound case for that.

Far as his legacy goes, there are those that i'd rate higher than him on the totem pole, including Holmes and Marciano. Now, had Tyson maintained his focus and desire and say took out a prime Bowe, Holyfield and Lennox Lewis in the early 90s, we'd be worshipping and sacrificing goats to statues of Mike Tyson likeness.