Mike Tyson is the best

Ali was NOT the greatest. Neither was Tyson. Geez some of you are trying to make it look like Tyson lost 20 fights in his career. ''He can one night beat a guy into a coma and the next night could get beaten into one himself by a lesser opponent'' How many times has that happened? Never in his prime but twice when he was young :rolleyes:

errrm.. So basically, your saying that if Tyson hadn't been mentally fucktarded he would definitely have been the unanimous and undeniable greatest of all time? :o Better than Ali? Oh another thing I'd like to point out is that it's absolutely spasticated to penalise Tyson for losing to Williams and Mcbride. That's bull, because they were younger, and Tyson was basically about 40% of the fighter he was in '88. wat? no1's saying hed b the best hw ever. but he would rule his era, and mayb have beaten lewis or holyfield.

errrm.. So basically, your saying that if Tyson hadn't been mentally fucktarded he would definitely have been the unanimous and undeniable greatest of all time? :o no. his era wasnt the greatest in HW history. ali's was. i dont really need to say who the greatest is, now do i?

^^agreed, mike had all the talent in the world i 3rd that statement.

^^agreed, mike had all the talent in the world

Mike Tyson could never be the best. He could have been the best of his era, had he not ruined it for himself, but he wasn't talented enough to have been the best ever. Still though, he was a great but flawed fighter (almost like a guy who can one night beat a guy into a coma and the next night could get beaten into one himself by a lesser opponent). Tyson's ferocity and aggression and intimidation were an integral part of his fights. He lost that in 1990. He never regained it, and never will. oooooooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy :rolleyes:

The rematch vs Holyfield shouldn't be considered a loss, since Mike had a good fight and Holyfield didn't beat him. LOL! Geez, I think I've about seen it all from you Tyson apologists and no, besides a brief moment in the third round I wouldn't say Tyson "had a good fight", consdering he lost the first two rounds to Holyfield on my card.

He still didn't BEAT Tyson. And he should've bit Evanders head off :p Evander Holyfield-2 Mike Tyson-0 Whether you like it or not.

He still didn't BEAT Tyson. And he should've bit Evanders head off :p holyfield is still champ isnt he?

He still didn't BEAT Tyson. And he should've bit Evanders head off :p omg, ur putting up an arugement like pete mcneely saying "tyson didnt knock me out". you are stupid and desperate.

He still didn't BEAT Tyson. And he should've bit Evanders head off :p

I meant his amateur record. His pro record, i think it should be 50-5-44 and 3 no contest. The rematch vs Holyfield shouldn't be considered a loss, since Mike had a good fight and Holyfield didn't beat him. tyson bit PART OF THE MANS EAR OFF. if you dont think that he shouldve been DQd for that, ur an idiot. "mike had a good fight" thats like saying "oh you held the door open for me, ill let you out of jail" and saying "oh you had a good fight, ill just let you're biting his ear off slide"

hes 50-6 with 44 KOs and 2 No Contests. I meant his amateur record. His pro record, i think it should be 50-5-44 and 3 no contest. The rematch vs Holyfield shouldn't be considered a loss, since Mike had a good fight and Holyfield didn't beat him.

48-6 is still a great record. hes 50-6 with 44 KOs and 2 No Contests.

Mike Tyson sucks. I used to fall for his shit and think he could have been the greatest ever, but he had ZERO heart. I despise heartless fighters. Tarver would beat him on heart alone.

Why do most people think that Lennox Lewis and Holyfield beat the real Mike Tyson? The Mike Tyson they fought was not the real Mike Tyson of his early 20s. You go to jail for 3 years and try to be Champion that once he was. He fought Evander and Lennox for the money not to be champion. I know Tyson would knock them both out if they fought a prime Tyson. Lennox and Evander fought a Tyson that did not have much movement.What do you think? how could u say that, wen the "real" mike tyson never fought a "real" boxer, i mean, hes a good fighter, but very overrated to prove the point further, his notable wins list is next to nothing, and his notable losses could b a book. i like tyson, but he had no heart, and wasted so much talent

This is one of my earlier posts on the subject. Greatness is not measured by how good people think he was in his prime, or how good he could of been etc, it's measured by the fighters he has beaten. Mike Tyson may well have been the greatest prodigy in boxing history, but regardless of that, his record shows loses to Douglas, two loses to Holyfield and a loss to Lewis, his best win at his prime on paper is an inactive and aged Larry Holmes.

Everyone's talking about primes and how Tyson wasn't in his when his fights with the best of the era happened. But that in itself is the very reason why Tyson can never be considered an ATG. Fighters that are real ATGs all have accomplished careers with dominance in thei respective divisions. Durability - coming back from hardships, getting up when you get knocked down (in life as well as the ring) is one of the things that every boxer is judged by. Louis - Lost, came back, and beat the best again after he lost. Lewis - Lost to Mcall, came back and koed him. same with rahman. Ali - Had a few years in which he couldn't box - SAME AS TYSON. Came back, lost to frazier, rematched, and then went on to beat Foreman ALL the best fighters have had some sort of hardship - losses, prison, etc. One of the criteria of being an ATG is how you fight back - you lose, or you're out of the ring, and you get up and fight back. Tyson couldn't do this. He lost to the best fighters he fought. He only dominated for 2 years or so - againt sub-par competition. Indeed, if the circumstances were different, we may have considered Tyson to be greater than even The Greatest - but his circumstances, and his lack of discipline, his mental weaknesses, let him down. A boxer is not just a body, with speed, power, and skills. A boxer also has a mind - Tyson's was weak - and his mind let him down. Tyson can NOT be considered and all time great, and the reason? what you've all been saying. He wasn't in his prime. His prime was too short - and that's his own fault. Great post, just one small correction, Lewis didn't KO McCall, but i'm sure you knew that.

Everyone's talking about primes and how Tyson wasn't in his when his fights with the best of the era happened. But that in itself is the very reason why Tyson can never be considered an ATG. Fighters that are real ATGs all have accomplished careers with dominance in thei respective divisions. Durability - coming back from hardships, getting up when you get knocked down (in life as well as the ring) is one of the things that every boxer is judged by. Louis - Lost, came back, and beat the best again after he lost. Lewis - Lost to Mcall, came back and koed him. same with rahman. Ali - Had a few years in which he couldn't box - SAME AS TYSON. Came back, lost to frazier, rematched, and then went on to beat Foreman ALL the best fighters have had some sort of hardship - losses, prison, etc. One of the criteria of being an ATG is how you fight back - you lose, or you're out of the ring, and you get up and fight back. Tyson couldn't do this. He lost to the best fighters he fought. He only dominated for 2 years or so - againt sub-par competition. Indeed, if the circumstances were different, we may have considered Tyson to be greater than even The Greatest - but his circumstances, and his lack of discipline, his mental weaknesses, let him down. A boxer is not just a body, with speed, power, and skills. A boxer also has a mind - Tyson's was weak - and his mind let him down. Tyson can NOT be considered and all time great, and the reason? what you've all been saying. He wasn't in his prime. His prime was too short - and that's his own fault.

48-6 is still a great record.