BoxRec

What would the great Mike Tyson's legacy would be if he would have retired and never come back after demolishing the great Michael Spinks in only 91 seconds?

He threatened the media about retiring after the fight because his life in 1988 was in so much turnmoil.

Would he be in the class of the heavyweight greats like Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis?

Would he be called an all-time top 10 pound per pound great? In 1988, he was considered the greatest fighter pound per pound in the world. The Baddest Man in the Planet.

elmersalsa wrote:What would the great Mike Tyson's legacy would be if he would have retired and never come back after demolishing the great Michael Spinks in only 91 seconds?

He threatened the media about retiring after the fight because his life in 1988 was in so much turnmoil.

Would he be in the class of the heavyweight greats like Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis?

Would he be called an all-time top 10 pound per pound great? In 1988, he was considered the greatest fighter pound per pound in the world. The Baddest Man in the Planet.

(Reasonable) people would have rightly pointed to the brevity of his career, & his lack of quality rivals, denying him a place among the greats.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:What would the great Mike Tyson's legacy would be if he would have retired and never come back after demolishing the great Michael Spinks in only 91 seconds?

He threatened the media about retiring after the fight because his life in 1988 was in so much turnmoil.

Would he be in the class of the heavyweight greats like Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis?

Would he be called an all-time top 10 pound per pound great? In 1988, he was considered the greatest fighter pound per pound in the world. The Baddest Man in the Planet.

(Reasonable) people would have rightly pointed to the brevity of his career, & his lack of quality rivals, denying him a place among the greats.

He stopped Hall of Famer Larry Holmes before Holmes went the distance with Holyfield and beat Mercer.

He also stopped Hall of Famer Michael Spinks in 91 seconds.

Both quality rivals. Only a prime Tyson could dispatch fighters that were that good, that quickly.

elmersalsa wrote:What would the great Mike Tyson's legacy would be if he would have retired and never come back after demolishing the great Michael Spinks in only 91 seconds?

He threatened the media about retiring after the fight because his life in 1988 was in so much turnmoil.

Would he be in the class of the heavyweight greats like Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano, Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis?

Would he be called an all-time top 10 pound per pound great? In 1988, he was considered the greatest fighter pound per pound in the world. The Baddest Man in the Planet.

This is an excellent question, because most of what Tyson did after 1988 actually harms his legacy.

Taking this into account, he'd probably be rated even more highly had he somehow left the sport after the Spinks fight; maybe?

I hope the original poster of this poem will forgive me (HumanWindmill on 606), but I thought this a brilliant look at how some of Tyson's more blinkered fans think of him:

Don't speak to me of Ali
Or slow, flat - footed Louis
Of boring Larry Holmes
Or glass - jawed Lennox Lewis
Of Foreman, or of Frazier
Facts are much too clinical
Just let me tell you all about
Mike Tyson at his pinnacle.

With Atlas in his corner
He'd have whipped them all, I swear
Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey,
Tunney, Sharkey, Baer
I've even learned to thpeak like him
And tho hath my friend, Dennith
Tho much to we both revere
Mike Tyson at his zenith.

The handspeed and the footspeed
The movement of his head
The lethal combinations
That filled a man with dread
The hooks and jabs and uppercuts
That rendered strong men weak
Belonged to just one heavyweight
Mike Tyson at his peak.

On Friday nights my friends and I
Sit round our TVs
To pay homage to the Iron One
And watch his DVDs
Do we watch his losses ?
Surely, friend, you jest !
The Iron Mike of whom you speak
Was not Tyson at his best.

We get in from our Snooker Clubs
With six packs and with curries
And watch him batter Tony Tubbs
Without a moment's worry
Of course, we skip the Douglas fight
For I've said a hundred times
The Tyson who fought Buster.
Was not Tyson in his prime.

If Cus D' Amato hadn't died
If he hadn't gone to jail
If there hadn't been Desiree
If he hadn't gone off the rails
The Pope would beautify him
There's be statues in the Sistine
And underneath, the plaques would read
Mike Tyson. Perfect. Pristine.

Surely all these theories about what if Duran had retired or Roy Jones or Tyson etc... just go to prove that the way fighters are rated is wrong.

Fighting and losing must ALWAYS be better than not fighting at all. Otherwise what sort of a sport is it?

Ezzard wrote:Surely all these theories about what if Duran had retired or Roy Jones or Tyson etc... just go to prove that the way fighters are rated is wrong.

Fighting and losing must ALWAYS be better than not fighting at all. Otherwise what sort of a sport is it?

I think I disagree with you a wee bit there Ezzard. I think we should judge fighters on what happened when they were in their prime.

Ezzard wrote:Surely all these theories about what if Duran had retired or Roy Jones or Tyson etc... just go to prove that the way fighters are rated is wrong.

Fighting and losing must ALWAYS be better than not fighting at all. Otherwise what sort of a sport is it?

I don't agree. Boxers have a certain level that you give them based subjectively on their ability and objectively on their record. If they fight and put in a performance lower than what you expect based on previous experience you will naturally rank them lower. Are you saying that if Mayweather fought Berto tomorrow and lost, he would increase in your rankings compared to where you will have him otherwise i.e. in the current state of him not fighting?

Scottrf wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Surely all these theories about what if Duran had retired or Roy Jones or Tyson etc... just go to prove that the way fighters are rated is wrong.

Fighting and losing must ALWAYS be better than not fighting at all. Otherwise what sort of a sport is it?

I don't agree. Boxers have a certain level that you give them based subjectively on their ability and objectively on their record. If they fight and put in a performance lower than what you expect based on previous experience you will naturally rank them lower. Are you saying that if Mayweather fought Berto tomorrow and lost, he would increase in your rankings compared to where you will have him otherwise i.e. in the current state of him not fighting?

No, I'm saying my ranking of Berto would increase. To do otherwise is to basically sanction the 2 fights a year, safety first, stipluate all the advantages, type careers we are now stuck with.

Mayweather has not taken on a live fight since DLH (and I was sceptical about that one). Better to be more forgiving of the odd defeat and take it as a professional hazard than covert an unbeaten record to the detriment of the sport.

I'd rate Mayweather higher had he lost a couple but won 5 or 6 more.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Surely all these theories about what if Duran had retired or Roy Jones or Tyson etc... just go to prove that the way fighters are rated is wrong.

Fighting and losing must ALWAYS be better than not fighting at all. Otherwise what sort of a sport is it?

I think I disagree with you a wee bit there Ezzard. I think we should judge fighters on what happened when they were in their prime.

That's fair enough. But what happens outside of their prime can tell you a lot about the man.

Ezzard wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Surely all these theories about what if Duran had retired or Roy Jones or Tyson etc... just go to prove that the way fighters are rated is wrong.

Fighting and losing must ALWAYS be better than not fighting at all. Otherwise what sort of a sport is it?

I don't agree. Boxers have a certain level that you give them based subjectively on their ability and objectively on their record. If they fight and put in a performance lower than what you expect based on previous experience you will naturally rank them lower. Are you saying that if Mayweather fought Berto tomorrow and lost, he would increase in your rankings compared to where you will have him otherwise i.e. in the current state of him not fighting?

No, I'm saying my ranking of Berto would increase. To do otherwise is to basically sanction the 2 fights a year, safety first, stipluate all the advantages, type careers we are now stuck with.

Mayweather has not taken on a live fight since DLH (and I was sceptical about that one). Better to be more forgiving of the odd defeat and take it as a professional hazard than covert an unbeaten record to the detriment of the sport.

I'd rate Mayweather higher had he lost a couple but won 5 or 6 more.

Of course Berto's ranking would increase after beating the best fighter of a generation, he wouldn't be expected to. Mayweathers shouldn't increase for losing to Berto though simply because he fought him. As for ranking him higher with 5 or 6 more wins, 2 more losses, depends who against and the nature of the losses.

Scottrf wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Scottrf wrote: I don't agree. Boxers have a certain level that you give them based subjectively on their ability and objectively on their record. If they fight and put in a performance lower than what you expect based on previous experience you will naturally rank them lower. Are you saying that if Mayweather fought Berto tomorrow and lost, he would increase in your rankings compared to where you will have him otherwise i.e. in the current state of him not fighting?

No, I'm saying my ranking of Berto would increase. To do otherwise is to basically sanction the 2 fights a year, safety first, stipluate all the advantages, type careers we are now stuck with.

Mayweather has not taken on a live fight since DLH (and I was sceptical about that one). Better to be more forgiving of the odd defeat and take it as a professional hazard than covert an unbeaten record to the detriment of the sport.

I'd rate Mayweather higher had he lost a couple but won 5 or 6 more.

Of course Berto's ranking would increase after beating the best fighter of a generation, he wouldn't be expected to. Mayweathers shouldn't increase for losing to Berto though simply because he fought him. As for ranking him higher with 5 or 6 more wins, 2 more losses, depends who against and the nature of the losses.

Your system is flawed though, Scott. Better fro Floyd and Pac to have retired a while back. That can't be good for the sport?

Better to beat nobodies to get to 20-0, win a title, beat up a few more nobodies (but look great while doing it) and then retire...saying something like, "Only G0d can judge me!"

That's a system and way of thinking that has, I believe, been ruinous to the sport.

Ezzard wrote:Your system is flawed though, Scott. Better fro Floyd and Pac to have retired a while back. That can't be good for the sport?

Better to beat nobodies to get to 20-0, win a title, beat up a few more nobodies (but look great while doing it) and then retire...saying something like, "Only G0d can judge me!"

That's a system and way of thinking that has, I believe, been ruinous to the sport.

You get me wrong. They obviously can increase their resumes by winning, but clearly they can't increase their standing by losing. Otherwise it doesn't matter if they win or lose a fight now and you would rate Floyd if he was 0-41? They take a risk, if it's a fight they are expected to win; their resume will look slightly better for it through winning, a lot worse if they lose. If they aren't expected to win; their CV will look much better through winning, only slightly worse from losing, or even better if their performance was above expectations. Obviously it's harder for a great fighter to increase their ranking, because they have less to gain and more to lose. That's how it should be.

Scottrf wrote:...but clearly they can't increase their standing by losing.

You might want to think about re-stating this thought in a different manner.

The Great John L wrote:

Scottrf wrote:...but clearly they can't increase their standing by losing.

You might want to think about re-stating this thought in a different manner.

Why so? Only if they put in a performance above what you would expect. The main point stands, especially in the context I was talking about of Mayweather vs Berto.

I could have filled the post with qualifications, but was making a general point; a great isn't going to making his CV better by continually racking up losses.

Scottrf wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Your system is flawed though, Scott. Better fro Floyd and Pac to have retired a while back. That can't be good for the sport?

Better to beat nobodies to get to 20-0, win a title, beat up a few more nobodies (but look great while doing it) and then retire...saying something like, "Only G0d can judge me!"

That's a system and way of thinking that has, I believe, been ruinous to the sport.

You get me wrong. They obviously can increase their resumes by winning, but clearly they can't increase their standing by losing. Otherwise it doesn't matter if they win or lose a fight now and you would rate Floyd if he was 0-41? They take a risk, if it's a fight they are expected to win; their resume will look slightly better for it through winning, a lot worse if they lose. If they aren't expected to win; their CV will look much better through winning, only slightly worse from losing, or even better if their performance was above expectations. Obviously it's harder for a great fighter to increase their ranking, because they have less to gain and more to lose. That's how it should be.

Archie Moore lost a number of fights. They made him a better fighter.

I don't hold any of those defeats up as detrimental to Moore or his standing. Same with Harold Johnson.

A guy like Mayweather (just using him as an example) can never get close to this kind of greatness because of the way careers now work.

0-41? Come on...

Ezzard wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Your system is flawed though, Scott. Better fro Floyd and Pac to have retired a while back. That can't be good for the sport?

Better to beat nobodies to get to 20-0, win a title, beat up a few more nobodies (but look great while doing it) and then retire...saying something like, "Only G0d can judge me!"

That's a system and way of thinking that has, I believe, been ruinous to the sport.

You get me wrong. They obviously can increase their resumes by winning, but clearly they can't increase their standing by losing. Otherwise it doesn't matter if they win or lose a fight now and you would rate Floyd if he was 0-41? They take a risk, if it's a fight they are expected to win; their resume will look slightly better for it through winning, a lot worse if they lose. If they aren't expected to win; their CV will look much better through winning, only slightly worse from losing, or even better if their performance was above expectations. Obviously it's harder for a great fighter to increase their ranking, because they have less to gain and more to lose. That's how it should be.

Archie Moore lost a number of fights. They made him a better fighter.

I don't hold any of those defeats up as detrimental to Moore or his standing. Same with Harold Johnson.

A guy like Mayweather (just using him as an example) can never get close to this kind of greatness because of the way careers now work.

0-41? Come on...

Take off the losses and he's the same in your standing? Archie Moore with the same wins and an unbeaten record would be placed the same as what you have him now? That's ridiculous.

How can a fighter possibly just as good whether he loses a fight or not. I understand what you are saying about taking on challenges but what your are saying is illogical.

Ezzard wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Your system is flawed though, Scott. Better fro Floyd and Pac to have retired a while back. That can't be good for the sport?

Better to beat nobodies to get to 20-0, win a title, beat up a few more nobodies (but look great while doing it) and then retire...saying something like, "Only G0d can judge me!"

That's a system and way of thinking that has, I believe, been ruinous to the sport.

You get me wrong. They obviously can increase their resumes by winning, but clearly they can't increase their standing by losing. Otherwise it doesn't matter if they win or lose a fight now and you would rate Floyd if he was 0-41? They take a risk, if it's a fight they are expected to win; their resume will look slightly better for it through winning, a lot worse if they lose. If they aren't expected to win; their CV will look much better through winning, only slightly worse from losing, or even better if their performance was above expectations. Obviously it's harder for a great fighter to increase their ranking, because they have less to gain and more to lose. That's how it should be.

Archie Moore lost a number of fights. They made him a better fighter.

I don't hold any of those defeats up as detrimental to Moore or his standing. Same with Harold Johnson.

A guy like Mayweather (just using him as an example) can never get close to this kind of greatness because of the way careers now work.

0-41? Come on...

Ezzard.

WOuld you agree that all of Thomas Hearns' losses have had a negative effect on his legacy.

Scottrf wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Scottrf wrote: You get me wrong. They obviously can increase their resumes by winning, but clearly they can't increase their standing by losing. Otherwise it doesn't matter if they win or lose a fight now and you would rate Floyd if he was 0-41? They take a risk, if it's a fight they are expected to win; their resume will look slightly better for it through winning, a lot worse if they lose. If they aren't expected to win; their CV will look much better through winning, only slightly worse from losing, or even better if their performance was above expectations. Obviously it's harder for a great fighter to increase their ranking, because they have less to gain and more to lose. That's how it should be.

Archie Moore lost a number of fights. They made him a better fighter.

I don't hold any of those defeats up as detrimental to Moore or his standing. Same with Harold Johnson.

A guy like Mayweather (just using him as an example) can never get close to this kind of greatness because of the way careers now work.

0-41? Come on...

Take off the losses and he's the same in your standing? Archie Moore with the same wins and an unbeaten record would be placed the same as what you have him now? That's ridiculous.

How can a fighter possibly just as good whether he loses a fight or not. I understand what you are saying about taking on challenges but what your are saying is illogical.

No. Didn't say that.

I'm saying fighting Ezzard Charles and losing is better than not fighting him at all. If you don't agree then you're setting the fighters up not to compete

Ezzard wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ezzard wrote: Archie Moore lost a number of fights. They made him a better fighter.

I don't hold any of those defeats up as detrimental to Moore or his standing. Same with Harold Johnson.

A guy like Mayweather (just using him as an example) can never get close to this kind of greatness because of the way careers now work.

0-41? Come on...

Take off the losses and he's the same in your standing? Archie Moore with the same wins and an unbeaten record would be placed the same as what you have him now? That's ridiculous.

How can a fighter possibly just as good whether he loses a fight or not. I understand what you are saying about taking on challenges but what your are saying is illogical.

No. Didn't say that.

I'm saying fighting Ezzard Charles and losing is better than not fighting him at all. If you don't agree then you're setting the fighters up not to compete

Okey i can understand that and respect that as i am pretty much of the same opinion but do you mean that Rocky Marciano would be ranked as highly he is if he had been 48-1 or if he faced Patterson for the 50-0 and lost?

Ezzard wrote:No. Didn't say that.

I'm saying fighting Ezzard Charles and losing is better than not fighting him at all. If you don't agree then you're setting the fighters up not to compete

It really depends who you are, and the showing you put up. Like I said before if you are expected to beat Charles and lose you should be knocked down a few places. But noone is expected to beat Charles, so their resume will probably look better if they put up a decent enough showing. If Archie Moore had been shutout in one fight and was knocked out in the first round in another he wouldn't be rated as highly. Haye's CV is better without Wlad than it would be if he got smashed around the ring by him. It might make you a better boxer, but it also shows your level, and you can't be thought of as highly as the standard of people you lose to. Other than showing his ambition, Hatton would have been better off not fighting Pacquiao because of how easily beaten he was. Whereas the Mayweather fight might make his CV better because he put up a decent enough showing for parts of it. But at least he found his level. If just facing great boxers was enough, journeymen would be thought of as legends.

I think that the vast majority of losses are detrimental towards the boxer's legacy.

Lennox Lewis is a good case in point. His two losses are very hard to forget in terms of his career.

Tyson is also a good example. None of his losses enhance his legacy.

I hear what Ezzard is saying about losses being good, but I think it can only be a good thing if the fighter is the underdog going into the fight. If a favourite loses then in can only be a bad thing.

Case in point would be George Foreman. Underdog going into the Holyfield fight, but his legacy wass enhanced by his performance.

Would you put Tyson in the top 100 greatest pound per pound fighters list? In what position he would be in your view? I got him in somwhere between 90 and 100 spots. At heavyweight rankings, he's around 11 to 15 slot/spot for me.

Ezzard wrote:Archie Moore lost a number of fights. They made him a better fighter.

I don't hold any of those defeats up as detrimental to Moore or his standing. Same with Harold Johnson.

A guy like Mayweather (just using him as an example) can never get close to this kind of greatness because of the way careers now work.

0-41? Come on...

Seems to be several schools of thought here, though I totally agree with Ezzard on this. Just because you lose, that doesnt mean you should be thought of as lesser.

Picking up on Ezzard's Mayweather analagy (as the 2 best fighters fight in this division), how many past WW greats have losses and how many of todays WW would you favour over them?

bengulnaci1 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Archie Moore lost a number of fights. They made him a better fighter.

I don't hold any of those defeats up as detrimental to Moore or his standing. Same with Harold Johnson.

A guy like Mayweather (just using him as an example) can never get close to this kind of greatness because of the way careers now work.

0-41? Come on...

Seems to be several schools of thought here, though I totally agree with Ezzard on this. Just because you lose, that doesnt mean you should be thought of as lesser.

Picking up on Ezzard's Mayweather analagy (as the 2 best fighters fight in this division), how many past WW greats have losses and how many of todays WW would you favour over them?

You rate them higher because of their wins though. Obviously without accomplishments it doesn't matter if you are unbeaten, but to say losses don't matter at all is trying too hard to go against the overprotection of modern boxers, seeing as the whole point is to win. The natural extention of a loss not mattering at all is that Mayweather could be 0-41 with the same opposition and be rated just as highly. Either that's not what people mean or they don't get the point of sport. As I said before, if losses didn't matter journeymen would be thought of as legends, since some of them have faced better competition than the greats. How much it matters depends on the competition and nature of the loss.