Where does Tyson actually rank

[70sFan]

His style was hard to sustain over the long haul. At his best, in his prime, I think he gives any of the heavyweight champions a run for their money and probably beats most of them.

[them_apples]

Tyson can't be really ranked.

He was a unique heavyweight specimen, both in good and bad. Enormous potential, quick path to glory, rapid descent to the lower levels until the sad end of his career.

He was not so "normal" to be put into a list, if you ask me. More like a short and intense natural phenomenon.

this is basically what my post is about. hes got all the math against him, but hes also that fighter that another great my potentially choke against, depending on who they are

[them_apples]

- -How much U pay to do what U unable to do?

dont you ever get bored? you are the most useless poster on here yet you continue to post day after day. Aren't you tired? lol

I can just picture your daily routine, retired or on disability - logs on, talks ****, takes a sip from the bottle etc etc

Even Rusty has an opinion at least lol

[Sugarj]

Just my quick two cents:

Head to head, prime for prime I think he does very well against many, if not most in history.

But career/record/legacy wise, I fear that there are are several who belong above him in all time heavyweight rankings, who may not have actually beat him at their respective best!

[Tatabanya]

My argument is this though, he did bulldoze some rather decent competition (Spinks, and Holmes). I say Decent because Spinks was a "light heavyweight" coming off a layoff and Holmes was coming off a very long layoff. Both of these wins are very overated but the fact still remains he did stop Spinks in one round, which is impressive.

For example, Tyson vs Bowe? If Tyson is undefeated and is coming in confident, how does this fight play out? Does he win a decision?

Tyson vs Lewis, is a really tough one because of Lewis' track record of not always showing up. Lewis never looked that great vs Holyfield, and that was years after the Tyson vs Holyfield fights.

Anyways back to Tyson, it's just bothersome how he has this massive intangible floating over his career, where nobody actually knows how good he was. You can't accurately predict how Tyson would do vs other great fighters.

My opinions on these items, as follows.

The Holmes and Spinks wins should not be described as overrated. Tyson easily knocked out two genuine champions who were never knocked out before, that's not stuff for everybody. After getting destroyed by Tyson, an even older Holmes went on to fight Holyfield with honor, and even outpointed Ray Mercer. Spinks was a legitimate HW when Tyson annihilated him, had beaten a still-active Holmes twice (though not convincingly) and many experts had picked him to defeat Iron Mike before the fight.

A peak Tyson would have had no problem with either Bowe or Lewis, especially with the former. It would have been a classic Tyson KO against a much bigger opponent. If Golota beat up Bowe twice being slower than Tyson, imagine what a young Mike would have done to Big Daddy. And if McCall and Rahman were both able to knock Lewis out, most definitely an active and fresher Tyson would do the same. As you say, Lewis was never that convincing vs Holyfield. People rate him highly because they remember the KOs against Ruddock, Grant, Golota, Rahman II, or the dominance vs Tua, who was a murderous puncher. But if you carefully scrutinize Lewis' career, there are several black holes in there.

Holyfield, I'm not sure. He was a bete noire of sorts for Tyson, I believe. His style was all wrong for him, and he might have defeated Iron Mike even before the latter's prison stint. Perhaps controversially, as when he fought Dwight Muhammad Qawi for the first time. Still, it would have been a great fight, a genuine 50-50. However, I can't forget the problems a prime Holyfield had with Bert Cooper and Alex Stewart (the latter pulverized in one round by Tyson after he had given Holyfield hell the previous year).. so I would probably tend to pick Tyson to win if they fought at their respective best.

Ultimately, the "massive intangibles" you rightly refer to are exactly what renders Tyson so fascinatingly difficult to assess. We must accept his accomplishments and failures exactly as they were. A little bit like our very life... That's why, I believe, many people relate to Tyson so much in terms of sympathy and fandom. At his best, he was unique. At his worst, he was still something to behold, a former monster finally submitting to the harsh reality of being finished.

[BKM-]

I believe he should be ranked in the top 10-15 ATG HW's. Not in the top 10 at all, his resume is too lacking. H2H matchups are not how you rank greats, and even then he falls short against many greats.

The fact of the matter is he fought in the strongest or second strongest HW era of all time and he did not beat any primed greats, lost to the ones he did face or simply avoided fighting all the other great fighters of his time.

The most damning of course is how he badly lost to Holyfield and Lewis and had the opportunity to get other great wins against Bowe, Foreman etc. but never faced them. This is an empty, weak resume.

That forces me to penalize him worse than other HW champs who never beat any greats but they did not have any greats to face in their own era's.

Tyson's career was carefully crafted for him, there were many powerful punchers with great chins in his era, those would pose big problems but he ducked every single one of them.

His fans gloat about about his run in the second half of the 80s, where he indeed fought all comers except for one man who specifically came out of retirement to face him: George Foreman. Ducking his toughest style matchup in his precious "prime" also ruins the so called mystique of his 80s title run. He has no excuse here because he had no problem facing another aging former champ in Holmes. But Foreman who was calling him out all over the media and would have made it a huge PPV fight was avoided.

So that's his ranking. A man who did not beat anyone great when he had 15 years of time to do so, and who's best wins are Ruddock and Tucker, and who never faced punchers with chins when there were tons of them around. And the only counter arguments I've gotten are excuses. well he is not excused here. Nothing but facts.

[BKM-]

Anyways back to Tyson, it's just bothersome how he has this massive intangible floating over his career, where nobody actually knows how good he was. You can't accurately predict how Tyson would do vs other great fighters.

That's because he avoided or tried to avoid everyone who could have tested those "intangibles". Like I said we have never actually seen him face big punchers with great chins while his era was filled with them, the only defenses about this are excuses.

Which truly tough matchups did he ever accept when he was great? Evander Holyfield and ONLY because he and his team thought Holyfield was completely shot. Then there's Lewis when he had nothing left to lose and desperate for a big pay day. He ducked Lewis in the 90s when he was still a great fighter.

So Tyson was a carefully crafted phony product and even then he still was soundly beaten in his prime by a journeyman.

You think there are question marks because of 'intangibles' but they actually answer all of your questions: A man who doesn't have the confidence to face greatness will not achieve it. The cause of the intangibles answer the questions about how good he was. He did not have the heart to face and beat true ATG's.

[them_apples]

That's because he avoided or tried to avoid everyone who could have tested those "intangibles". Like I said we have never actually seen him face big punchers with great chins while his era was filled with them, the only defenses about this are excuses.

Which truly tough matchups did he ever accept when he was great? Evander Holyfield and ONLY because he and his team thought Holyfield was completely shot. Then there's Lewis when he had nothing left to lose and desperate for a big pay day. He ducked Lewis in the 90s when he was still a great fighter.

So Tyson was a carefully crafted phony product and even then he still was soundly beaten in his prime by a journeyman.

You think there are question marks because of 'intangibles' but they actually answer all of your questions: A man who doesn't have the confidence to face greatness will not achieve it. The cause of the intangibles answer the questions about how good he was. He did not have the heart to face and beat true ATG's.

I totally agree. This was sort of what I was saying. All the math was against him. I forgot about him ducking George as well.

I do think the Holmes Win is overated, while scoring a Ko over Holmes is still a big deal - Holmes was coming off a long lay off. So him coming back and beating Mercer and going the distance with Holyfield isn't entirely the same Holmes.

I think the intangible is the fact that he still scored a whipeout vs Spinks and stopped Holmes rather early. All things considered this is sort of impressive regardless of the circumstances. And with his known drug problems and issues outside of boxing, it is kind of apparent he lost his fighting spirit pretty early

[them_apples]

My opinions on these items, as follows.

The Holmes and Spinks wins should not be described as overrated. Tyson easily knocked out two genuine champions who were never knocked out before, that's not stuff for everybody. After getting destroyed by Tyson, an even older Holmes went on to fight Holyfield with honor, and even outpointed Ray Mercer. Spinks was a legitimate HW when Tyson annihilated him, had beaten a still-active Holmes twice (though not convincingly) and many experts had picked him to defeat Iron Mike before the fight.

A peak Tyson would have had no problem with either Bowe or Lewis, especially with the former. It would have been a classic Tyson KO against a much bigger opponent. If Golota beat up Bowe twice being slower than Tyson, imagine what a young Mike would have done to Big Daddy. And if McCall and Rahman were both able to knock Lewis out, most definitely an active and fresher Tyson would do the same. As you say, Lewis was never that convincing vs Holyfield. People rate him highly because they remember the KOs against Ruddock, Grant, Golota, Rahman II, or the dominance vs Tua, who was a murderous puncher. But if you carefully scrutinize Lewis' career, there are several black holes in there.

Holyfield, I'm not sure. He was a bete noire of sorts for Tyson, I believe. His style was all wrong for him, and he might have defeated Iron Mike even before the latter's prison stint. Perhaps controversially, as when he fought Dwight Muhammad Qawi for the first time. Still, it would have been a great fight, a genuine 50-50. However, I can't forget the problems a prime Holyfield had with Bert Cooper and Alex Stewart (the latter pulverized in one round by Tyson after he had given Holyfield hell the previous year).. so I would probably tend to pick Tyson to win if they fought at their respective best.

Ultimately, the "massive intangibles" you rightly refer to are exactly what renders Tyson so fascinatingly difficult to assess. We must accept his accomplishments and failures exactly as they were. A little bit like our very life... That's why, I believe, many people relate to Tyson so much in terms of sympathy and fandom. At his best, he was unique. At his worst, he was still something to behold, a former monster finally submitting to the harsh reality of being finished.

The Holmes that beat Mercer and went life and death with Holyfield was not the same version Tyson stopped. Holmes had been retired from boxing for a long time and was brought in on short notice to face Tyson for a big pay day. There was no way he was mentally prepared for that fight. By the time Holmes got in with Mercer and Holyfield, he was well warmed up into his comeback.

The Spinks win is a little better, Spinks being inactive for only a year and still physically in his prime for the most part. At the end of the day though, Spinks best days were at LHW, so it's still not an incredible victory. Timing is everything, when these fights take place. Its a good win on his resume, but there's few and far between.

[Tatabanya]

The Holmes that beat Mercer and went life and death with Holyfield was not the same version Tyson stopped. Holmes had been retired from boxing for a long time and was brought in on short notice to face Tyson for a big pay day. There was no way he was mentally prepared for that fight. By the time Holmes got in with Mercer and Holyfield, he was well warmed up into his comeback.

The Spinks win is a little better, Spinks being inactive for only a year and still physically in his prime for the most part. At the end of the day though, Spinks best days were at LHW, so it's still not an incredible victory. Timing is everything, when these fights take place. Its a good win on his resume, but there's few and far between.

Yes, the problem with Tyson is the usual one: we can just fantasize, based on his potential. But the stats are mostly against him.