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

I've always wondered if some people on this forum didn't go both ways... now I know of at least one

 

Now, looking down this thread at some of the comparisons people are making between Tyson and past heavyweight champions, I'm seeing what I think are skewed perceptions due to a lack of perspective. In particular, the thing about Tyson having only one loss to a lesser opponent, and how it isn't so bad when "put into perspective" against other champions and the like.

The thing with Tyson's loss to Douglas is that it happened while he was champion, for the title, at the age of 23, in a match he had all the time and opportunity to be fully prepared for, and he lost badly to an opponent who was otherwise a fairly undistinguished contender and never avenged it. Now, had Tyson lost to Douglas in some random early-career match, or even any time prior to his title reign, I would be willing to show him more leniency for one bad night, given the consistent and outstanding level of performance he displayed throughout the rest of his first career.

Conversely, if Dempsey had, say, lost the world heavyweight championship to Willie Meehan in the early 1920s, even if he had avenged it, I would consider it an enormous blow to his legacy. But there is an enormous difference between losing a close four-round decision in a small-time charity bout during a year where you had over 20 fights (indeed, fought less than three weeks earlier and proceeded to fight again the very next day!) and losing while champion, for the title, in a serious world heavyweight championship bout. Notice, it was typical for old-time champions to suffer a loss here and there to lesser opponents while touring on the road and fighting every couple weeks, but it certainly wasn't the norm for them to go into a world title bout while they were on top, fully noticed, given preparation time, and with all the chips on the table, and get brutalized by second-tier opposition!

To make a relevant comparison, if you look at a sport like tennis, where the top guys are on a world tour schedule and literally have a match every few days, you'll see that it's completely typical and expected even for the very best of the best to occasionally drop a match here and there to lesser opposition, particularly during regular tour weeks in which the matches are only best-of-three-sets instead of best-of-five like they are in Grand Slam tournaments. Roger Federer was the most dominant and consistent tennis champion in history from 2004-2007 (10 consecutive Grand Slam finals; the next longest streak any champion has put together was four!)- indeed, he has arguably established himself as the greatest tennis champion of all time- and had frighteningly good season records, but even he had more than a couple losses to unheralded opponents and guys who had difficult styles for him.

For example, the relatively obscure Guillermo Canas beat him twice early last year in between Grand Slam tournaments- and in 2006, a year in which he compiled an incredible 92-5 record, he still had one surprising defeat to young Brit Andy Murray. Yet absolutely no one came out declaring, "Federer is an overrated fraud and a bum!" when those things happened. Every champion in the history of the sport has had similar losses on a year-by-year basis. It's unavoidable- you just can't maintain championship-level performance all the time, day-by-day and week-by-week, when you have to go out and compete that often.

Now, if Federer had lost to Canas or Murray in a Grand Slam tournament, the big enchilada of tennis championships which players prepare for all year, during which you play less often and in best-of-five-set matches, and in which all the stakes are at their highest, he would have taken a heck of a lot more flack than for losing to them than for doing so in the context in which he did. Indeed, one loss to such an opponent in an actual Grand Slam event has a far bigger standing on a player's reputation and ranking than do any three of them in smaller-scale tournaments.

I think if you've read and considered the above text, you should see my point, here; Tyson lost to Douglas in a bad manner and in the absolute worst possible circumstances. This type of loss is a severe blow to a champion's legacy, and is by no means comparable with the type of defeat to which it is sometimes equated which is observed in literally all champions who perform in schedules requiring them to compete on a day-by-day, week-by-week basis.

 

I think Tyson was more guilty of not respecting his opponent at that particular point in time. How many people in his shoes wouldn't have considered all opponents little more than chump change? Tyson's biggest flaw was his lack of respect.... although I can certainly understand how he may have arrived at it.

Lennox did the same thing once, in case people have forgotton. It's not just Tysonitis

 

A guy who lost by 1 round KO to Fireman Jim Flynn and dropped multiple decisions te Meehan went 3 years without defending his title had a superior championship to 80s Tyson ?

 

The Meehan fights don't mean a thing and the Flynn KO was likely a dive.

 

He would have been ranked higher than he is now, by most people. And he would be seen as an absolute H2H monster. (Not that he's not now, but even more so.)
The Holyfield losses really knocked his legacy for a loop. Forget Douglas. In time, most would have seen it as some sort of wierd abberation. Fans of the man would point out that, one blip aside, he dominated.

They would say that guys like Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis etc. were pretty darn lucky that Tyson never fought in the 90's.
Some would point out that 9 defences (and not all defences of the lineal title) is not enough to challenge the likes of Ali and Louis for the #1 or #2 slot, and that his competition was good, but not great.

This could easily be fobbed off by many, citing that if he had fought in the 1990's, he would have regained the title and embarked on a second reign of terror.

At worst, he would probably be a top 5 guy, and as high as #2 or #3 on many (if not most) people's lists.

 

The Fireman Jim Flynn loss happened before Dempsey was an established contender. It has no bearing on his standing. And losing a 4-round decision to tricky opponent in a routine bout means little.

Dempsey's career impresses me more than Tyson's. He took layoffs, but came back and took on tough challengers and won tough fights, until that final 3-year layoff proved too much. Still, he lost his title to a great fighter and improved on himself in the rematch, he came to fight and didn't get KO'd.

Compare that to Tyson losing to an ordinary contender by KO, coming off a layoff to face McNeeley, and his rematch performance against Holyfield.

Dempsey got pushed out the ring by Firpo and never gave up, got beaten from pillar to post for 10 rounds by Tunney and kept coming, sucked it up against Sharkey and wore him down. These are all after he'd deteriorated due to inactivity. He didn't just "suddenly implode" like it's claim happened to Tyson to excuse the fact that Douglas kicked his ass.

 

All lists are "biased". There's no ONE CORRECT LIST. Lists vary.

That's the problem with this thread. I'm simply telling people, "NO, I wouldn't rate Tyson top 5, and NO, I didn't rate him there at the time", and "NO, I dont think all (or even a majority of) boxing writers, fans and historians would rate Tyson up there" .... .. And people on this thread cant accept that.

Show them a list they dont agree with and it's dismissed as if it doesn't count.

So really, all you people are saying is that "If Tyson had never come back after prison, he'd rate top 5 on EVERY LIST OF EVERY PERSON I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH".

 

Tyson had a great run up to the title and was exciting but that shouldn't be confused with his status.

A great puncher, a great offensive fighter, with a limited psychee who folded in all of his tough fights.

Tyson is also the single most excused fighter in boxing and boxing forums.

 

Actually, yeah, I thought I'd join in the Calzaghe-Hopkins discussions. I shouldn't have bothered.
There's always a few gay Klitschko avatars in general .... ... if that's your thing.

 

Ah, yes, the written-in-stone correct list. Near enough a holy scripture.
Surprised it wasn't made a sticky and comments disallowed.
So, you say Tyson (without post-prison) at number 6 ?
Thread closed then.

 

I agree.