The Myth everyone rated Tyson as an ATG HW after Spinks fight (Video evidence inside)

[generalbulldog]

There's this myth that has been floating around for years that everyone from fans to boxing experts rated Tyson as an ATG HW after the destruction of Spinks. I say false. It's only the casual fans that did this, not the long term fans that said that, it was too early to give him that lofty status of up there with ALi and Louis. Tyson fanboys always loved to parade this myth as if it's some fact. My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.


This is HBO's post fight special of the Spinks-Tyson fight
At the 9:00 minute mark of the video Larry Merchant asks a few experts about Tyson.
One guy says, "I think it's premature to imagine him as the best or greatest yet, he's 22 years old and has never been in a fight."


Then the video continues where someone says, "Greatest in history?" The guy talking says, "No."
Larry Merchant then asks another expert, "Do you think he would have beaten Joe Louis or Ali?" The expert answers, "Joe Louis, no. Ali, no. Not at this point. I would have to see further development. As far as what's out there now, Evander Holyfield the CW champion could suggest would be a decent fighter."

This so called myth that Tyson was being proclaimed as greatest HW or amongst the greatest HWs after the destruction of Spinks is just that a myth.

[marbleheadmaui]

That was fascinating! Thanks! I don't think I'd ever seen that before.

[BIG H]

Just becuase you found a couple of examples and your dad and your mates didn't think it, doesn't make it a myth. The guy was even p4p number 1 in 88 (ahead of JCC, Azumah Nelson, Holyfield etc) Almost unheard of for a HW.

[Kev]

Actually you just completely disproved your own point

The very fact they asked the question shows how highly he was regarded and means they automatically accepted him as an all time great, they were asking if he was the very best ever, something they havent even asked of Floyd or Manny.

This is great. You tried to prove a point, and provided killer evidence to prove yourself wrong

[generalbulldog]

Actually you just completely disproved your own point

The very fact they asked the question shows how highly he was regarded and means they automatically accepted him as an all time great, they were asking if he was the very best ever, something they havent even asked of Floyd or Manny.

This is great. You tried to prove a point, and provided killer evidence to prove yourself wrong

No it did not disprove my own point. The myth has been that Tyson was regarded as the greatest HW or amongst the greatest ever after beating Spinks, is just that a myth. Not even the majority of boxing fans or boxing experts regarded him as up there with Ali and Louis, much less best ever especially at 22 years old. Now there was an initial jubilation after Tyson's victory by some, but people that have followed the sport for a long time and even many experts at the time said, "Let's wait and see before we start calling him as great as Ali and Louis or greater than them."

[Kev]

Actually you just completely disproved your own point

The very fact they asked the question shows how highly he was regarded and means they automatically accepted him as an all time great, they were asking if he was the very best ever, something they havent even asked of Floyd or Manny.

This is great. You tried to prove a point, and provided killer evidence to prove yourself wrong

No it did not disprove my own point. The myth has been that Tyson was regarded as the greatest HW or amongst the greatest ever after beating Spinks, is just that a myth. Not even the majority of boxing fans or boxing experts regarded him as up there with Ali and Louis, much less best ever especially at 22 years old. Now there was an initial jubilation after Tyson's victory by some, but people that have followed the sport for a long time and even many experts at the time said, "Let's wait and see before we start calling him as great as Ali and Louis or greater than them."

You are an idiot

They asked if he was the best ever. That already takes for granted he's an all time great. How many times have you heard anyone on HBO ask if Wlad or Vitali are the best heavy's of all time? It's never been asked because it doesn't need to be. Yet Wlad will likely go down in history as a top 20, probably top 15 heavyweight of all time.

With Mike it was the exact opposite. With him they went straight to the biggest names of all, and asked if he could beat them? At 22, shows just how much they were in awe of him.

I havent heard them ask if Saul Alvarez could have beaten Ray Robinson at welter yet, or Hearns or Duran. Have you?

[Kev]

Just becuase you found a couple of examples and your dad and your mates didn't think it, doesn't make it a myth. The guy was even p4p number 1 in 88 (ahead of JCC, Azumah Nelson, Holyfield etc) Almost unheard of for a HW.

I think you will find that none of them were rated as all time greats by GB and his dad at that time either so your argument has no substance.

[ICB]

I wasn't even born during that time, but the guy was rated P4P number 1 as BIG H said. And destroyed a great fighter Michael Spinks in just over 1 minute. The guy was wrecking threw every Heayweight in his path.

And you can count on one hand how many clean hard shots he took in his prime, i heard at one point he was the 3rd most talked about person only behind Elvis and god himself. So that just shows no one had seen anything like Mike Tyson in boxing.

[BIG H]

I wasn't even born during that time, but the guy was rated P4P number 1 as BIG H said. And destroyed a great fighter Michael Spinks in just over 1 minute. The guy was wrecking threw every Heayweight in his path.

And you can count on one hand how many clean hard shots he took in his prime, i heard at one point he was the 3rd most talked about person only behind Elvis and god himself. So that just shows no one had seen anything like Mike Tyson in boxing.

Exactly mate - as I said in the other thread. If Tyson wasn't something special why has nobody before or since been talked about and caused so much excitement. It's not a coincidence or luck! He wasn't an Ali, i.e a great talker and a star outside the ring, he was dull as fuck outside the ring. He was just an awesome fighter

[marbleheadmaui]

I wasn't even born during that time, but the guy was rated P4P number 1 as BIG H said. And destroyed a great fighter Michael Spinks in just over 1 minute. The guy was wrecking threw every Heayweight in his path.

And you can count on one hand how many clean hard shots he took in his prime, i heard at one point he was the 3rd most talked about person only behind Elvis and god himself. So that just shows no one had seen anything like Mike Tyson in boxing.

OF COURSE people had seen things like him in boxing. He was just the latest and so a hot topic.

[marbleheadmaui]

Just becuase you found a couple of examples and your dad and your mates didn't think it, doesn't make it a myth. The guy was even p4p number 1 in 88 (ahead of JCC, Azumah Nelson, Holyfield etc) Almost unheard of for a HW.

Well as that was the first time p4p rankings were actually published? It was all unheard of

[JazMerkin]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

[BIG H]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

[marbleheadmaui]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

But it ain't about FAME, it's about greatness, isn't it?

[Kev]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

But it ain't about FAME, it's about greatness, isn't it?

H was responding to Jaz who was talking about how big they were in their time, not great.

Anyway, Tyson would have wrecked Jack Dempsey and Marciano, you seriously think differently?