Would Mike Tyson Be The GOAT If He Had Retired Undefeated?

If Tyson didn't lose Cus D'Amato so soon and then went to jail, dude would of wrecked the whole division for many years. Those two things really fucked him.

Well, duh. That's why it's a hypothetical question. It's not a totally different version of Tyson though, just means on the nights that he lost, he won instead. Imagine he was better just enough to win on those nights than the other guy. Better by just enough to win is still significantly better than he was. This question is equal to "If a fighter goes through Tyson's resume undefeated would they be the GOAT?"

Yes but that is a totally different version of Mike Tyson. I could say the same about Joe Frazier if he was undefeated but nevertheless that would be a different version of Joe Frazier. What is the point of all of this? Usually threads have a point such as a classic h2h match up, comparing resumes, etc. This is thread seems to be about "what if we changed the past". It brings no new realization about a certain fighter. Well, duh. That's why it's a hypothetical question. It's not a totally different version of Tyson though, just means on the nights that he lost, he won instead. Imagine he was better just enough to win on those nights than the other guy.

Yes... Had he beaten buster, Evander twice, lennox, danny, and kevin... Then yeah he is the goat, especially if he stops those guys.. 85-2006 undefeated 86-2006 twenty year run as undisputed heavyweight champ Yeah he would be the GOAT

But many people still do anyway. Of course any top fighter being unbeaten gives them a strong argument for being the best but the point is, Tyson was known as the most feared boxer in history at the time and thought to be the most unbeatable, indestructible force the sport had ever seen. So if he had, in fact, never been beaten and kept that reputation intact, would that be enough to propel him to the top of everyone (or most people's) lists of being the GOAT? Yes but that is a totally different version of Mike Tyson. I could say the same about Joe Frazier if he was undefeated but nevertheless that would be a different version of Joe Frazier. What is the point of all of this? Usually threads have a point such as a classic h2h match up, comparing resumes, etc. This is thread seems to be about "what if we changed the past". It brings no new realization about a certain fighter.

That's not what I mean... Take Ali for instance. We saw Ali get beat. What if we never saw him get beat and that he in turn beat Frazier, Norton, Berbick, Spinks, and Holmes? He would be regarded as the greatest of all time hands down. Marciano didn't fight the strongest of opposition after all... But many people still do anyway. Of course any top fighter being unbeaten gives them a strong argument for being the best but the point is, Tyson was known as the most feared boxer in history at the time and thought to be the most unbeatable, indestructible force the sport had ever seen. So if he had, in fact, never been beaten and kept that reputation intact, would that be enough to propel him to the top of everyone (or most people's) lists of being the GOAT?

Nope. Being undefeated alone doesn't make you the goat. It would help in the convo, but there is more to it than that. You are either new to boxing or trollling. lol I'm just asking a hypothetical question. And I realize being undefeated isn't a completely necessary component to being the best - which I stated myself in the post right above your's - but when you're seen as the quintessential bad-ass of boxing already, it's fair to ask whether or not you might be seen as the greatest had you never taken a loss period.

Nah, Marcaino was undefeated but very few people rank him above the likes of Ali, Leonard, Robinson, etc. Tyson had the rep of being "the baddest man on the planet" and I can only imagine how much more solidified that reputation would be if no one ever stood over him in victory. That's not what I mean... Take Ali for instance. We saw Ali get beat. What if we never saw him get beat and that he in turn beat Frazier, Norton, Berbick, Spinks, and Holmes? He would be regarded as the greatest of all time hands down. Marciano didn't fight the strongest of opposition after all...

Say he had fought all of the same guys, only he had beaten all of them (most by KO, of course.) Would he have gone down in history as the best ever? Nope. Being undefeated alone doesn't make you the goat. It would help in the convo, but there is more to it than that. You are either new to boxing or trollling.

This is pretty stupid to think about because any fighter who beat all of the guys he lost to would be known as the best ever. What if Joe Louis beat all of the guys he lost to? Muhammad Ali? Jack Dempsey? Tyson lost to those guys for a reason. He wasn't good enough at that period in time. Do I think prime '87/'88 Tyson beats all of the guys he lost to? Yes. Does that make me rank him as the best heavyweight ever? No. Simply because that is my educated guess and it didn't really happen so nobody knows. Nah, Marcaino was undefeated but very few people rank him above the likes of Ali, Leonard, Robinson, etc. Tyson had the rep of being "the baddest man on the planet" and I can only imagine how much more solidified that reputation would be if no one ever stood over him in victory.

I can agree with that but Tyson wasn't prime when he fought these guys. This is somewhat Tyson own fault though getting lobbed into prison, losing arguably one of the best trainers about. He still fought the best he could though.

Oscar Dela Hoya was coming off a devestating KO loss to Bhop, he prior to that was schooled by sturm then before that had lost to Sugar Shane Mosley. Pacquiao IF he fought him when he should have then you'd have a point but the fact remains he never done that he waited til he reached into his mid 30's that is unacceptable. Miguel Cotto once again a guy who was coming off big TKO losses Margarito then Pacman then him moving up to 154lbs where he has struggled big time at every good fighter he has fought there he has struggled... Trout for example. Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield were in their prime years when Tyson fought them and for me they're just miles ahead of Cotto and Oscar, Pacquiao being the exception BUT Pacman was a lot older the fight could have happened whenever Floyd wanted we can't just say oh Floyd beat that guy lets not factor in when he did it because If we did Joe Calzaghe would go down as the ATG best super middleweight of all time for beating Roy Jones Jr and Bhop. I can agree with that but Tyson wasn't prime when he fought these guys.

Tyson had no reason to cherry pick considering the fighters were either past it or mediocre to begin with. Floyd's era had more talent in it than the 80s heavyweights. Pacquiao, Thurman, Cotto, Canelo, De la Hoya. I recognize that Floyd's era is not the best but to say Tyson's era was better is just a gigantic flop. I understand where your coming from tho. Oscar Dela Hoya was coming off a devestating KO loss to Bhop, he prior to that was schooled by sturm then before that had lost to Sugar Shane Mosley. Pacquiao IF he fought him when he should have then you'd have a point but the fact remains he never done that he waited til he reached into his mid 30's that is unacceptable. Miguel Cotto once again a guy who was coming off big TKO losses Margarito then Pacman then him moving up to 154lbs where he has struggled big time at every good fighter he has fought there he has struggled... Trout for example. Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield were in their prime years when Tyson fought them and for me they're just miles ahead of Cotto and Oscar, Pacquiao being the exception BUT Pacman was a lot older the fight could have happened whenever Floyd wanted we can't just say oh Floyd beat that guy lets not factor in when he did it because If we did Joe Calzaghe would go down as the ATG best super middleweight of all time for beating Roy Jones Jr and Bhop.

Tyson fought much better level of opponents than Floyd ever fought plus Tyson didn't cherry pick and forcibly wait about until someone past their peak to then fight them, Tyson fought EVERYONE he was meant to at a good given time. Tyson had no reason to cherry pick considering the fighters were either past it or mediocre to begin with. Floyd's era had more talent in it than the 80s heavyweights. Pacquiao, Thurman, Cotto, Canelo, De la Hoya. I recognize that Floyd's era is not the best but to say Tyson's era was better is just a gigantic flop. I understand where your coming from tho.

What about Canelo? Well he did fight a prime Erislandy Lara who was in good form that's a guy Floyd Mayweather would NEVER fight in his entire life time he would duck that guy like he ducked Manny Pacquiao for the large majority of his career.

Tyson fought much better level of opponents than Floyd ever fought plus Tyson didn't cherry pick and forcibly wait about until someone past their peak to then fight them, Tyson fought EVERYONE he was meant to at a good given time. What about Canelo?

I pretended Maidana was the cash cow and that Maidana slipped me a few couple hundred grand in my back pocket like the time the Floyd judges scored the Castillo fight, so I had it fairly 120-108. :bottle::bottle:

How did you score that fight? I pretended Maidana was the cash cow and that Maidana slipped me a few couple hundred grand in my back pocket like the time the Floyd judges scored the Castillo fight, so I had it fairly 120-108.

Lol what? The 80s heavyweights were **** when Tyson got to them! Tyson fought much better level of opponents than Floyd ever fought plus Tyson didn't cherry pick and forcibly wait about until someone past their peak to then fight them, Tyson fought EVERYONE he was meant to at a good given time.

Yeah I was why should Maidana have to rematch him when he clearly beat him fairly the first time? How did you score that fight?