The Great Tyson Debate

[tregrimmd]

First Man to Ever Unify the Heavyweight titles

he wasn't the first to ever do it, he was just the first since Ali to do it

[Bad Intentions]

Tyson at his peak was easily a all time top 10

[oldgringo]

Wow, I think that I am actually dumber now after I've read some of the garbage on this thread.

That alone puts him in the top five.

But from 1985-1988 the guy was the closest thing we've seen to invincible in a boxing ring, and you'd have to be a ****** to think otherwise.

Mike beat Larry Holmes to death.
And he knocked out Trever Berbick
silly. Both these guys beat Ali.
If you beat the men who beat Ali
than you are better than Ali himself.
Mike is the greatest of all time.

Tyson was a great fighter for a short period of time, but never did a ****ing thing over the last half of his career.

Ali, Louis, Holmes, Foreman, Marciano, Johnson, Holyfield, Lewis, Frazier, Dempsey...in that order, all greater heavyweights than Mike.

Anybody with a good chin and determination who wasn't afraid of Mike would have beaten him. Prime Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, Foreman...all would have handed prime Mike a savage, mentally draining beating.

[JUYJUY]

Anybody with a good chin and determination who wasn't afraid of Mike would have beaten him.

I won't respect any of your opinions ever again.

[Kid Achilles]

Youngest Ever Heavyweight Champion of the World

Surprisingly no, that distinction still goes to Floyd Patterson. Tyson was just the youngest heavyweight to ever win a PORTION of the title. Not very impressive. Besides the fact that the youngest ever undisputed heavyweight champion was Patterson, an awesome light heavyweight but only average HW champion, proves that this means very little for ranking.

First Man to Ever Unify the Heavyweight titles

Why is this worthy of ranking someone in the top five? It isn't.

Won back World titles after being imprisoned

Irrelevent.

When assessing a heavyweight champion we look at their ABILITY (including intangibles like heart and mental toughness and determination which Tyson lacked) and ACCOMPLISHMENTS within his era. The things you mentioned were minor accomplishments (except for the first one you mentioned which is simply false, but a common misconception a lot of people have) and pale in comparison to retiring indefeated like Marciano and boasting a huge string of title defenses like Holmes and Joe Louis.

You can make an arguement for Tyson based on his ABILITY (though he did not have the most ability of any HW champion due to his psychological shortcomings) but his ACCOMPLISHMENTS were meager and that fact that you had to include that he won the title after being imprisoned proves how deep you really have to dig to find anything.

[JUYJUY]

Surprisingly no, that distinction still goes to Floyd Patterson. Tyson was just the youngest heavyweight to ever win a PORTION of the title. Not very impressive. Besides the fact that the youngest ever undisputed heavyweight champion was Patterson, an awesome light heavyweight but only average HW champion, proves that this means very little for ranking.




Why is this worthy of ranking someone in the top five? It isn't.



Irrelevent.

When assessing a heavyweight champion we look at their ABILITY (including intangibles like heart and mental toughness and determination which Tyson lacked) and ACCOMPLISHMENTS within his era. The things you mentioned were minor accomplishments (except for the first one you mentioned which is simply false, but a common misconception a lot of people have) and pale in comparison to retiring indefeated like Marciano and boasting a huge string of title defenses like Holmes and Joe Louis.

You can make an arguement for Tyson based on his ABILITY (though he did not have the most ability of any HW champion due to his psychological shortcomings) but his ACCOMPLISHMENTS were meager and that fact that you had to include that he won the title after being imprisoned proves how deep you really have to dig to find anything.

Lol, it's easy to pick faults somehow.

But at the end of the day we should judge a fighter on how good he was as a fighter rather that what type of person he turned into.. and anyway, he never ****d anybody (pull your head out your ass if you think he did, that little ***** wanted to be with Tyson but he turned her down and she didn't like it) and so what if he bit Holyfield's ear? Boxing is WAR not ****ing ballet, Holyfield was using his head (I mean physically and illegally) and Mike's head was all over the place (I mean inside his head).. I'm sure he regrets it and we all make mistakes. As for Lennox Lewis, I'd bite his leg to pieces myself - he's an arrogant, pompous, ignorant *******. Lewis' bodyguards started pushing Mike about, then all of a sudden Lewis throws a big cheap shot on the top of Mike's head, and AMERICANS are taking the side of the NON-American Lewis?? I can't understand it.

[TheGreat1]

Give me a break! That's ludicrous.

For example, watch the Tony Tucker Vs Buster Douglas IBF clash in 1987 and then go and watch the Lennox Lewis Vs Evander Holyfield fights in 1999. The difference in quality is huge, the Tucker-Douglas match is full of quick combinations and crisp punching whereas the Lewis-Holyfield fights are a couple of overly-muscular old men hugging and holding and wrestling. Yes the HW's evolved in the 1990's due to steroid-use but the 1980's provided better quality though smaller men.

Then watch the Holyfield Vs. Douglas, and watch how Holy distroyed Douglas. Mike was never on holy's level.

[JUYJUY]

Then watch the Holyfield Vs. Douglas, and watch how Holy distroyed Douglas. Mike was never on holy's level.

Lol, give me a break! Douglas was an absolute joke against Holyfield. Douglas was also an absolute joke against Tyson compared to how good he once was. For any credibility at all, Douglas should of KO'd Tyson in the first round, but Douglas was not as good as he once was.. the guy had been working as a pizza delivery boy for years before that FFS and developed serious mental health issues in the late 80's. Tyson didn't even train for Douglas, he was smoking crackpipes with Japanese **********s the night before, he was nothing more than a walking zombie.

[JUYJUY]

And yes, Holyfield would of EASILY beat Tyson the night Tyson fought Douglas, Holyfield would also of beaten Tyson in 1989.

[JUYJUY]

Mike was never on holy's level.

If you believe that then you must believe in the tooth fairy.

"He might be the best I've ever seen" - Holyfield on Tyson in 1987