Mike Tyson rating all time

[Spicoli]

The biggest thing Mike did for the sport was to sweep up all of the clutter from a golden era and ground it again, center stage and world wide. Unfortunately after that he stagnated and was on the end of some pretty dumb actions by those he was surrounded by and himself. Lawsuits, firing brain trust, street fights, partying followed him into his only close to prime 'super' fight with Spinks that was anti climatic and a bit of a technicality after Spinks was stripped for going for the Cooney lotto. I like Tyson but he really gets a lot of excuses made for him. Biggest miss was blowing his eras super fight with young Holyfield not once but twice, but I'm more convinced as the years go that we would have seen the exact same outcome we eventually saw in 96.

[Mark TKO]

Just outside top ten for me.

Brought the casual fans in at a time when fights were on free TV channels and dominated for 4 years with his aura of invincibility. Were any opponents in that period really that great looking back? Yes they were ranked back then and you can only dominate the era you are in but many were forgettable.

As said in the other thread he never won a fight when the going got tough. If only Douglas had stayed down....

He was a great fighter but there are a dozen or so I would rank above him.

Really pains me too that younger casual fans belive him the greatest of all time. I remember a Facebook thread at the time Ali died when younger fans were saying tyson was much better than Ali.....

[Fenster]

I think Tyson is underrated by "hardcores." The millennial fans, glued to boxrec, have no idea of context and older guys always claim "they knew" Tyson was overrated. Anyone can rip a boxing record apart without context.

He unified the heavyweight division (WBC, WBA, IBF - the WBO didn't exist) in four fights within 12-months. Spinks (lineal champ) was "just" a lightheavy - he had four fights at heavyweight before facing Tyson, beat Holmes twice and Cooney. Holmes was an "old man," a 38-year-old who then fought Holyfield and McCall in competitive bouts and outpointed Mercer (who had murdered Morrison for the WBO title).

Imagine a heavyweight today unifying the division within 12 months? Are Wilder and Ruiz (belt holders) so far advanced from Tyson's opposition? Berbick, Tucker, Smith? Tyson beat more than a dozen world-class heavyweights in his era, avenged amateur losses, beat Olympic champions.

And finally, his impact on boxing shouldn't be underestimated. He is a genuine game changer, a genuine global superstar - in his prime, let alone now (name a current fighter more famous?). A convicted rapist, serial offender and in-ring "cheat" who never lost the adoration of the wider public, media, commercial and corporate.

[TIC]

i am a huge iron mike fan, but all time i'd have a hard time fitting him in my top 50

[Dark Lord Al]

Top 20 .

[X]

Tyson was the first boxer since Ali to genuinely cross over into the public consciousness, he made boxing a mainstream sport for a while.

Lots of aficionados like to hold that against him, as they believe the 'general public' are too stupid to have a view on who is, or isn't, a good boxer.

Likewise, people have Always criticised the opposition of EVERY heavyweight who dominated or cleaned out the division, as if that 'must' mean everyone else was poor quality.

Dempsey was criticised for his quality of opposition, Louis' defences were called bums of the month, Marciano only fought old has beens, even pre exile Ali was said to be fighting poor opposition.

Tyson cleaned out the division on the way up and during his first title reign. Youngest heavyweight champ in history and unified the championship the hard way - by fighting and defeating the rival title holders, and then utterly crushing Spinks, the only guy with any tenuous claim of being top dog. Everyone knew who the best fighter, or baddest man on the planet, was when Tyson was champ.

I also think these things are time related. People never think the current fighters are good, because they have childhood golden tinged memories of boxers of 20 years ago. Dempsey was compared unfavourably with Jeffries, Louis with Dempsey, Marciano and Ali with with Louis. Even Lennox Lewis at the time was seen as a great athlete but not a real fighter, who had a glass chin and was gun shy.

So now, because people have short memories or don't really study old fights, people think Wilder and AJ are severely limited, not rounded boxers, who would never compete in the dimly remembered golden age of 20 years ago when Holyfield, Lewis and Bowe were around.

Tyson had his flaws as a fighter, but who doesn't?

I don't subscribe to the 'rubbish generation' ideology as Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, ageing Holmes, Tony Tucker etc were all good fighters. Yes, he never pulled a win out against the odds but neither did Dempsey.
Yes, his tumultuous private life shortened his career, but so did John L Sullivan's. Yes, he lost fights at the end of his career to guys who shouldn't be named in the same breath as him .... but so did Joe Frazier, Larry Holmes and loads of greats.

In his short prime, he was a genuinely fearsome proposition. Fast hands and feet, good technique, good stamina and chin, and he wanted to hurt people. A finisher par excellence, his fights were exciting 'blink and you'll miss it' events. Undisputed Champion, feared by opponents, the dominant boxer of his generation in any weight division.

There may be guys who you think 'might' beat him, or who were 'better', but Tyson was dangerous and a proven knockout artist. Even if outboxed, which rarely happened, he always would have that punchers chance as he could hurt anybody.

Revisionism runs rampant in our sport ..... but peak Mike Tyson was one of the most electrifying performers who ever entered a ring.

[mikeeod]

For me:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Evander
5. Johnson
6. Lewis
7. Foreman
8. Wladimir
9. Frazier
10. Marciano
11. Tyson
12. Dempsey
13. Walcott
14. Charles