Why Tyson Isnt An ATG

It all depends on what an "All-Time Great" is defined as.
Obviously, ALL TIME is from the beginning (of boxing) until now.
Then the question is who would stand out as great across that whole time span.
Some people might argue a thousand or more boxers as ATGs.
Others might restrict it to less than ten boxers.
That's where there's a legitimate argument that cannot be resolved.

The clearer debate would be to discuss where Tyson could be ranked on a p4p all-time list. My guess is that the vast majority would have him outside the top 40 and inside the top 100. But that's just a guess.

 

Why would I need to try harder with a *****cat like yourself??

 

Hahaha he's here again with that old chestnut, you're like a broken record boy!

 

You love a good conspiracy you do, did we ever land on the moon then?? :rofl

 

10: James Jeffries
9: George Foreman
8: Lennox Lewis
7: Evander Holyfield
6: Rocky Marciano
5: Jack Dempsey
4: Jack Johnson
3: Larry Holmes
2: Joe Louis
1: Muhammad Ali

 

It is a case of who is best. Ali and Louis are the clear stand outs, the other eight are clearly top 10, but I would understand if people put them in a different order. The Heavyweight division has a history of being pretty poor most of the time.

 

Watch Tyson at his best: his combination of speed and power was frighteningly singular, his ring IQ was genius. On his tear to the unified title, the tomato cans, contenders and champions that fought him were brutally knocked out, while those resorting to survival mode were effectively shut out. Though a short man, he had no weaknesses: his chin was sturdy, his defense frustrating, he could not be outboxed, his stamina was solid, his finishing ability sensational.

So, the world sat up and took notice. Five years after Ali's retirement, Tyson put the heavyweight division back on the global marquee.

Head to head, a young Tyson who wanted to win the title for Cus would have Ali sitting up late, staring blankly into the dark, with a gallows fear of fight night against such a juggernaut.

 

For me an ATG has to really have finished their career, first and foremost. SO calling Mayweather an ATG simply isn't true, yet.

After that, The Normal Distribution is a good indicator of top ATGness, being the top 5% of champions.

top ATG to me means the top 5%, outside the majority bell curve of the Normal distribution in maths - in a word, outstanding, and as a baseline they need to be least very good HoF entrants.
So with us closing in on 100 champions in heavyweight history, the top five make up this set, that is Ali Louis Holmes, perhaps Marciano etc Undisputed ATG.

The next tier 5% to 10% (ie numbers 6 to 10) should be knocking on the door of the top five eg Johnson, Dempsey, Lennox Holyman maybe, perhaps Tyson. They are borderline outstanding, with some deficiencies which keep them just under the bell curves main body.

After that come the lesser ATGs, who are a good rung below the top 5 and below top 10 - perhaps Wlad can join their ranks soon. They are considered normal (ie wlad gets killed by relative weakling opponents) but have a few outstanding facets that may shoehorn them into backdoor ATGness (eg Wlad K has great longevity, commitment and a solid KO ratio for someone so relatively weak H2H). They need to be solid HoF to be considered ATG.
The better ones will comprise 11-15, with the minor ones comprising 16-20.

5 is the maximum number for the truly top ATGs, no major flaws.
6-10 for the chasing pack, outstanding but flawed
11-20 the 'watered down' ATGs, and increasingly flawed moving down the rankings.
after 20 the weaknesses are more abundant , that they shouldn't be considered even weak ATG, merely decent HoF.


Backdoor HoFers, I am afraid, can never qualify for ATG simply because they shouldn't technically be in HoF in the first place, so theres no reason they should be ATG either.

 

Yeah, it all comes down to numbers.
How many fighters are ATGs ?

 

ha, just giving a maths perspective.


there are 5 truly undisputed atgs, to me.