Where Does Mike Tyson Rank As An ATG?

[LacedUp]

I don't know where Tyson as most exciting comes from, or entertaining. He was a certain thriller when he was on for the kill, but for excitement and entertainment I'll take the best of Holy just in that era. Dokes, Foreman, Cooper, the Bowe fights, Mercer, Tyson I, Moorer II. He was the most consistently entertaining Heavyweight since Joe Frazier. Tyson rolling bowling pin opp is good for short bursts, but I'll take great fights over highlight reels. Where Tyson compares to Ali, Dempsey, Louis etc. is in aura. he made everything BIGGER. He was a star.

Depends on what we define as entertaining. I get what you mean, but for persona, extremism, excitement, charisma, speed and power - I'll take Tyson over any modern day HW. Holyfield was a great pugilist and so was Lewis, but Tyson, as you say, was a star because of his ferocious style. You never knew which Tyson would show up and that's why he was so entertaining. He's the last HW to fully transcend the sport and who was one of the most famous guys on the planet. That's why I think he was entertaining.

[SBleeder]

As usual you prove you don't know anything

Schmeling was at the end of his career and had already been a pro for over 12 years. A 192 lb washed up former champion gave Louis the beating of his life and KOed him. It was full of Louis hitting the canvas and being KD, proving how great his "chin" was.

Tyson didn't care much after beating Spinks and started to coast. He even considered retirement after the Spinks fight ... and if he did retire his legacy would've easily been greater than Joe Louis's. Tyson is better than Louis in every conceivable facet of the sport. He also never lost in his prime, like Joe Louis.

Tyson was KOed by Williams after he blew out his knee in the first round ... and he still fought on like a lion for 3 more rounds. He took an excess of 20 punches before finally falling from injury and exhaustion while Louis was punches through the ropes likes a rag doll by a 184 lb crusier.

There are many things wrong with your entire post, but the statements in bold are quite a contradiction.

First off, to address the lunacy of what you wrote: Are you honestly saying that if Tyson retired at 35-0, making no defenses of the lineal heavyweight title, and a career spanning 3 years, that his legacy would have "easily been greater than Joe Louis's"? Excuse me for a moment.









Sorry about that.

Anyways, since you insist that Tyson "never lost in his prime" (age 24, 37-0 with no major layoffs, no major injuries, and a first round TKO in your last fight just screams "past prime"), then why do his losses affect his legacy? Many knowledgeable boxing historians do not count past-prime losses against a fighter, or at the very least, they don't count them with the same weight as a prime loss. So shouldn't you be arguing that Tyson's legacy eclipses Louis' as it is?

[jabsRstiff]

Being a phenom does not necessarily equate to greatness.

[TysonBomb]

As usual you prove to be one of the worst Tyson Fanboys in the history of boxing message boards.

So Schmelling was 30 and had fought 12 years. I'm sure Hopkins and Marquez are just shaking their heads at such a long career, lol. You call him washed up yet was coming of three straight wins over top contenders and the only heavyweight rated ahead of Max was Joe Louis. Sorry junior, but it is worse to take a beating from Buster Douglas than from Max Schmelling.

Only an idiot would believe Tyson almost retired after the Spinks fight. And if we talk about their last fights, Louis lost to future HOF champion Rocky Marciano. Tyson (at a younger age) quit like a dog against obscure handpicked clubfighter Kevin McBride. But being a drooling fanboy you won't recognize the difference and point out that McBride weighed so much more than Marciano. That's why you're a joke on this board.

Tyson lost when he was 24, but never in his prime? If his prime ended at 24 then he was more of a flash in the pan that an all time great.

Same stupidity over and over again.

Its really not worth responding to but I'll do it anyway.

Everyone matures as a fighter differently ... B-Hop and Marquez are extreme examples just like Tyson is an extreme example of someone who peaked early and then fell off. You won't find many if any great fighters being as dominant at the later stages of their careers, just like you won't find many who came like a blaze and then left. Schmeling was definitely PAST his prime by the time he fought Louis while Louis was in his prime and Louis lost and was knocked out by a modern day crusierweight.

Tyson himself stated that he was considering retirement after Spinks:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zQe...rement&f=false

I don't state things without evidence nor do I claim that glass jawed Joe Louis who has been dropped more than any heavyweight champion ever since Wladimir Klitschko had a stone chin. Billy Conn had Joe Louis on deer legs, Wlacott dropped him, an older Schmeling floored him, Braddock knocked him down etc. Any decent puncher sent him to the canvas. A fat slob Tony Galento who is worst than even Kevin McBride, put Louis down while Louis was in his prime. That isn't evidence of a good chin.

The Tyson at age 24 wasn't training the same and had immense personal problems outside the ring. His decline could be seen as early as the Bruno fight. After he fired Rooney he became primarily a head hunter and stopped moving his head. There was a clear diminishing of skill.

[SBleeder]

Same stupidity over and over again.

Its really not worth responding to but I'll do it anyway.

Everyone matures as a fighter differently ... B-Hop and Marquez are extreme examples just like Tyson is an extreme example of someone who peaked early and then fell off. You won't find many if any great fighters being as dominant at the later stages of their careers, just like you won't find many who came like a blaze and then left. Schmeling was definitely PAST his prime by the time he fought Louis while Louis was in his prime and Louis lost and was knocked out by a modern day crusierweight.

Tyson himself stated that he was considering retirement after Spinks:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zQe...rement&f=false

I don't state things without evidence nor do I claim that glass jawed Joe Louis who has been dropped more than any heavyweight champion ever since Wladimir Klitschko had a stone chin. Billy Conn had Joe Louis on deer legs, Wlacott dropped him, an older Schmeling floored him, Braddock knocked him down etc. Any decent puncher sent him to the canvas. A fat slob Tony Galento who is worst than even Kevin McBride, put Louis down while Louis was in his prime. That isn't evidence of a good chin.

The Tyson at age 24 wasn't training the same and had immense personal problems outside the ring. His decline could be seen as early as the Bruno fight. After he fired Rooney he became primarily a head hunter and stopped moving his head. There was a clear diminishing of skill.

You might be interested to know that Louis did not train (at all) before the Billy Conn fight; since that's an excuse for Tyson, it will work nicely for Louis.

Not that you care to educate yourself about any fighter other than Tyson. If you did, you'd know a little about the immense personal problems Louis had throughout his reign as champion. But, again, you wouldn't care, since he's not Iron Mike.

Without scrambling to Boxrec, what fights of Louis prior to his first Schmeling fight have you seen that enable you to determine that Louis was in his prime for that fight? Because he simply wasn't. Between that fight and his winning of the championship, there was, as you word it, a clear improvement in skill.

[Scott9945]

Same stupidity over and over again.

Its really not worth responding to but I'll do it anyway.

Everyone matures as a fighter differently ... B-Hop and Marquez are extreme examples just like Tyson is an extreme example of someone who peaked early and then fell off. You won't find many if any great fighters being as dominant at the later stages of their careers, just like you won't find many who came like a blaze and then left. Schmeling was definitely PAST his prime by the time he fought Louis while Louis was in his prime and Louis lost and was knocked out by a modern day crusierweight.

Tyson himself stated that he was considering retirement after Spinks:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zQe...rement&f=false

I don't state things without evidence nor do I claim that glass jawed Joe Louis who has been dropped more than any heavyweight champion ever since Wladimir Klitschko had a stone chin. Billy Conn had Joe Louis on deer legs, Wlacott dropped him, an older Schmeling floored him, Braddock knocked him down etc. Any decent puncher sent him to the canvas. A fat slob Tony Galento who is worst than even Kevin McBride, put Louis down while Louis was in his prime. That isn't evidence of a good chin.

The Tyson at age 24 wasn't training the same and had immense personal problems outside the ring. His decline could be seen as early as the Bruno fight. After he fired Rooney he became primarily a head hunter and stopped moving his head. There was a clear diminishing of skill.

Yes, of course, everyone is stupid except YOU.

I've already proven that Schmelling wasn't old and was the #2 rated heavyweight by Ring when they fought. You keep referring to Schmelling as a cruiserweight, even though the division didn't exist then and Louis was basically the same size as Schmelling. These are facts not opinions. Sorry they don't fit your agenda.


You can try and make excuses for Tyson's decline at 24. But the real reason is just immaturity, which Mike would probably admit to. Every successful fighter talks about early retirement, but very few ever achieve it. Talk is cheap but you believe what you want to. De La Hoya said he'd retire by 30 and Hopkins said he'd retire after 40. You can't have it both ways. Sure you can make a case for Tyson rating high if you only judge him at his peak. But when you consider his entire career, he falls way short of Joe Louis, among others.

[Abstraction]

Tyson is a unique example.

He was unlike any other boxer, becoming a champion at age 20.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it is clear as day his life was a massive train-wreck circa 1990

He was 41-1 Before he went to jail...
He was 9(2) - 2 After jail

You cant compare different boxers to the same criteria.

But boxing fans are fickle, and as a guideline, pretty dumb (this forum is a good example) and won't be able to appreciate Tyson.

Personally i'll have at a top 10.

You can always find another Lewis, Klitschko, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Holmes etc. at HW

But boxers like Ali and Tyson at HW were unique.

[res]

There are many things wrong with your entire post, but the statements in bold are quite a contradiction.

First off, to address the lunacy of what you wrote: Are you honestly saying that if Tyson retired at 35-0, making no defenses of the lineal heavyweight title, and a career spanning 3 years, that his legacy would have "easily been greater than Joe Louis's"? Excuse me for a moment.









Sorry about that.

And most of the guys on that 35-0 record would have been bums with career records like 12-6, 14-37 etc.

[res]

This^ - We have to remember that you can only be the best of your era. .

But we can't have a special definition of "era" just for Tyson. An era is more than merely 5 years in every other Boxing conversation. Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe (and some lesser fighters like Mercer) were all part of Tyson's era.

[Vadrigar.]

I have him at #11 on my list. Although my own criteria would logically disqualify him as an ATG, there's something I can't pinpoint that stops me from doing so. I have to get back to you guys on this one.