BoxRec

... if he had held his life together??

In the late 80s when Tyson was knocking out top contenders cold, he was, potentially heing named in the same bracket as Ali.

Of course we all know the deaths of his mentors, failed marriage, trouble with the law, rape charges etc... has contributed to his downfall

he dumped his original team not long after winning the title for Don King and a variety of yes men.
Tyson was facing all sorts of personal problems even before his loss to Douglas, and he was never the same fighter when he came out of prison.
Holyfield did not beat a prime Tyson.

Had he managed to keep it together physically and psychologically and retired by 32 could he have been up there with Ali in Heavyweight Valhalla?

OH MY GOD....

IT NEVER ENDS...

I AM FOREVER PERMANENTLY TRAPPED IN F#CKIN GROUNDHOG DAY!!!!!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

hey i'm new to these posts!

There hasn't been a post like this for at least the last 3 pages

If he wouldn't have went nuts then he absolutely could have been the greatest ever. He had the skills, heart, chin, power and speed...he just lacked the brains. He was still one of the ten, or twenty best of all-time! Personally...I rank him 6th all-time behind 1-Muhammad Ali, 2-Joe Louis, 3-Jack Dempsey, 4-Jack Johnson and 5-Rocky Marciano!

barry wrote:If he wouldn't have went nuts then he absolutely could have been the greatest ever. He had the skills, heart, chin, power and speed...he just lacked the brains. He was still one of the ten, or twenty best of all-time! Personally...I rank him 6th all-time behind 1-Muhammad Ali, 2-Joe Louis, 3-Jack Dempsey, 4-Jack Johnson and 5-Rocky Marciano!

Realistically, I think we should all now know that Tyson was always nuts and he couldn’t have been anyone other than who he was. You could also say that if Tyson hadn’t been nuts he would never have accomplished what he did, which was quite a bit. I’ve currently got him at 11 in my HW rankings, and he’s always been in the 8-12 range, so he was clearly one of the greats, but I think his “character flaws” were one of the primary reasons he reached the heights that he did. If you take aspect of him away, then he may have never been more than a minor blip in HW history.

overhand_right wrote:OH MY GOD....

IT NEVER ENDS...

I AM FOREVER PERMANENTLY TRAPPED IN F#CKIN GROUNDHOG DAY!!!!!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

overhand_right wrote:OH MY GOD....

IT NEVER ENDS...

I AM FOREVER PERMANENTLY TRAPPED IN F#CKIN GROUNDHOG DAY!!!!!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Yawn
well don't reply to the post then

Well you could say the same thing about half a dozen champs, Baer, Dokes, Witherspoon, Bowe, Leon Spinks, but the whole thing about greatness is whats inside a fighters head rather than how talented he is physically... I rate Tyson about 15th all time because he was so fatally flawed... had he held it together he could have been a top 5 all timer but he would always have trouble with movers like Ali and the likes of Liston and Foreman who would push him back, so I cant really see him ever being the best of all time because he just didnt have the all round talent to beat everyone...
Bowe, Dokes and Witherspoon were all better rounded fighters than Tyson and could have been dominant champions if they had had different mindsets... Bowe had the talent to be far better than Tyson ever was but threw it away... Bowe with Ali's brain could have been one of the best ever...

True... but the point of the post is had he maintained his 80s peak and retired at say 32 (without doing time in jail).

I was only a kid at the time, but when Tyson was at the top in the 80s there was this aura about him. People thought he was invincible!
At the time people were putting him in their top 3, even though he was only aged 22/23

The Great John L wrote:

barry wrote:If he wouldn't have went nuts then he absolutely could have been the greatest ever. He had the skills, heart, chin, power and speed...he just lacked the brains. He was still one of the ten, or twenty best of all-time! Personally...I rank him 6th all-time behind 1-Muhammad Ali, 2-Joe Louis, 3-Jack Dempsey, 4-Jack Johnson and 5-Rocky Marciano!

Realistically, I think we should all now know that Tyson was always nuts and he couldn’t have been anyone other than who he was. You could also say that if Tyson hadn’t been nuts he would never have accomplished what he did, which was quite a bit. I’ve currently got him at 11 in my HW rankings, and he’s always been in the 8-12 range, so he was clearly one of the greats, but I think his “character flaws” were one of the primary reasons he reached the heights that he did. If you take aspect of him away, then he may have never been more than a minor blip in HW history.

true his greatness and his problems were part and parcel of the same person, can't have one without the other.

Quick answer to that is YES, had Rooney stayed, King never met him and had Mike been able to resist the tepmtations of greed and the flash lifestyle.

But that's what separates good fighters from absolute legends, character!!!!!!

Heartbreak_Kid79 wrote:True... but the point of the post is had he maintained his 80s peak and retired at say 32 (without doing time in jail).

I was only a kid at the time, but when Tyson was at the top in the 80s there was this aura about him. People thought he was invincible!
At the time people were putting him in their top 3, even though he was only aged 22/23

Mike wasn't the only fighter in history to have that aura. There will be more of them in the future.

No.....I think he was a freak who peaked very early for a heavyweight and then declined a couple of years after winning the titles, you look at his fights between the Berbick & Douglas fights and there is no one that really stood out as a serious threat to him, apart from maybe a blown up Spinks. After he got out of jail he was feed a load of stiffs apart from maybe Ruddock, once he came up against a real top 3 fighter he got spanked.

----Baer, Dokes, Witherspoon, Bowe, Leon Spinks-----


Big difference between Tyson and those guys are how Tyson was the absolute dominant heavyweight until 1990, those mentioned were never the dominant heavyweight in they're career...they may have been right at the top, but there were others who were right with them...no heavyweight of the middle to late 80s was equal to Tyson for four, or five years, plus he had quite a few title defenses, which those other heavies mentioned completely lacked.

Ezzard wrote:true his greatness and his problems were part and parcel of the same person, can't have one without the other.

Well, that’s part of what I was trying to say, but I really meant was that part of what made him great was that he was a little crazy. I think if he had not had some “unusual personality traits”, then he probably wouldn’t have been as great as he was. Many of the greatest artists and inventors would also be considered a little crazy, and they also would not have been as great without that little vein of craziness in their personality. Sometimes it helps an athlete to be a little crazy, and I think Tyson is a perfect example.

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:true his greatness and his problems were part and parcel of the same person, can't have one without the other.

Well, that’s part of what I was trying to say, but I really meant was that part of what made him great was that he was a little crazy. I think if he had not had some “unusual personality traits”, then he probably wouldn’t have been as great as he was. Many of the greatest artists and inventors would also be considered a little crazy, and they also would not have been as great without that little vein of craziness in their personality. Sometimes it helps an athlete to be a little crazy, and I think Tyson is a perfect example.

It's a good point. Tyson aciveed as much as he could and was as good as he possibly could have been.

As effective as Tyson's bobbing and weaving defense was in his prime, he could not box on the back foot. Every fighter will be forced to do this at some point. Some guys are going to be bigger and stronger than you and very difficult to tie up.

As much as I admire Frazier for getting up and going right back after Foreman six times, it meant that right from the first knockdown it was inevitable he was going to get knocked out.

Terence wrote:Has anyone seen 'The Life of Brian'?

Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, fcuk off!
[silence]
Arthur: How shall we fcuk off, O Lord?

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:true his greatness and his problems were part and parcel of the same person, can't have one without the other.

Well, that’s part of what I was trying to say, but I really meant was that part of what made him great was that he was a little crazy. I think if he had not had some “unusual personality traits”, then he probably wouldn’t have been as great as he was. Many of the greatest artists and inventors would also be considered a little crazy, and they also would not have been as great without that little vein of craziness in their personality. Sometimes it helps an athlete to be a little crazy, and I think Tyson is a perfect example.

It would make an interesting study to assess certain athletes and their mental makeup and see how it lead to their success. Just off the top of my head if you compare an athlete who is mentally stable to one who is unstable I think overall the one who is more stable will on average have a longer career where the guy who has problems although maybe brillant for awhile will sooner or later implode.

Examples of atletes who are mentally stable and those who are not.
Golf-Tiger Woods, all time great, John Daley flash in the pan
Football (American)- Jerry Rice, all time great, Jeff George up and down
Baseball-Gred Maddux, all time great, Denny Maclain a few great seasons and then went bust
Basketball-Larry Bird, all time great, Qaumi Brown, total bust

Now this is only anecdotel evidence and you could find guys who were emotionally unstable who did have long careers such as Dennis Rodmen, Ty Cobb, or Lawrence Taylor but on average I bet if you researched it I say you would conclude athletes with mental problems do'nt last as long which would detract signifinatley from any status of greatness.

I don't think he was physically equipped to have been the greatest ever.

Short, squat, aggressive, come forward type fighters only have short primes.

Once their primes are over, they are pretty much done.

To be the best ever, you have to be dominant of a long period & adapt your style to cope with diminishing skills, like Ali did.

kick asner wrote:It would make an interesting study to assess certain athletes and their mental makeup and see how it lead to their success. Just off the top of my head if you compare an athlete who is mentally stable to one who is unstable I think overall the one who is more stable will on average have a longer career where the guy who has problems although maybe brillant for awhile will sooner or later implode.

Examples of atletes who are mentally stable and those who are not.
Golf-Tiger Woods, all time great, John Daley flash in the pan
Football (American)- Jerry Rice, all time great, Jeff George up and down
Baseball-Gred Maddux, all time great, Denny Maclain a few great seasons and then went bust
Basketball-Larry Bird, all time great, Qaumi Brown, total bust

Now this is only anecdotel evidence and you could find guys who were emotionally unstable who did have long careers such as Dennis Rodmen, Ty Cobb, or Lawrence Taylor but on average I bet if you researched it I say you would conclude athletes with mental problems do'nt last as long which would detract signifinatley from any status of greatness.

Yes, that would be interesting. Of course what I’m saying is that the TYPE of emotional problems Tyson had were beneficial to his career. His anger and tendency towards aggressiveness and violence probably made him more ferocious in the ring, and also helped to intimidate most of his opponents. Without that hostility and aggressiveness, I don’t think he would have accomplished what he did. In fact, he may never have become a boxer.

It is my opinion that Tyson was not simply okey dokey but that he bordered on super duper. Of course there can never be enough info flow on this particular subject.

Only Marciano has a higher comment rate than that of Mike in these hallowed halls.

What do you mean, "could have been?"

Eric the Viking wrote:What do you mean, "could have been?"

Its hindsight

walshb wrote:Quick answer to that is YES, had Rooney stayed, King never met him and had Mike been able to resist the tepmtations of greed and the flash lifestyle.

But that's what separates good fighters from absolute legends, character!!!!!!

I agree on this