If we aren't using star status as criteria, then we'll use Ability, Resume, Dominance, Longevity instead. Ability: Possessed some of the fastest hands you'll ever see on a Heavyweight, and in addition, made a name for himself by knocking out the majority of contenders. Trevor Berbick was blasted away, as was Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks. His one punch power was never in question, but with the capacity to throw in fast varied combinations, Tyson proved himself to be a knockout artist with technique and flair. Brilliant head movement, at his peak, could sustain effective aggression for long periods, and took a great shot throughout his whole career. Resume: From when Tyson became the youngest Heavyweight champion in history by stopping Trevor Berbick, Mike went on to fight the who's who of the division. Spinks, Holmes, Tucker, Biggs, and Bruno were all overcome and the vast majority of them were halted before the 12 rounds were over. That being said, the division wasn't stacked with talent at the time, and there's a genuine arguement that Tyson never beat a great prime Heavyweight in his career. Holyfield and Lewis, the other two standout Heavy's of the 90s, both toppled Tyson, albeit faded versions. Dominance: Tyson was about as dominant as a champion could be. Beating all of the contenders to his throne, knocking most of them out, Mike was being hailed as the most destructive Heavyweight Boxer since George Foreman and with good reason. Spinks, a champion in his own right, was blown away in a matter of seconds when he entered the ring with Tyson, a previously undefeated two weight world champion who had beaten Holmes twice. The breaks would eventually come off, but from 1984 to 1990, Tyson was a wrecking machine. Longevity: Tyson was around for a long time, spanning three decades, but these weren't three decades of dominance by any means. After his initial loss to Douglas in 1990 he'd regain the title, but he was never the same after being given tough, rugged fights by respected hitter Donovan Ruddock, and eventually came undone against Holyfield and Lewis. There was controversy spewing from every corner: the **** conviction, the biting of Evander's ear, and the massive press-conference brawl ahead of his showdown with Lennox Lewis. I think there are more fighters who beat better fighters than Tyson did, who achieved more, who were more complete, and proved it over a much longer period of time. I don't have a list but I'm not a believer in Tyson being anywhere near a top 50. Maybe outside the top 100, even. What are your thoughts?
Well...shitttt... If you come on here going off topic about anything else I'd shoot you down but damn right you'd hit it, she's a goddess. A true specimen.
Man Addie how could anyone not put Tyson in the top 100:huh Quit being nitpicking the mans resume and watch him fight. Not too many fighters have ever possessed a combination of speed,power,ferociousness as this man. In fact no heavyweight ever has. Yey a few had his power and ferouciousness but not his speed, or no matter how you look at it no one had a combo of all 3.( yey a few will mention Dempsey but not like Tyson) Tysons resume isnt as great as others but on ability,dominance alone he is 7 on my all time Heavyweight list, and a top 50 atg.:yep
He's an all-time great on the "what coulda/shoulda been" list been realistically he's in my top 10 all-time HW list regardless.
I will give Mike an A in ability in 1985-1988. Head movement and hand speed and anticipation. Resume? I give Mike a B.. He fought good guys but did not fight Witherspoon who I thought was the toughest opponent for him and could have beaten him. Mike did not have that other great fighter to test him. Dominance Mike gets a A. In his prime we are talking. He beat all the contenders of the 1980's with the exception of Witherspoon like Tubbs,Thomas,Tucker,Bonecrusher,Biggs,Berbick,Spinks, Holmes ,Williams. A good list and he dominated them. Longevity B- or C+. Had he just focused more on boxing he could have stayed champion until Bowe or Lennox took over and the big heavyweights became more the norm.
I have Tyson at 9 sandwiched between Foreman at 8 and Ez Charles at 10 (correction to earlier post - thought I had Ez at 12 but he's number 10 definately) PS in agreement on Winona Ryder too - and Anarci who is the babe on your avatar - she could go a few close rounds with Winona - would probably try to get a ringside seat for that :heyshock:
Ability: Extraordinary combination of speed and power, with subtle technical skills, a good defence with that peek-a-boo stance and bob & weave movement, and a good chin to back it up. H2H, he is tough for anybody. However I do feel that his foot speed is somewhat over-rated in conjunction to his hand-speed, although he's still pretty nifty on his feet. And I do feel he can be out-boxed (Ali) or taken out of his rhythm, frustrated, roughed-up and then out-boxed (Holyfield), even in his prime. Resume: His resumé is one of the things that let's him down. In terms of achievement, it's outstanding being he unified the heavyweight championships all by himself to become undisputed, and the youngest champion ever at that. However, it's a resumé full of B level wins. Even the top names such as Holmes and Spinks aren't A level in my opinion. Holmes was past his best and Spinks, while an ATG light-heavyweight, was merely a 'good' HW in my eyes. Dominance: His dominance was there for all to see, but short-lived. He cleaned out the division early and put in some very dominant performances, but it lasted only around 2 years from the time he become the undisputed heavyweight champion. 6 defences of his crown is okay, but it should of been a lot more. And his dominance is pale in comparison to the likes of Louis and Ali, but probably around the level of Lewis' when all is said and done. Longevity: Poor. He had about 4 years in the 80's where he was operating at top-level, and a couple of years in the 90's. That's it, nothing more to say. He was around for a long time, but for a lot of that time he did nothing. ATG Heavyweight Ranking: 11-14 ATG P4P Ranking: I'd imagine outside the top 100.
Elaborate. The main criteria when discussing fighters comes in this order for me. Resume, Ability, Longevity. As others have already mentioned, Tyson had maybe 4-5 years at the very top of the tree, and he's lacking one real great win over a great prime Heavyweight. I don't think it's out of the question to cut him out of a top 100. What are your thoughts?
His accomplishments speak for themselves. The youngest champion which you mentioned, the last to unify all three titles separately. Argueably the most dominant heavyweight champion in history. His wins over former greats Spinks and Holmes are often downplayed by Tyson's dominant destructive wins. Same goes for his competition. How do you define longevity, years or fights? Over the course of four,five years he cleaned out the entire division, unified the titles and was 36-0 before his first loss, which equates to about 12-15 years of his fellow greats fighting careers.
It equates to exactly what it was, 4-5 years of dominance against subpar opposition, has-beens, and a Light Heavyweight. Nobody is denying his accomplishments at unifying, becoming the youngest world champion ever, but the only true measure of a fighter's greatness, in my opinion, is how he rubs up against fellow great fighters. He never did that and come out on the winning end, and that holds him back for me.