Mike Tyson-top 10 all time ranking

Exchamp07 · Post by **Exchamp07** » 31 Aug 2007, 22:49

HomicideHenry wrote:I rank Tyson way behind Holmes, Holyfield and Lewis...I personally rank him somewhere around 12-15, considering I have the #10 slot for Holmes and #11 for Lewis.

Yes, Holmes did give him one hell of a fight. lol

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 01 Sep 2007, 06:12

I absoloutely love Alp's post on his ranking of George Foreman, and I can't believe am saying this, but I agree 100% with it. I give mad props for Alp on that, was excellent post.

The Durable Dane · Post by **The Durable Dane** » 02 Sep 2007, 04:55

1.Muhammad Ali
2.Joe Louis
3.Rocky Marciano
4.Larry Holmes
5.George Foreman
6.Lennox Lewis
7.Jack Dempsey
8.Evander Holyfield
9.Sonny Liston
10.Jack Johnson
11.Joe Frazier
12.Mike Tyson
13.Jim Jeffries
14.Ezzard Charles
15.Gene Tunney
16.Jersey Joe Walcott
17.Riddick Bowe
18.Floyd Patterson
19.Sam Langford
20.Max Schmelling

Matt W · Post by **Matt W** » 02 Sep 2007, 06:59

I'm new to this forum and it's very refreshing to read a thread about Tyson's historical standing that doesn't forget that during his prime he struggled with Bonecrusher Smith & Tony Tucker. And that recognises the myth surrounding what would have happened if Cus / Rooney would have stayed around. Future generations that won't be caught up in the excitement of following him knocking people out will probably find it hard to believe that some people consider him amongst the best of all time.

And slightly changing the topic, people often bring up his 'false imprisonment' as affecting his legacy. Is it that hard to believe he was guilty? We saw vs Holyfield what he was capable of doing and then justifying. And we know that he was no angel with women in the past. And really, what did Washington have to gain from the whole thing? If I'm right most rape cases are notoriously difficult to secure a conviction for - you wouldn't fancy your chances against one of the most famous men on the planet, especially if you knew you were lying. For me it's easier to believe that he did do it than he didn't, although only the 2 of them know the truth.

tko123 · Post by **tko123** » 02 Sep 2007, 18:09

Mike was not even top 20, he lost to every good fighter he faced

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 02 Sep 2007, 22:15

Btw, I just want to make clear on my ranking of Holmes; though I do not rank him as high as most in here, I NEVER once said that Holmes couldn't have beaten a Marciano, Frazier, Johnson, Louis, etc. I have always said I felt outside of Jack Johnson and Holyfield that Holmes stood the greatest chance of defeating a prime Muhammad Ali who is arguably the greatest of all time (least at HW).

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 03 Sep 2007, 00:48

Decagon wrote:I agree with your #1 and #2 picks, but after that, the list turns to shit.

Why is that, Decagon?

You do not like Marciano?

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 03 Sep 2007, 02:14

Your rankings suck because you base them on theoretical situations which are up to debate, instead of what actually happened.

Whatever Decagon; Tommy Burns ffs could have beaten half the men Holmes did for crying out loud. Any of Joe Louis's Bum of The Month club opponents could have as well. Take a real look at the men he defeated ffs. Yes Holmes proved his dominance, like a real champion should, but had he fought in a tougher era he wouldn't have went the 48-0 that he did against the likes of Cobb, Frank, etc

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 04 Sep 2007, 00:06

i think if was on talent alon or wot he should of been hed be easy top 5...
i think that ur rite wen u say if cus was around 4 most of tysons career he woulda been top 5 easy... i think he should of been alot more

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 04 Sep 2007, 05:48

Ambling Alp wrote:Sure, you can spin it and pick apart Frazier's opponents if you really want to. Just focus on the negatives of Quarry,Mathis, Ellis etc. Don't mention the positives.

You don't think you can do the same thing with Lewis' wins over a past it Holyfield, Michael Grant,Golota,Tua,Ruddock, Klitschko?

Frazier lost to two fighters in his career, Ali and Foreman. No matter how you slice it, that's not as bad losing to Rahman and McCall.

Frazier did beat Ali. Even though it wasn't Ali at his best, that was a much more impressive win than any victory that Lewis ever had.

Agree with your points, but Lewis did avenge both of his defeats brutally. Lewis was clearly much better than McCall and Rahman, but these losses do hurt his legacy. When Lewis was "up for it", he always won.
I think Frazier's KO losses to Foreman also hurt his legacy. For me theyre both top 10, Lewis one or two places higher than Joe

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 04 Sep 2007, 07:49

Decagon wrote:Marciano's way too high at #4. He simply didn't beat as many great heavyweights as so many other fighters. And Peter Jackson at #10? For what? Beating guys like Mick Dooley and Peter Maher?

Is because you are basing your rankings solely in the quality of opposition. I ranked them according to other factors than just quality of opposition. Check Peter Jackson's career record and speaks a lot. He was not beaten for a long time in his prime, and was denied title shot opportunity because he was black, but still managed to get on top his game for a long time. In my opinion, he was better than John L. Sullivan.

As for Marciano, he dominated his weight class with excellent opposition. We may argue that he beat guys that were not at their very best when he fought them, but still, NOT ANYBODY COULD HAVE BEAT THEM JUST LIKE THAT. It's like Thomas Hearns beating Duran or Fullmer beating Robinson when Duran and Robinson were past their primes, but not just anybody could beat them just like that. Plus add to Marciano the 49-0 record and other great wins to good solid contenders like Ronald LaStarza, Rex Layne and Harry Matthews and others that I cannot tell right now and you have a good heavyweight resume. Let's not hate on Marciano.

theone · Post by **theone** » 04 Sep 2007, 08:43

As for Marciano, he dominated his weight class with excellent opposition. We may argue that he beat guys that were not at their very best when he fought them, but still, NOT ANYBODY COULD HAVE BEAT THEM JUST LIKE THAT.

Walcott, Moore, and Charles, the three fighters Marciano's legend is based on, all suffered brutal ko losses in their careers before fighting Marciano.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 04 Sep 2007, 08:51

1. Holmes
2. Louis
3. Liston
4. Ali
5. Marciano & Foreman (Tie)
6. Tyson
7. Dempsey
8. Johnson
9. Frazier
10. Sharkey

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 04 Sep 2007, 08:54

KO Artist wrote:1. Holmes
2. Louis
3. Liston
4. Ali
5. Marciano & Foreman (Tie)
6. Tyson
7. Dempsey
8. Johnson
9. Frazier
10. Sharkey

Always good to see a vastly different list to the usual.

What's your take on the Ali-Listopn fights?

yiddo14 · Post by **yiddo14** » 05 Sep 2007, 11:46

1.Louis
2.Ali
3.Holmes
4.Johnson
5.Marciano
6.Lewis
7.Foreman
8.Dempsey
9.Frazier
10.Liston
11.Holyfield
12.Tunney
13.Tyson
14.Jeffries
15.Charles

That is how my list of all time heavies usually turns out.
The only two fighters I would put money on Tyson beating(prime for prime of course)on that list are Charles and Tunney.
Even then, I would'nt put too much on!!
Tyson was a great heavy, but the bottom line is, he was'nt as great as a select few(namely the majority I rank above him!!)
No shame in that at all.

I think Lewis, Holyfield and even Bowe of the 90-00s generation would have always beat Tyson, even at his (very

)selcet prime

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 05 Sep 2007, 12:56

1) Ali
2) Louis
3) Johnson
4) Holmes
5) Foreman
6) Lewis
7) Marciano
8) Frazier
9) Holyfield
10) Liston

markl · Post by **markl** » 05 Sep 2007, 16:23

Decagon wrote:Tyson's talent didn't last for 12 or 15 rounds, like Joe Frazier's, Muhammad Ali's, Joe Louis's, Jack Dempsey's... Based on talent, it might be something like this:

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Jack Johnson
3. Joe Louis
4. "Jersey" Joe Walcott
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Jack Sharkey
7. Gene Tunney
8. Larry Holmes
9. Sonny Liston
10. Mike Tyson

Max Bear should be on this list somewhere.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 06 Sep 2007, 22:41

Decagon wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
Decagon wrote:Marciano's way too high at #4. He simply didn't beat as many great heavyweights as so many other fighters. And Peter Jackson at #10? For what? Beating guys like Mick Dooley and Peter Maher?
Is because you are basing your rankings solely in the quality of opposition. I ranked them according to other factors than just quality of opposition. Check Peter Jackson's career record and speaks a lot. He was not beaten for a long time in his prime, and was denied title shot opportunity because he was black, but still managed to get on top his game for a long time. In my opinion, he was better than John L. Sullivan.

As for Marciano, he dominated his weight class with excellent opposition. We may argue that he beat guys that were not at their very best when he fought them, but still, NOT ANYBODY COULD HAVE BEAT THEM JUST LIKE THAT. It's like Thomas Hearns beating Duran or Fullmer beating Robinson when Duran and Robinson were past their primes, but not just anybody could beat them just like that. Plus add to Marciano the 49-0 record and other great wins to good solid contenders like Ronald LaStarza, Rex Layne and Harry Matthews and others that I cannot tell right now and you have a good heavyweight resume. Let's not hate on Marciano.
Please. Stop talking like a ghetto-idiot. No one's "hating on" Marciano. I just suggested that your ranking of him was too high. You talk about how great Marciano's performances were against the top fighters, but look at how much trouble he had against Moore and Walcott.

Well, I am not going to try to convince you about what I think of Marciano and Peter Jackson. And I am not going to fall into games of name-calling. Let's have more decency, please

Beating Moore, Charles and Walcott in your resume of that time is A VERY GOOD RESUME, BY ANY STANDARDS.

The only problem here is that those guys were not at their very top of their game, but neither were washed up or over the hill, my friend.

I know one thing for certain is that Walcott, Moore and Charles of that time were much better in that state when Duran, Delahoya or Benitez were when their skills were not to par. They were credible challenges for Rocky and they gave Rocky all they could handle. Was they are their very best? No, but Rocky does not have the fault of fighting them. They were the best fighters that Rocky fought. And I bet anybody this: Even Ali, Foreman or Frazier or Holyfield would have had many problems with the likes of Moore, Charles and Walcott...You know that is the truth.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 06 Sep 2007, 22:44

Decagon wrote:Ezzard Charles was too small for Tyson. Tyson's quick uppercuts would cut him to pieces, and Tyson would walk through any shot Charles landed on him.

Not according to some folks here

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 06 Sep 2007, 23:37

I think Charles is maybe the most underrated fighter of all time, and I think Tyson is maybe the most overrated fighter of all time... but Tyson would likely knock out Charles. I could be wrong, of course.

theone · Post by **theone** » 07 Sep 2007, 06:20

Charles wouldn't get beat by Tyson like Michael Spinks did. He would have lasted at least two more rounds. Tyson too big too strong too fast too hard chinned for any fighter that size.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 07 Sep 2007, 10:19

Best for best I'd favor Tyson over Charles but would not be shocked by an upset. Elmer Ray was just as big and hard-hitting as Tyson and Charles knocked him out, albeit Ray was in his late 30s and past his best.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 07 Sep 2007, 18:02

Ezzard wrote:
KO Artist wrote:1. Holmes
2. Louis
3. Liston
4. Ali
5. Marciano & Foreman (Tie)
6. Tyson
7. Dempsey
8. Johnson
9. Frazier
10. Sharkey
Always good to see a vastly different list to the usual.

What's your take on the Ali-Listopn fights?

Cheers.

I think Liston hardly trained for the first fight and Clay's speed baffled him a bit. Sonny didnt have the steam for a long fight with a high workrate to wear Clay down. I guess he was embarrassed and quit on his stool claiming injury.

The second fight Liston took a dive as sure as Tuesday follows Monday.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 07 Sep 2007, 18:09

Does Williams beat Liston on that night in Miami? No. Patterson? No. Machen? Nope.

Ali was also 22 and it was times 10 the biggest step up in his career to that point. There's no basis for ranking Liston ahead of Ali, or many of the other fighters you rank below Liston.

Something tells me you never saw Holmes' title reign. Ever see the Snipes fight? Witherspoon?

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 07 Sep 2007, 18:15

I Feel Fine wrote:Does Williams beat Liston on that night in Miami? No. Patterson? No. Machen? Nope.

Ali was also 22 and it was times 10 the biggest step up in his career to that point. There's no basis for ranking Liston ahead of Ali, or many of the other fighters you rank below Liston.

Something tells me you never saw Holmes' title reign. Ever see the Snipes fight? Witherspoon?

Saw all of Holmes reign and many before it, including his amatuer loss to Bobick.