Who ranks higher ATG, Tyson or Calzaghe?

[General Zod]

Hopkins - Old/fading
Kessler - Overrated
Eubank - Old
Lacy - Just hype

But you have to be consistent and now do the same thing to Tysons best wins as well, lol

[Pirao]

Tyson's early career was phenomenal . He was the youngest heavyweight champ ever and was totally dominant. He did not just beat fighters up he destroyed them. The overall level of opposition was better and Tyson took on all comers.
Joe's best wins were against old greats. The best win over Hopkins was very tight,many people feel Hopkins won that fight. Jones was past it and was never the same after going up to heavyweight. Kessler was a good win also but that win does not look so good now after the way Ward dealt with him.
I remember the Eubank fight and the build up to it, Eubank took the fight at very short notice and for me that took something from the win. Joe has a great unbeaten record and I consider him an exceptional fighter but I feel even he feels that his fight selection was on the cautious side and he could have taken on more challenging fights in the middle of his career.
Later in his career Tyson was not at his best but he did not duck and behaved like a champion. Looking at the records only tells part of the story,Tyson was great and would have been the GOAT if Cuss had stayed alive I just don't ever see Joe being at that level and feel he sold himself short legacy wise by being over concerned with his unbeaten record and his cautious selection of opponents and timing of fights.
I just feel a prime Mike Tyson was unbeatable or as close as you can get but there were fighters out there that could have beaten a Prime Joe. A young Roy Jones and Hopkins fall into that category.

Why did he lose to Buster Douglas then?

[jthoang]

But you have to be consistent and now do the same thing to Tysons best wins as well, lol

Pretty much the same on Tyson's side. But doesn't matter, none are truly ATGs. Mike Tyson will be considered the greater fighter though.

[Verstyle]

The people who say Tyson, why? They both beat an ATG who was past his best but still good (Hopkins and Holmes, although I think Hopkins was better when Calzaghe fought him than Holmes was when Tyson fought him), except Calzaghe also beat everyone else he fought, unified his division, moved up and won a belt in another division and retired undefeated.

Please, whether you say Tyson or Calzaghe, state your reasons.

Beating 3 gold medal Olympians,
Being champion at 20
UNIFYING all the belts in a tournament style at the age of just 21
Becoming world champion after just being pro a little over a year and a half.
Beating world champions, contenders, undefeated fighters, former world champions.
Fighting with a size disadvantage and weight usually.
Having over 30 fights in a year and a half.
Beating future greats and hall of famers.
Beating most fighters within' 6 rounds or less.
Being a 2 time world champion, unifying the belts both of those times.

I'm done...

[General Zod]

Tyson's early career was phenomenal . He was the youngest heavyweight champ ever and was totally dominant. He did not just beat fighters up he destroyed them. The overall level of opposition was better and Tyson took on all comers.
Joe's best wins were against old greats. The best win over Hopkins was very tight,many people feel Hopkins won that fight. Jones was past it and was never the same after going up to heavyweight. Kessler was a good win also but that win does not look so good now after the way Ward dealt with him.
I remember the Eubank fight and the build up to it, Eubank took the fight at very short notice and for me that took something from the win. Joe has a great unbeaten record and I consider him an exceptional fighter but I feel even he feels that his fight selection was on the cautious side and he could have taken on more challenging fights in the middle of his career.

Joe beat Hopkins and should of won by UD, How does a guy throwing 18 punches per round and landing 6 per round lose by sd? No one gives Joe credit for the Jones win and Eubank still put up a great fight and he deseved to get th nod in the Thompson fight, which shows he still had a lot left.

Im interested in why you didnt dissect Tysons best wins?

Later in his career Tyson was not at his best but he did not duck and behaved like a champion. Looking at the records only tells part of the story,Tyson was great and would have been the GOAT if Cuss had stayed alive I just don't ever see Joe being at that level and feel he sold himself short legacy wise by being over concerned with his unbeaten record and his cautious selection of opponents and timing of fights.
I just feel a prime Mike Tyson was unbeatable or as close as you can get but there were fighters out there that could have beaten a Prime Joe. A young Roy Jones and Hopkins fall into that category.

This isnt about who had the most potential, but rather who achieved the most, If I remeber correctly Tyson only took the Holyfield fight because he believed he was over the hill and didnt he pay Lewis step a side money?

[General Zod]

Pretty much the same on Tyson's side. But doesn't matter, none are truly ATGs. Mike Tyson will be considered the greater fighter though.

Fair enough, I can agree with that

[Number One]

calzaghe.. by far

[John Hue]

Why did he lose to Buster Douglas then?

Tyson was on the slide before Douglas. Once Cuss died and Givens was on the scene the rot set in. Even before Douglas it was the years of former training that carried Tyson through.

[Verstyle]

Tyson was on the slide before Douglas. Once Cuss died and Givens was on the scene the rot set in. Even before Douglas it was the years of former training that carried Tyson through.

I don't agree, the decline came in once he had the 'YES' men around him instead of Rooney. Tyson:" I wanna try to knock them out with one hit" YES men:" Oh ok, Tyson. You can do that, forget all the combos Rooney told you to throw and your jab, just get them out quickly"

The training he had before is what screwed him up because he forgot about it for 1 hitter quitters.

[General Zod]

Tyson was on the slide before Douglas. Once Cuss died and Givens was on the scene the rot set in. Even before Douglas it was the years of former training that carried Tyson through.

Tysons pro career is really from 1986-1988, so I cant see how people have him ahead by a wide margin.

EDIT:I can see them making a case by not by a mile and a half like people here think.