Would Mike Tyson Be The GOAT If He Had Retired Undefeated?

[LoadedWraps]

Say he had fought all of the same guys, only he had beaten all of them (most by KO, of course.) Would he have gone down in history as the best ever?

Nope.

Being undefeated alone doesn't make you the goat. It would help in the convo, but there is more to it than that.

You are either new to boxing or trollling.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Nah, Marcaino was undefeated but very few people rank him above the likes of Ali, Leonard, Robinson, etc. Tyson had the rep of being "the baddest man on the planet" and I can only imagine how much more solidified that reputation would be if no one ever stood over him in victory.

That's not what I mean...

Take Ali for instance. We saw Ali get beat. What if we never saw him get beat and that he in turn beat Frazier, Norton, Berbick, Spinks, and Holmes? He would be regarded as the greatest of all time hands down.

Marciano didn't fight the strongest of opposition after all...

[KLockard23]

Nope.

Being undefeated alone doesn't make you the goat. It would help in the convo, but there is more to it than that.

You are either new to boxing or trollling.

lol I'm just asking a hypothetical question. And I realize being undefeated isn't a completely necessary component to being the best - which I stated myself in the post right above your's - but when you're seen as the quintessential bad-ass of boxing already, it's fair to ask whether or not you might be seen as the greatest had you never taken a loss period.

[KLockard23]

That's not what I mean...

Take Ali for instance. We saw Ali get beat. What if we never saw him get beat and that he in turn beat Frazier, Norton, Berbick, Spinks, and Holmes? He would be regarded as the greatest of all time hands down.

Marciano didn't fight the strongest of opposition after all...

But many people still do anyway.

Of course any top fighter being unbeaten gives them a strong argument for being the best but the point is, Tyson was known as the most feared boxer in history at the time and thought to be the most unbeatable, indestructible force the sport had ever seen. So if he had, in fact, never been beaten and kept that reputation intact, would that be enough to propel him to the top of everyone (or most people's) lists of being the GOAT?

[Mr.MojoRisin']

But many people still do anyway.

Of course any top fighter being unbeaten gives them a strong argument for being the best but the point is, Tyson was known as the most feared boxer in history at the time and thought to be the most unbeatable, indestructible force the sport had ever seen. So if he had, in fact, never been beaten and kept that reputation intact, would that be enough to propel him to the top of everyone (or most people's) lists of being the GOAT?

Yes but that is a totally different version of Mike Tyson. I could say the same about Joe Frazier if he was undefeated but nevertheless that would be a different version of Joe Frazier. What is the point of all of this? Usually threads have a point such as a classic h2h match up, comparing resumes, etc. This is thread seems to be about "what if we changed the past". It brings no new realization about a certain fighter.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Yes...

Had he beaten buster, Evander twice, lennox, danny, and kevin... Then yeah he is the goat, especially if he stops those guys..

85-2006 undefeated
86-2006 twenty year run as undisputed heavyweight champ

Yeah he would be the GOAT

[KLockard23]

Yes but that is a totally different version of Mike Tyson. I could say the same about Joe Frazier if he was undefeated but nevertheless that would be a different version of Joe Frazier. What is the point of all of this? Usually threads have a point such as a classic h2h match up, comparing resumes, etc. This is thread seems to be about "what if we changed the past". It brings no new realization about a certain fighter.

Well, duh. That's why it's a hypothetical question. It's not a totally different version of Tyson though, just means on the nights that he lost, he won instead. Imagine he was better just enough to win on those nights than the other guy.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Well, duh. That's why it's a hypothetical question. It's not a totally different version of Tyson though, just means on the nights that he lost, he won instead. Imagine he was better just enough to win on those nights than the other guy.

Better by just enough to win is still significantly better than he was.

This question is equal to "If a fighter goes through Tyson's resume undefeated would they be the GOAT?"

[Mr.Fantastic]

If Tyson didn't lose Cus D'Amato so soon and then went to jail, dude would of wrecked the whole division for many years. Those two things really fucked him.