Is Mike Tyson A Top-10 All-Time HW?

[Goodnight, Irene]

Contentious issue, this. What say the masses?

One big factor I feel is WAY under-valued is his career between 1991 & 2005. That is actually two-thirds of his entire career, and it is a DISGUSTING tale of wasted opportunity. Tyson isnt penalised NEARLY enough for it, IMO. Which other fighter has two-thirds of their entire career swept under the rug? I cant recall even one!

That said, although the competition 1985-90 was pretty tepid, he was as gifted and dangerous a HW champ as ynu could ask for. I recently re-assessed my list and Tyson scraped in at #10, but ALL nine guys above him were a slam-dunk to be ranked higher.

Does he make your top-10?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Not for me. There are guys like Charles & Walcott who don't make my top 10 and I could easily make a case for either of them over Mike.

These lists are highly subjective and it doesn't turn my stomach when I see someone having him at 9 or 10, but I really can't see a case for it. His best win was a frightened & virtually crippled Light heavyweight.

[Goodnight, Irene]

My list is partly-accomplishment, partly how I think one guy would fare against other greats.

Tyson makes up most of his ground with me from the latter, needless to say.

[Diamond WEAPON]

He does for me. Sure, post-prison there was a lot of wasted talent there but people make too big a deal off of exalting a lot of past-ATGs opposition as well. Tyson sure as fornicate wasn't getting draws or losing on points to MWs and LHWs like several other Champs. His "tepid" opposition early on was basically the same types of guys Larry Holmes gets his dick sucked for out pointing and Mike massacred them like a bear catching fish.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Im consistent in that Ive often said Holmes doesnt get ENOUGH criticism for his opposition, WEAPON, but I essentially NEVER hear a word uttered about how unforgivably wretched the second two-thirds of his career was, and frankly, I cannot speak lowly enough of most of it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Im consistent in that Ive often said Holmes doesnt get ENOUGH criticism for his opposition, WEAPON, but I essentially NEVER hear a word uttered about how unforgivably wretched the second two-thirds of his career was, and frankly, I cannot speak lowly enough of most of it.

The difference between the wretched end of his career and, just randomly spitting out a name, Kid Gavilan's, is that guys like Kid proved themselves over and over against great fighters and tyson did not. That's not to say Mike couldn't have. As weak as many of Larry's title defenses were, he did beat Shavers and Norton to get a belt. They aren't the end all of Boxing, but they are superior to any of Mike's wins for me. I'd pick Mike to stop both Shavers & Norton, but I'm hesitant to give credit for things that may have happened over things that did.

I have Holmes 3rd, and I totally get the criticism of that being too high. I might be guilty of giving too much credit for his Mercer win and competitive loss to Evander. As much as I say I don't rate on IF's, fights like that validate, for me, how great he was when the opposition wasn't around.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Holmes came in at 7 for my recently revised list. A big plus for him was I couldnt find a single guy elsewhere on the list he wouldnt have at least a legitimately GOOD chance of beating, and for most guys that wasnt the case.

['Frilla]

He does for me, but then again, my knowledge of past greats is limited.

[yancey]

Holmes came in at 7 for my recently revised list. A big plus for him was I couldnt find a single guy elsewhere on the list he wouldnt have at least a legitimately GOOD chance of beating, and for most guys that wasnt the case.

Where can one see this recently revised list?

[Goodnight, Irene]

You wouldnt like it, Yance ;)

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Holmes came in at 7 for my recently revised list. A big plus for him was I couldnt find a single guy elsewhere on the list he wouldnt have at least a legitimately GOOD chance of beating, and for most guys that wasnt the case.

He would have a legitimately good chance of beating Louis or Ali.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Holmes came in at 7 for my recently revised list. A big plus for him was I couldnt find a single guy elsewhere on the list he wouldnt have at least a legitimately GOOD chance of beating, and for most guys that wasnt the case.

He would have a legitimately good chance of beating Louis or Ali.

Right. Thats what Im saying.

[Goodnight, Irene]

'91-'05 wasn't "two thirds of his career". If I were to evaluate Tyson (before he went to prison) he was 40-1-0 after the second Ruddock fight. Then from '95-'05 he went 9-5.

I don't have a "top ten", but, I would imagine he'd be in there somewhere. I mean his wins over : Frank Bruno ('89), Razor Ruddock, James Smith, Michael Spinks, Pinklon Thomas (who supposedly went into that bout with a serious shoulder injury), Marvis Frazier, Tony Tucker (would have loved to see what that match would have been like had Tucker not broken one of his hands early on), Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs are all solid wins.

I flip-flop back & forth with my feelings regarding "Iron" Mike. The Heavyweight Scene in the '80's (and a lot of other weight classes in the '80's) is one of the most confusing scenes in Boxing I've ever tried to decipher. So many HW fighters who : were poorly managed, got "lost in drugs", etc. Truth be told I believe the 1980's Heavyweights had the deepest depth of talent, but, because of the things listed above never got to truly show it.

If I were to make a top ten list, I would base it off : how they did in their era and how I believe they would do against other greats/contenders in other eras. And outside of Sonny Liston & George Foreman there are no other HWs that I would 100% favor against a peak Tyson.

I believe guys like : Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, Joe Frazier & George Foreman definitely deserve to be rated higher than Tyson, but, besides those listed it's all subjective (to me) from there.

(UNRELATED) The one person I rate higher than he probably deserves to be rated is Sonny Liston. He didn't have the most impressive resume, but, it was a still a pretty decent one and I would favor a prime Sonny Liston over a LOT of other ATGs so that's why for me I would always throw his name some where near the top.

It is two-thirds of his career in terms of years, though (or near to it).

Even look at 95-05, removing the prison years, its a FULL DECADE of garbage, frankly.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I just find it pretty damning that Tyson would take seven years to get a title shot, beat absolutely NOBODY for ten years running, and not have it judged against him.

He couldve gone after Foreman, gone after Moorer, gone after Bowe or Lewis (especially Lewis). Instead, he just made a series of cynical cash-grabs, and as I say, this didnt go on for four or five fights, it was the entire post-prison era.

[observer1]

I just find it pretty damning that Tyson would take seven years to get a title shot, beat absolutely NOBODY for ten years running, and not have it judged against him.

He couldve gone after Foreman, gone after Moorer, gone after Bowe or Lewis (especially Lewis). Instead, he just made a series of cynical cash-grabs, and as I say, this didnt go on for four or five fights, it was the entire post-prison era.

Well hindsight is a wonderful thing. Really don't know why people keep asking the same questions they did then.

Facts are he was nothing but a meal ticket and a circus act for the people who he surrounded himself with. He made record PPV after record PPV, but was still facing money problems due, like most boxers, trusting the wrong people.

Sad thing is, as the recent Documentary suggests, he knew things were not adding up, but went along anyway as he had nobody else.

He was a changed man after prison, but got exploited at the soonest possibility. He obviously hated himself for it afterwards

His 40-1 Pre-Prison record and 9-5 Post-Prison record says it all.

In Terms of "Achievement", he certainly under achieved. There was no other HW like him.

[dempseyfire]

I think being generous to him he's about at 13 . . .doesn't make the top 10 and I'd rank him below the other top HWs of his era Holyfield and Lewis. Great talent but never proved he could come from behind and persevere when things wern't going his way, besides a lucky punch out of the blue vs gatekeeper Frans Botha.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I really dont see why hindsight is needed to criticise his post-prison career. Had I not been 11 years old when he emerged in 1995, Id probably have done it in the immediately intervening years thereafter.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I think being generous to him he's about at 13 . . .doesn't make the top 10 and I'd rank him below the other top HWs of his era Holyfield and Lewis. Great talent but never proved he could come from behind and persevere when things wern't going his way, besides a lucky punch out of the blue vs gatekeeper Frans Botha.

Definitely agree Lewis and Holyfield leave him behind in the rankings, and Im someone who considers the peak Tyson even-money with Holyfield and a sizeable favourite against Lewis.

[NazNaci1]

Outstanding ability during a short lived prime. Truly explosive and one of the most electrifying fighters over the last 30-40 years.

Post Prison certainly counts against him but as observer and Barry suggest, the 'thrill' and 'love' was gone. Bad performances, bad media exposure and an obviouse decline in his fine fighting skills, usually tend to push him down 'the line'.

[bollox]

Not a chance in hell

[Goodnight, Irene]

Not a chance in hell

Where would you have him?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I just find it pretty damning that Tyson would take seven years to get a title shot, beat absolutely NOBODY for ten years running, and not have it judged against him.

He couldve gone after Foreman, gone after Moorer, gone after Bowe or Lewis (especially Lewis). Instead, he just made a series of cynical cash-grabs, and as I say, this didnt go on for four or five fights, it was the entire post-prison era.

Well hindsight is a wonderful thing. Really don't know why people keep asking the same questions they did then.

Hindsight is essential in evaluating a career. Are people supposed to rank Boxers off of their predictions instead of the results? I always laugh when someone uses that.

[King Carlos]

Top 10 is not even up for debate in my eyes. Top 5 is. Tyson was a phenom.

[Jaywheel]

His "tepid" opposition early on was basically the same types of guys Larry Holmes gets his dick sucked for out pointing and Mike massacred them like a bear catching fish.

[Ezzard]

The thing people get confused with is performance.

Tyson in victory would almost always beat opponents in a quicker, more spectacular fashion. He would beat Holmes' victims better than Larry did. But I'd still back him to lose more fights against an all-time top 100 than Holmes.