Do you consider Mike Tyson a P4P all-time great?

[The D3vil]

It depends on what you mean by ATG?

Top 10?

Top 50?

Top 100?

I'd say he's a top 50 or so all-time great P4P fighter.

Only 1 other HW can make the argument for being P4P king & that's Ali.

Tyson was P4P king from '88-'90

He was the youngest HW champion in history & undisputed at 22

He's the only man in history to stop Larry Holmes. A lot of people say Holmes was shot, but nobody including Holyfield demolished Holmes the way Tyson did, even though it was 5 years later.

He stopped HOF Spinks in 90 seconds

Who else has a resume like that at 22 years old?

He burned out early, just like Wilfred Benitez, but both of them were all-time great talents and their talent can't be diminished.

'88 Tyson is STILL the most feared & respected heavyweight since late '60s Ali.

Haters be damned.

[DeeMoney]

- - First statement of 20 year old Mike arrival in the pantheon was Berbick who was prime.

Name me, surely at least a dozen 20 year old heavies in history with a better scalp.

Then we go to the next scalps and so on.

Should be a cakewalk for you since Mike seems to have had a weak era in general compared to great fighters. Feeling a little shy, maybe?

His accomplishment, at that age is unparalleled, but thats beside the point. Its not what you do AT a given age rather what you do at your best relative to what others did at their best. Now I have posted with you before, so I am fully ready for you to strawman this to death, to throw out some red herrings, and to try and twist it to what you want. So I will repeat.

What Tyson did by age 20 was unparalleled, and better than any other HW at that age. But age is not the factor, it is comparing peak resume regardless of age. And by resume we mean quality of opponent at the time of the fight.

I probably should reiterate that, so you don't try and twist it to meet whatever argument you are trying to make, but you tend to do that anyways, so I will continue. Mikes peak resume, in regards to opponent level, was not as good as Holyfield's, Ali's, Frazier's, and a few other's from the two generally accepted peaks of the heavyweight division. To be fair, his pre-prison resume (regardless of outcome, but strictly measuring opponent level) is probably dwarfed by his post-prison, simply by fighting Holyfield and Lewis.

That being written, Tyson's dominance of the competition was such, that you could argue he is better than the level of opponent he is given.

[billeau2]

His accomplishment, at that age is unparalleled, but thats beside the point. Its not what you do AT a given age rather what you do at your best relative to what others did at their best. Now I have posted with you before, so I am fully ready for you to strawman this to death, to throw out some red herrings, and to try and twist it to what you want. So I will repeat.

What Tyson did by age 20 was unparalleled, and better than any other HW at that age. But age is not the factor, it is comparing peak resume regardless of age. And by resume we mean quality of opponent at the time of the fight.

I probably should reiterate that, so you don't try and twist it to meet whatever argument you are trying to make, but you tend to do that anyways, so I will continue. Mikes peak resume, in regards to opponent level, was not as good as Holyfield's, Ali's, Frazier's, and a few other's from the two generally accepted peaks of the heavyweight division. To be fair, his pre-prison resume (regardless of outcome, but strictly measuring opponent level) is probably dwarfed by his post-prison, simply by fighting Holyfield and Lewis.

That being written, Tyson's dominance of the competition was such, that you could argue he is better than the level of opponent he is given.

I believe that to say "better than Holyfield, Ali and Frazier" is fare but I also one should keep in mind that compared to many great heavyweights Tyson's resume is not bad. People tend to focus on his losses and then people in the other camp want to qualify those losses... For example, "Well Mike was not the same when he lost to Holyfield" yada yada... Frazier is tough... he did beat Ali, and no doubt he was great, but as far as resumes, subtract that big win and his resume is more average...

Just to stir some mucky mucky up... Jimmy Young had a great resume, much better than Tyson, or Frazier, and even Holyfield, when do we rank him properly?

[DeeMoney]

I believe that to say "better than Holyfield, Ali and Frazier" is fare but I also one should keep in mind that compared to many great heavyweights Tyson's resume is not bad. People tend to focus on his losses and then people in the other camp want to qualify those losses... For example, "Well Mike was not the same when he lost to Holyfield" yada yada... Frazier is tough... he did beat Ali, and no doubt he was great, but as far as resumes, subtract that big win and his resume is more average...

Just to stir some mucky mucky up... Jimmy Young had a great resume, much better than Tyson, or Frazier, and even Holyfield, when do we rank him properly?

I agree whole heartedly, and thats the point I was trying to make. Tyson's prime resume isn't bad, its just not as good as some others (many of whom were fighting at the best years of the division). But so many people just throw out resume and thats the end all be all. We can rank fighters with an eye and a resume

[QueensburyRules]

His accomplishment, at that age is unparalleled, but thats beside the point. Its not what you do AT a given age rather what you do at your best relative to what others did at their best. Now I have posted with you before, so I am fully ready for you to strawman this to death, to throw out some red herrings, and to try and twist it to what you want. So I will repeat.

What Tyson did by age 20 was unparalleled, and better than any other HW at that age. But age is not the factor, it is comparing peak resume regardless of age. And by resume we mean quality of opponent at the time of the fight.

I probably should reiterate that, so you don't try and twist it to meet whatever argument you are trying to make, but you tend to do that anyways, so I will continue. Mikes peak resume, in regards to opponent level, was not as good as Holyfield's, Ali's, Frazier's, and a few other's from the two generally accepted peaks of the heavyweight division. To be fair, his pre-prison resume (regardless of outcome, but strictly measuring opponent level) is probably dwarfed by his post-prison, simply by fighting Holyfield and Lewis.

That being written, Tyson's dominance of the competition was such, that you could argue he is better than the level of opponent he is given.

- - Well established that Mike had a short prime where he peaked before shorting out.

Anything after age 23 is him fighting underwater on dangerous, experimental psychotropic sedatives in between incarcerations. That is two distinct eras for Mike, neither of which as ever been matched as far as the conditions he was fighting under, a one off career difficult to explain much less replicate.

[DeeMoney]

- - Well established that Mike had a short prime where he peaked before shorting out.

Anything after age 23 is him fighting underwater on dangerous, experimental psychotropic sedatives in between incarcerations. That is two distinct eras for Mike, neither of which as ever been matched as far as the conditions he was fighting under, a one off career difficult to explain much less replicate.

Thats what makes him difficult to evaluate, do you rate a short prime with unique accomplishments better than a longer lasting prime. His is a unique career that does not fit into standard evaluations

[IronDanHamza]

I would say no, definitely not.

[Silence]

Not even top 10 at his own division let alone P4P. Maybe between 100-150.

[HOUDINI563]

All time p4p? No chance. Too many very great fighters in lower weight divisions to consider.

[HOUDINI563]

I believe that to say "better than Holyfield, Ali and Frazier" is fare but I also one should keep in mind that compared to many great heavyweights Tyson's resume is not bad. People tend to focus on his losses and then people in the other camp want to qualify those losses... For example, "Well Mike was not the same when he lost to Holyfield" yada yada... Frazier is tough... he did beat Ali, and no doubt he was great, but as far as resumes, subtract that big win and his resume is more average...

Just to stir some mucky mucky up... Jimmy Young had a great resume, much better than Tyson, or Frazier, and even Holyfield, when do we rank him properly?

Jimmy Young?

Young had only three major wins his entire career. He beat Lyle twice and Foreman.

Frazier beat the fighter who easily beat Lyle, Jerry Quarry, twice. Frazier also beat the guy who koed Foreman, Ali. Frazier Also beat Chuvalo, Bonevena, Ellis among others.

I could go into detail about Tyson and Holyfield vs Young. With only three top wins in his entire career Young is quite easily surpassed. His overall record of 35-19-2 is nothing to praise either.

I watched all of Young’s televised bouts from Lyle 2 onwards and was a big Young advocate. However in the end he did not have any offensive firepower and lacked aggressiveness when he really needed to be aggressive.