Who was greater? Mike Tyson or Jung koo Chang?

Popularity/Spectacle wise? Mike Tyson. Legacy/Accomplishment wise? Jung Koo Chang.

 

I think some people go to extraordinary lengths to try and discredit Tyson. Most of the time, it has more to do with his personality and antics outside the ring than his accomplishments inside it.

 

This is a great question.

 

I think Tyson is very underrated by some. He’s the opposite to Holmes, who everyone felt hard down by for decades due to his lowly stature and now slightly overrate. Tyson is overrated so much by casuals his achievements and resume are easily dismissed by hipsters who don’t give him the same respect they lend to other heavyweights with other question marks, such as Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey. I have Tyson between 6-8 on my top 10 HW list.

Chang on the other hand, I have no.1 on my combined list of 105-108lbers. The reason this is interesting:

-HW and midget weight are similarly sparse in terms of ATG depth.

-Chang and Tyson were both phenoms who won titles in/barely out of their teens

-Both men burnt bright early but managed to add to their resume when their reflexes had clearly dwindled (Tyson had more longevity because he had the punch to bail himself out whereas Chang was a spiteful hitter but not a banger)

-Their very best wins have a bit of controversy about them. Zapata had been starched by Ursua (who Chang also beat) and Holmes/Spinks were inactive before Tyson smashed them.

So the big question is, does Tyson being a top 10 heavy outweigh Chang being the greatest sub-Flyweight of all time? Bear in mind Chang was arguably robbed of the lineal Flyweight title when well past his best in his rematch with Chitalada.

If you compare their resumes they both squeezed in a wide variety of top-notch stylists/punchers/tall fighters in a short window.

This is a genuine debate. Tyson at his best was a freak the HW division had arguably never seen before, handspeed, defense, footwork and power all incredible.

Jung Koo Chang was the Duran of the midgets, as unfightable in his prime as Tyson was in his.

Either man would be the correct answer, I could easily lean either way. Familiarity with Tyson’s career and opposition will probably make this a wash, but do some research, watch lots of fights, and Chang’s ring record emerges as an excellent one.

 

On the surface they appear to be very different, but when you look closer...they're still very different.

 

An example I like to repeat.
Popularity: Muhammad Ali
Accomplishment wise: Benny Yanger (not yet in IBHoF, because the people picking whom to induct don't know sh it)

 

Notable wins (in no particular order)

Tyson (2 wins in lineal title fights)

Holmes
Spinks
Tucker
Thomas
Seldon
Bruno x2
Bonecrusher
Tillis
Ruddock x2
Berbick
Williams
Tubbs
Biggs
Ribalta x2
Marvis
And then guys like McNeeley, Tillman, Stewart, Mathis Jr. That’s a lot of ranked contenders/good fighters and I might even be forgetting someone

Chang (16 wins in lineal title fights)

Zapata (arguably twice)
Chitalada (arguably twice)
German Torres x3
Ursua
Shin
Alfonso Lopez
Tokashiki
Ohashi x2
Perez
Cano
Montiel
Abella

 

They’re really not, they have similarities in terms of their career trajectories.

 

They're are as many ways they are different as they are similar. I think the main similarity is that they both fought and were at their best in the 80s.

Beyond that, the differences are fairly obvious:
-Chang could afford to defend his title in relative obscurity whilst Tyson had the glare of the world's media to contend with. And before anyone (not you per se) says "well, in South Korea, boxers are huge stars", it's not remotely the same.
-Tyson was unified champion, Chang was not (lineal defenses obviously favours Chang). And before anyone (again, not you) says "but Michael Spinks was lineal champion because he beat Larry Holmes", Tyson was the recognised champion by everyone apart from The Ring magazine and Spinks himself by around the time he'd picked up his second belt.
-Punching power - Tyson was a spectacular KO artist, Chang was not. Actually, let me rephrase - Tyson was defined by his punching power, Chang was not.

If someone wants to draw comparison between two disparate fighters and still find similarities with them, it's always possible, of course and in fairness, you do draw some interesting parallels between them. I just don't think they were that similar.

 

Great post lad, I agree that it's a good, debatable question. I rate Chang slightly higher myself but have no problem with anyone who thinks Mike deserves the nod.

 

Never heard of Jung Koo Chang. Its more like Jung "Who" for me

Everyone has heard of Mike Tyson though, from the village huts on the suburbs of Dakar, to the city lights of Melbourne.

Mike Tyson transcended the sport. Very few boxers in the past 40 years have managed that.

Mike Tyson is up there as a great HW compared to all those from the past 40 years. He transcended the 1980s and the 1990s too.

 

But who wins in a fight ??.??

 

That means nothing when comparing their respective achievements and opposition.