Where would Tyson rank today if he never had come back after prison?

Prey tell, who are the 5 fighters who'd rank ahead of him in this circumstance?

I personally think that,

Ali, Louis, and quite possibly Marciano would rank ahead of him but the perception of Mike Tyson the fighter was far too great for him be anything less than #5. I see him ranking as high as #4 in that scenario.

 

I think he should rate fairly high despite the loss to Douglas. A single defeat against a second rater should not ruin a great champions entire legacy, especially given the rather extensive resume that Tyson had. People forget that he:

1. Was the youngest heavyweight champ of all time

2. Unified the titles by beating multiple champions rather than acquiring them in a single fight.

3. Had the earliest KO win over another undefeated all time great in Spinks

4. Was undefeated in his first 37 fights.

5. Convincingly defeated every recognized top rater of his era, except for Holyfield, who he had already signed to fight anyway.

6. Had some 9 title defenses, which was more than most champions.

7.. Came back immediately after the Douglas loss to score 3 wins over top raters in Stewart and Ruddock.

He did all of these things by the young age of 24, and accomplished more in a 6 year career than a lot of fighters do in 15.

 

If he really did brutally **** that 18-year-old girl he should STILL be IN prison.

I'd probably rate him the same as I do now. He really needed to regain the undisputed championship after losing to Douglas like that to really establish his place among the top all-time heavyweights.

With Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis, and a few others knocking around I think most reasonable fans wouldn't have automatically assumed he'd have been able to do that.

 

Some will argue that Tyson can't be considered the youngest heavyweight champ of all time given that he did not gain lineal recognition until he beat Spinks, at which point, he was several months older than Floyd Patterson was.

The problem I have with this logic, is that it sort of dilutes the concept of being a champion. If holding a fragment of the title is meaningless, then do we have no champion today? A titlist is still a champion, even if it isn't of lineal status. In 1986, Tyson took Berbick's WBC title away which was viewed as a world entity. For this, I still say that he was the youngest of all time.

 

In all fairness Berbick perhaps deserved to be regarded as the man at heavyweight at the time, despite Spinks being IBF and "linear" and Witherspoon being WBA.
Berbick beat Thomas, who was regarded by many as the man, and Thomas had beat Witherspoon. Also, this WBC line started from Holmes' decision to duck a top contender.

 

There is a definate difference between a dominant defender of the thrown and a mere titlist, but both are champions. To say that Wladimir Klitschko is not a champion, is somewhat unfair in my opinion. By the logic that you're applying, Holmes never should have been considered a champion either.

 

Possibly higher than I have him now.

I have no set ranking for him now, but I might place him on a higher pedestal if he was untested.

If he had retired after fighting Spinks, I'd probably foolishly rank him higher still.

 

Agreed,

I think Spink's claim to lineal status was very far removed by 1987-1988. He arguably lost his rematch to Larry Holmes, then proceded to take fights with Tangstad and Cooney, leading to the eventual stripping of his belt. I applaud Spinks for his efforts in rising to take the crown, but outside of his first fight with Holmes, he had steadily by his own doing, diminished to a paper champion in my eyes.

 

Douglas was not a Journeyman he was a solid top 10 contender at the time of the Tyson fight.