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

It's easy to get carried away after watching him crush Berbick in a sensational win and then believe he could do that to everyone. Tucker took him the distance and showed how a decent shot early on really discouraged him.

Tyson stands a chance against anyone because he could punch and finish but it's hard to imagine him beating a great fighter who could get him into the second half of a fight.

The pre-prison, post-prison, pre-Douglas, post-Rooney, chatter is just a smokescreen.... The problems were always there from the very beginning.

 

Absolutely true.
People ignore the fact that Tyson IN HIS PRIME would often drop his pace dramatically if a fight went on for a few rounds, or that he often lost concentration and tended to coast and look for the one big shot, or join in the clinching with a unwilling partner, and his head movement would stop and he'd just wade in flat-footed with no head movement. This happened back in 1987. People should watch the Smith, Thomas and Tucker and see that the "vintage prime Tyson" was something that came on in spurts as the rounds wore on. Commentators at the time noticed it, and noticed how frustration lessened Tyson's ability, but it was something that you'd expect from a young, improving fighter.

Tyson did well against those fighters, beat them convincingly. But it wasn't like he was bobbing and weaving and delivering his best combinations for 3 minutes a round for 12 rounds. He always tended to look a bit bored and frustrated if he couldn't get his opponent out of there quickly. His mentality wasn't attuned to it.

 

Wow! This is real good question and one I hadnt really thought of before.

I suppose I'll run through my train of thought;

I currently have Tyson at number #2 (behind Ali) based on how I think he'd fare head to head (and prime for prime) against the rest. After coming out of prison he beat Bruno to regain his world title so that adds to his legacy for me and although not making up for the loss against Douglas, at least records that loss as a blip.

For me though, after Bruno its all downhill a la Hoyfield and Lewis...

But I also got thinking... Foreman stepped down after the Ali fight. Naz after Barrera (in both cases give or take a couple of fights) and neither of these make my big lists. I suppose the difference is they were beaten by A-class fighters and so I can assume this was no fluke but instead neither were good enought.

Taking all that into account... I'd probably still have him at #2. If anything I'd drop him to #3 (with Joe Louis leapfrogging) based on the fact he goes out in his prime on his back!

 

This may be the case depending on one's perspective, but I think it can legitimately be said that Mike Tyson had to go through a lot more to be considered a lineal champion than Floyd Patterson did. Floyd won the title in vacant fashion from an albeit competitive but aging opponent. Technically he did not beat THE MAN either. Tyson had to beat 3 prime titlists, plus a concensus lineal claimant for a grand total of 4 opponents before he was considered THE MAN. Frankly, I think this part of history goes unaddressed too often, when evaluating Tyson's career.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure that I agree. What boxing lacks right now is a truly solid figure in the heavyweight division, this I'll agree to. In all fairness however, I think Wladimir Klitschko is the concensus best in the world. The people typically decide and give merit to who they think is king, and most fans and experts give Wlad the nod. By saying that he is not THE MAN because he hasn't acquired every alpha title, you're in contradiction with your claim that plastic titles mean nothing. What should it matter if the guy has the opinion of both the public and the experts backing him?

I agree, but again the best is decided by the concencus. Holmes never held more than one organizational belt at one time, during a period when 2-3 belts existed, and in fact won that title in vacant fashion due to a champion being stripped and dividing the WBA and WBC belts. He defended his title numerous times, and was even stripped of his belt, then was awarded another. All this, yet he was considered THE MAN of his time, and a top 10 great by most. My point, is that its possible to hold a fragment of the title, and still be considered a lineal champion.

On a technicality perhaps, but in most literature that is available, he is commony referred to as the youngest heavyweight CHAMPION in history. Frankly, I don't have a problem awarding him this claim. He destroyed a very solid fighter in Trevor Berbick who had just beaten an undefeated Pinklon Thomas. Around 1985-1986, Thomas was considered by quite a few as possibly the best heavyweight in the world. He had defeated Tim Witherspoon, was ducked by Larry Holmes, who in turn lost to Spinks who failed to face true challengers. Therefore, Tyson blasting out Berbick certainly raised quite a few eye brows concerning who was the best at the time. Again, as I said before, a lot of this stuff is about perception and not necessarily a golden rule set in stone.

 

The problem is that they don't include that footage on the highlight reels. Tyson was always far from unbeatable.

 

At least Liston got taken down by a truly great fighter with a style that he probably could never have beaten. Sonny had fought something like 7-8 rounds in 4 years (guessing from memory) and was past his best.

D'Amato's 2 HW champions were both mentally and psychologically fragile.

 

If he had never come back from prison ,I imagine he would be chief trustee by now.

 

This makes the assumption that Tyson would have beaten Holyfield had they fought back in '92. I don't think I'm prepared to make that assumption...I think Holyfield beats Tyson in just as comprehensive a fashion then as he did in '96....and probably ranks about the same as he does now.

 

Umm... what??? Nothing has been said about Tyson fighting Holyfield or having any hypothetical fights whatsoever. The question was where people would rank him if he had never made a comeback after his prison sentence.

 

If the holy-Tyson fight had taken place in 1988, tyson would have knocked holy out in less than 5 rounds IMO, tyson has cooked by 1989-1992 he probably would have either outpointed holy or lost on points.

 

So tyson doesn't get credit for winning the title until beating spinx?

What about Tyson UNIFIYING ALL 3 BELTS IN A ONE YEAR SPAN BEATING TREVOR BERBICK BONECRUSHER SMITH TONY TUCKER TO HAVE ALL 3 MAJOR HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE BELTS.........something no heavyweight in history has done unify all 3 belts on at least 3 separate fights. Larry holmes didnt even unify a belt let alone all the major title belts like tyson did.


shouldnt tyson by beating tony tucker that should be regarded as world champion? because he then held WBC, IBF and WBA........its not his fault spinx was ducking everyone and fighting bums like tangstad.

 

Yes, he should have been considered lineal champion, and the youngest at that.

Mike Tyson acquired the last and final fragment of the heavyweight title on August 1st of 1987, at which point he was 21 years and some 7 weeks old. Floyd Patterson defeated Archie Moore on November 30th 1956, at 21 years and 11 months old. Therefore, even if we disgard Tyson's claim to the youngest champ in history by virtue of his win over Berbick, he still beats Patterson with his unifying wins over Smith and Tucker. Posters like Marciano Frazier and Janitor will still argue that his verification as lineal champion was not yet completed until he sealed the deal against Spinks 10 months after beating Tucker, but I can't agree with this logic.

For starters, Spinks arguably lost his rematch against Larry Holmes, then proceded to fight all but 2 times over the next two years. His opponent selection consisted of an unknown Steffen Tangstad who just 3 fights earlier, was KO'd in 4 rounds by Anders Ecklund. The other fight he took was a novelty match against Gerry Cooney who had 3 matches against unranked opposition over a 5 year period. The decision to fight Cooney resulted in Spinks being stripped of his IBF belt for failure to defend against Mandatory Tony Tucker ( an opponent who Tyson defeated BTW. ) Meanwhile, Mike Tyson was taking on all comers and beating them in such a fashion that was more than convincing. He collected every available title, including the one that Spinks had dumped. It could be very legitimately said that by 1988, Michael Spink's entitlement as a lineal claimant had been very far removed.......