Where does Mike Tyson rank in the ATG list?

I've got him at 8, in the all time heavyweights

 

Yes, he lost. But if someone learns from their losses and goes on to accomplishing great things, those loses become irrelevant.

Outside of Anthony Joshua, those other boxers who beat him aren't really relevant because they didn't prevent him from becoming the number 1 heavyweight in the world and remaining the number 1 heavyweight in the world for a decade. Those losses are upsets, and they mean very little because those boxers who beat him, didn't have a negative effect on his career. Unless they prevented him from ever becoming the number 1 heavyweight in the world or a heavyweight champion in the world. These things didn't occur.

I don't see how 5 losses, out of a career spanning 69 bouts is that bad. Especially taking into consideration that there isn't any boxer in history who has had as many bouts at REAL heavyweight by modern standard (when both boxers weigh 200 pounds or more) as Wladimir Klitschko, with fewer losses whilst constantly fighting against top opposition.

1 avenged loss is still more than the amount of losses any other past heavyweight boxer has avenged at heavyweight with 60 or more bouts.

What makes him number 1 is the fact that he dominated the heavyweight division. Stayed on top as the number 1 heavyweight in the world for longer than any other past heavyweight did, with more title defenses at REAL heavyweight and whilst cleaning up the heavyweight division by beating every top contender / best possible opponent during his 10 year reign.

No other past heavyweight champion at age 39 or after age 39 ever beat somebody at the level of Tyson Fury. They were either retired by that age, or losing to far inferior opponents than Fury.

Muhammad Ali was losing to Leon Spinks by that age. Lennox Lewis was retired by that age. Evander Holyfield was losing to a blown up middleweight in James Toney and John Ruiz by that age. George Foreman was losing to Shannon Briggs and Tommy Morrison by that age. I can go on and on but you get the point. Tyson Fury is better than all of those mentioned boxers. Wladimir Klitschko losing to Tyson Fury at age 39 doesn't take away from his dominance over the heavyweight division for a decade.

Failures don't matter to me! Accomplishments matter to me! And the more accomplished you are, the better / greater you are.

A person can fail a high school exam. It means nothing if they then go on to earn a PHD later on in their lives. A amateur boxer with 0 losses and 0 medals is not better than an amateur boxer with 10 losses but 10 gold medals in different international tournaments.

Likewise, Wladimir Klitschko's 5 losses don't matter, considering they didn't prevent him from achieving the ultimate goal in boxing, which is to become the best / number 1 heavyweight in the world and to remain one. Which is exactly what he did for a decade.

 

Mike gave the Iron to more hos and snorted more coke than any other athlete in history and still got to be ATG. He didn't censor himself for anyone. He fought or f---ed everyone he could get his hands on. He's not only a top 10 ATG fighter, but may also be a top 10 ATG human.

 

Fair enough, you make some good points. He was very dominant during his reign and there’s no disputing that. Obviously there’s going to be some subjective reasoning in debates like this and I simply can’t overlook his losses and how he lost. Holyfield, Ali etc lost as they got older and they lost to fellow HOFers after having waged wars. Vlad was sparked by journeymen and he just waited them out or let his brother do the heavy lifting.
I remember when Vlad was the “heir apparent” to LL after his retirement. He certainly looked the part and like LL was a gold medalist, as well. His ko defeat to Purrity was chalked up as learning experience to keep some powder dry. Then came his annihilation at the hands of a semi retired boxer, semipro golfer. Then he was ktfo in the 6th round by Brewster after having teed off on poor Lamont for 5 rounds but failing to close the deal. Then the ugly match with Davarryl somebody. Then he was knocked down 3 times against peter (though he won). After that came the ultra safe jab and grab version that would go onto define him. Almost always larger than his opponents, he’d jab, tie up, lean and repeat with the occasional right hand bomb thrown in but. This version of Vlad made Floyd look like Duran.
Like tyson, Vlad loses points for never having overcame adversity in the ring (peter was the closest). Even in his dominant stage he allowed lesser men to last too long. But nevertheless, he persevered when lesser men would’ve given up after defeats and acquitted himself well for awhile and is a sure lock for the HOF.

 

To me, it doesn't matter how many losses someone has or how many times one failed at something. What matters to me most is what someone's accomplishments are. Someone can fail their driving test 10 times, but if they then go on to becoming the fastest car racer in history. Does those 10 initial failures matter? Not to me! Likewise, someone can fail their high school exam 10 times in a row. But if they then go on to earning a PHD, then does those initial 10 failures matter? Not to me! Likewise, an amateur boxer can lose 10 bouts. But if they then go on to earning 10 international gold medals, are they inferior to an undefeated amateur boxer with 0 medals? Not to me! I hope you get the drift here!

Wladimir Klitschko lost early on in his career. So what? Did the guys he lost to, have a better career and record than him overall? Absolutely not! So who cares if he lost 3 times early on in his career? The main question is, did he learn from those losses and did he accomplish great things after those losses? The answer to that question is yes. He became the number 1 heavyweight in the world and reigned as one for a decade, which is longer than any past heavyweight has done. He cleaned up the heavyweight division by beating all the top contenders / best available opponents for a decade and stayed as the number 1 heavyweight in the world for a decade, until he was 39 years old, when he was finally dethroned by Tyson Fury.

At or around age 39, every past heavyweight champion was either retired or losing to far inferior opponents than Tyson Fury. Muhammad Ali was losing to the likes of Leon Spinks, Jimmy Young and Trevor Berbick. Who are in no way better than Tyson Fury. Mike Tyson was losing by age 35 to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. Who are in no way better than Tyson Fury. Evander Holyfield was losing to the likes of John Ruiz and a blown up cruiserweight like in James Toney. Neither are better than Tyson Fury. Lennox Lewis was retired. I can go on and on but you get the drift here! Wladimir Klitschko losing to someone like Tyson Fury at age 39, is no worse than what other past heavyweight champions were doing around the same age. And it doesn't take away from his past accomplishments where he reigned as the number 1 heavyweight for around a decade.

Every boxer has struggled. A 69 fight Wladimir Klitschko is no exception. Especially when someone is constantly fighting variety of opposition and top caliber opposition a consistent basis. So cherry picking Wladimir Klitschko struggling in his career against the likes of Davaryl Williamson, or Samuel Peter or Lamon Brewster can be applied to pretty much every past heavyweight champion since they also struggled. Muhammad Ali struggled against a 180 pound Henry Cooper who he was dropped by. Wlad wouldn't even be allowed to fight such an opponent. Lennox Lewis went life and death against Ray Mercer and arguably lost and was stopped / dropped by Oliver McCall, without being able to do the same to McCall (Lennox Lewis couldn't drop McCall in the rematch). Do I even need to mention the struggles Mike Tyson had in his career? In the end, those things mean nothing!

Some of the so called 'journeymen' that Wladimir Klitschko lost to, would be better than most of those supposed 'hall of famers' that the likes of Ali lost to. Many of those boxers go into the hall of fame, because of 'fame' and 'popularity'. Not necessarily because of boxing quality. It means nothing! And the hall of fame is mainly an American organisation which mainly inducts American boxers to make them look good, along with their opponents. It has as much value as me citing a Ukrainian hall of fame organisation that inducted Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster and Ross Purity into their organisation.

Someone like Corrie Sanders never existed in the 1970's. Lennox Lewis and Mike Tyson never faced a single southpaw in their entire career. Never mind someone like Corrie Sanders. And Corrie Sanders was as much of a 'part time boxer' or a 'golfer' as Wladimir Klitschko was.

The idea that Wlad is almost always larger than his opponents is a myth.

Here are some STATS / FACTS:

- Wladimir Klitschko has beaten 24+ opponents who OUTWEIGHED him.

- Lennox Lewis only beat 10 opponents who OUTWEIGHED him.

- Muhammad Ali beat 17 opponents who OUTWEIGHED him.

- George Foreman only beat 8 opponents who OUTWEIGHED him.

So this myth is easily debunked by actual facts / stats.

Furthermore, outside the Alexander Povetkin fight, Wladimir Klitschko was no more of a clincher than Muhammad Ali, Lennox Lewis or even Evander Holyfield and Larry Holmes were. So why try to hold Wladimir Klitschko to a unique standard and try to diminish his accomplishments, when past heavyweights also did the exact same thing?

Lennox Lewis excessively clinched a washed up Mike Tyson, but are we going to give him a pass?

Muhammad Ali excessively clinched Joe Frazier in 3 fights, but are we going to give him a pass?

Evander Holyfield made a career out of fighting dirty with his headbutts and excessively clinched Mike Tyson too. Are we going to give him a pass?

Wladimir Klitschko doesn't have to 'overcome adversity' if he was good enough in his prime to not be in adversity in the first place. The fact that he didn't need to, is more of a credit to him, than a discredit. But, taking into consideration his background, where he came from, how hard he needed to work, coming from a war torn Soviet region and having to make a name for himself in a foreign Germany that he earned a lot of fans in. I consider that to be 'overcoming adversity'.

 

Fernando you make some good points.
We can find many points to downgrade any boxer.

Though I think nobody can dismiss any of them as not mattering.
How much losses & the qualitry of competition matters is the question.

You do need to be more careful with the facts.
Especially for someone presenting so much hinging upon facts, creedibility depends upon accuracy, honesty & lack of favorable exaggeration.

Cooper weighed 192 for the Ali fight, not 180.
Foreman lost to Briggs not when he was 39 or so...But almost 49.
And that fight should not even be mentioned unless you have evidence that the consensus that Foreman should have won is wrong.
Tyson was 38 & just shy of 39 when he lost his last 2 fights, not 35.

Fair enough?

 

Definitely top 15, probably top 10. His career can be hard to judge at times. An underachiever in reality because in terms of talent he was as good as Ali, Louis, Holmes, Lewis and Bowe.

 

I bet most of those guys were soup cans from the first half of his career. Lets run through all the top 10 level guys he fought to see if they were all bigger than him

Chris Byrd for the WBO belt
lol http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/932/Wladimir-Klitschko-Byrd28.jpg

Derrick Jefferson - same size 6'6 /heavier 260lbs
James MaCline - same size 6'6 / heavier 263lbs
Corrie Sanders - smaller / lighter . Knocked WK out
Lamon Brewster - smaller/ lighter . Knocked WK out
Daryl Williamson - smaller / lighter . Dropped him was up on one judges scorecard at the time Wlad was pulled out over a cut
Chris Byrd again - lol
Sam Peter - smaller / one pound lighter. Put him through him through a life n death situation
Calvin Brock - smaller / lighter
Ray Austin - same size 6'6 / half pound heavier
Sultan Igbramov - smaller / lighter
Tony Thompson - smaller / 6 pounds heavier
Ruslan Chagaev - smaller / lighter
David Haye - smaller / lighter
Alexander Povetkin - smaller / lighter
Kubrat Pulev - smaller / one pound heavier
Tyson Fury - bigger / one pound heavier.
Antony Joshua - same size 6'6 / 10 pounds heavier.

So much for that "myth"

 

Why don't you do the same for the other boxers I've mentioned? Fact is, Wladimir Klitschko beat more 'heavier than self' opponents than those other aforementioned past heavyweight champions.