What is your ranking of Mike Tyson?

Ruddock is one of the more under rated fighters here. Not a great fighter, he was nonetheless the definition of a dangerous one.
In the few years prior to his fights with Tyson after the asthma attack against Jaco, his record was something like 16-0 with 15 knockouts with 3 wins over former champs in Dokes, Smith, and Weaver.

His power/recuperative ability made him an incredibly dangerous opponent, but one that's vulnerable as well as shown against Smith early on due to carelessness.

The fact that he came so close to beating Morrison in the condition that he was in speaks to how good he was at his best.

 

for what it's worth, here is my list today (no active fighers... including Holyfield... and Botha):

1: Louis
2: Ali
3: Holmes
4: Lewis
5: Tyson
6: Marciano
7: Foreman
8: Jeffries
9: Dempsey
10: Liston

on the cusp... Frazier, Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, Jersey Joe Walcott...

 

What is your criteria? Why Jeffries so high? Didn't know you thought so much of Liston. How is Dempsey ranked above Frazier? Frazier has the best win out of any fighter on that list.

 

Again, that was my list a couple hours ago. May have changed. Criteria is a mishmash of quality of performances against the best contemporaries available and my estimation of their abilities regardless of the era. Regarding Jeffries, he beat everyone he faced and faced most of the very best fighters of his era... I don't really count the Johnson fight against him, as he was not an active fighter at the time. Just an ill-advised decision on his part. Liston destroyed the division at his time (regardless of what I think of the division at that particular time). I still get caught by the Dempsey myopia bug, so many of his contemporaries thought so highly of him. His record just doesn't add up to the hype. I had Frazier on the list momentarily. I don't exactly think Ali was unbeatable in 71, especially by a truly great swarmer. Still, point taken.

 

My bad, I didn't know you were the analytical type.

Yes, it's the legend of Dempsey that keeps him on my list. He has been as high as #6 I think, maybe #5 at one point. Now he's at #10 with Holyfield starring at the rear. Honestly, Holyfield "deserves" it more but the mystique of Dempsey and his legend/impact have me hesitant on pulling the trigger.

With Jeffries, he's got such a split between posters. Very few have him in their top 10 while many "experts" have him their or did... or at least have him close. The 21 or so fights hurts him. Add the fact that you know less and less about the era than succeeding ones and it makes it tough.

Ali wasn't unbeatable, but even that version probably beats some of those ATGs on that list.

If Holyfield and both Klitiscko's retired today, how might your list change?

 

in ranking a fighter, we have to take into account his whole career and not just when he was at his best. So taking into the equation Tysons 10 or more years of mediocrity i dont think hes top 10 material, just outside it. But boy ,was he exciting in his prime.

 

mr magoo larry holmes was 42 when he beat mercer he was a lot heavier as well compared to when he fought tyson you aint seriously saying holmes improved since the tyson fight he might have shedded some rust but he was slower when he beat mercer than when he fought tyson also you stated lewis in 02 would have beaten the holmes of 88 how can you be so sure the 42 year old holmes toyed with mercer lewis was fortunate to get a decsision against mercer and the mercer who fought holmes was far fresher than the one who fought lewis

 

my all time top ten would be 1 ali 2louis 3holmes 4tyson 5foreman 6holyfield 7 frazier 8liston 9lewis 10bowe

 

Even by your criteria, it becomes difficult to rank him outside the top 10.
Ability may be subjective, but so is intangibles. In any case Tyson has character.

Judging by the rest of the post, I guess the question should be; what do you consider adversity? How do you define it?

He was a 19 year old Heavyweight Contender. He was in with an opponent who showed resistance and pushed him more than he thought he was going to be pushed. The point is that Tillis tested Tyson's character that night. James didn't have to be a great fighter because inevitably you'll find unheralded opponents doing the same to other ATG fighters. Tyson responded well.

If it made him more focused then, its a mark of his discipline his character and his focus. Most fighters Tyson included seldom can manage their lives spiraling out of control outside the ring and maintain their discipline. Most fighters lose it. And wind up losing.

Tyson never got a chance to rematch Douglas, that can't be held against him. Though I concede that he lost to Holyfield a fellow ATG fighter.

Lewis came back to beat two average fighters who shouldn't have beaten him. Even if Jeffries never fought Johnson my previous statement would still hold true.

Finally

Again please redefine what you mean by adversity

He lost the first 4 rounds against Botha and stopped him with a crushing right hand. Just for reference Holyfield was dropped by Cooper and subsequently stopped him, Lewis was staggered by Briggs and subsequently stopped him, Louis dropped by Galento and well you get the point.

I rank Tyson above Liston, Dempsey and Frazier.

Frazier has a great win against Ali but lacks the longevity that Tyson maintained. Was not as dominant a champion and his resume is thinner than Tyson's. He has a great win over Ali but when you look at the rest of the names they are frankly lacking compared to Tyson.

 

But again, Dempsey is basically given his great ranking due to about 2 years of activity, two years that don't come close to the reign of terror Tyson had for 4 years, not to mention later results against Ruddock, Seldon Botha, Bruno...

Tyson 86-90 KO's Berbick, Thomas, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno, Williams, decisions Smith and Tucker, all but two once or future champs.

Granted Dempsey fought in an era of one belt but compare his much shorter (and much less impressive) reign of terror (1918-19)... Levinsky, Miske, Morris, Smith, Willard. Pretty much everyone in another thread agreed these were his 5 greatest performances. Smith and Morris were on losing streaks. Miske was top-notch. Willard wore the crown but was hardly very active. Still, Dempsey was brilliant in these fights.

I do give some credit to defenses against a sick Miske, an unimpressive Brennan return, the diminutive Gibbons and Carpentier and life and death with Firpo, but not much more than Tyson against Ruddock x2.

 

On my top ten, he's no 7