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

[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?

[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?

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?

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history. Niether Marciano nor Dempsey (post Doc Kearns) was ever wrecked.

Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson. Does that mean they beat him? Nope. But it's a much tougher call for me than it is for you.

[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?

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history. Niether Marciano nor Dempsey (post Doc Kearns) was ever wrecked.

Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson. Does that mean they beat him? Nope. But it's a much tougher call for me than it is for you.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Both he and the 185lb Marciano would have been done inside 4 rounds.

Marciano's resume is pretty weak, his era was worse than the one the Klitschkos have dominated for the past decade.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history.... Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson.

This statement is not only self-contradictory, but also non-factual.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Not only that but he only made something like 6 title defences in 7 years, which for that era is abysmal... Even more so when you consider his activity leading up to his title shot. This was while avoiding Willis and Greb and actually avoiding ANY fighter who wasn't white all during which, He went missing for 3 years only to return and loose twice to Tunney.

Shit fighter, protected fighter. Complete Hype Job... 1st of a kind indeed!

I'm messing, he really wasn't shite. Quite phenomenal actually but as a champion he gets overrated way too much.... Actaully that's a lie.... 98% of the people that probably were guilty of overrating him are probably now dead.

The other 2% are Burt Sugar and maybe some people on this forum

[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?

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?

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history. Niether Marciano nor Dempsey (post Doc Kearns) was ever wrecked.

Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson. Does that mean they beat him? Nope. But it's a much tougher call for me than it is for you.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Both he and the 185lb Marciano would have been done inside 4 rounds.

Marciano's resume is pretty weak, his era was worse than the one the Klitschkos have dominated for the past decade.

What part of "post Doc Kearns" didn't you understand? The horseshoe thing was funny.

The era Marciano was in had Ezzard and Walcott who would have decimated today's heavies.

OK, I predict Tyson would have bitten both their ears and been DQ'd.

[JazMerkin]

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

Well, it might help him that the vast majority of those alive when Johnson, Dempsey & Louis were fighting are now dead. Tyson is still alive. 20 years after all those guys retired, those guys were all huge names just as big as Tyson now & that's without the aid of the internet.

You said there was more excitement about him than all those guys. Sorry to sound like Marble, but read up on this. In fact, it doesn't have to be a boxing book. Johnson, Dempsey & Louis are all frequently used as examples in Universities of the importance of sporting heroes on the American psyche. Although Tyson was exciting & huge at the time, he never had the cultural impact that they & Ali had, simply because by the 80s boxing & baseball had begun to be replaced as the major American sports by american football & basketball

I actually agree with most of the rest of your argument. I personally don't have Tyson that high, but I do rate him above Marciano. I think to say that no one thought he was great is absolute rubbish. However, I don't think that just because he was rated the 4th best HW ever in 1988 means he has to be rated there now. In just 2001, there were many people seriously talking about if Felix Trinidad would have beaten Ray Robinson & his place as one of the best fighters of all time. Does that mean he has to be rated as such now? Rating anyone 'in the moment' is always going to lead to going too far one way or the other imo.

[Nameless]

I don'T believe that Tyson was better than Ali or Louis. Was he great? I think so. Was he one of the greatest? In my opinion, no.
The thing with Tyson is that he came at the "beginning of the new era of boxing" and has been in the medias more than any other boxers since Ali, combine that with the fact that his career has been guided by Don King like if he was a WWE wrestling superstar and you have a huge part of the reason why most "12-45" years old have his name in their mouth when it comes to "name me one boxer". Tyson was strong, fast and a real bad ass but so much publicity has been made around his bad ass persona that it did create a mythe even bigger than the mythe himself. Would Tyson have fought 40 years ago, he wouldn't be reminded as strongly because it was not as much an era of power medias, same would he have fought at Louis' era.

[BIG H]

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

Well, it might help him that the vast majority of those alive when Johnson, Dempsey & Louis were fighting are now dead. Tyson is still alive. 20 years after all those guys retired, those guys were all huge names just as big as Tyson now & that's without the aid of the internet.

You said there was more excitement about him than all those guys. Sorry to sound like Marble, but read up on this. In fact, it doesn't have to be a boxing book. Johnson, Dempsey & Louis are all frequently used as examples in Universities of the importance of sporting heroes on the American psyche. Although Tyson was exciting & huge at the time, he never had the cultural impact that they & Ali had, simply because by the 80s boxing & baseball had begun to be replaced as the major American sports by american football & basketball

I actually agree with most of the rest of your argument. I personally don't have Tyson that high, but I do rate him above Marciano. I think to say that no one thought he was great is absolute rubbish. However, I don't think that just because he was rated the 4th best HW ever in 1988 means he has to be rated there now. In just 2001, there were many people seriously talking about if Felix Trinidad would have beaten Ray Robinson & his place as one of the best fighters of all time. Does that mean he has to be rated as such now? Rating anyone 'in the moment' is always going to lead to going too far one way or the other imo.

William Shakespear, Michaelangelo, Jesus Christ, Adolf Hitler, Marilyn Monroe, The Virgin Mary

Not been a twat - but get my point?

[generalbulldog]

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.

Thinking about it, I think the proper analogy would be like after Lebron James in the first 3 rounds of this year's NBA playoffs (before the NBA Finals) played so spectacularly that some people were saying that Lebron was as good and maybe even better than Michael Jordan or somewhere in that vicinity, but yet the people that followed the NBA for many years and hardcore fans said, hold up let's wait a little while before making such proclamations, because you have a generation of fans that saw Jordan played when he was in his prime or followed his career for a large part of it. Same thing with Tyson. When Tyson beat a whole bunch of top ranked HWs at the time and dismantle Spinks some people were proclaiming that Tyson was up there with a guy like Ali or even better, but yet fans that followed the sport for years and did see Ali for a huge chunk of his career, whether in his prime or the 70s would disagree or say it was too premature. Tyson and Lebron had these other worldly physical abilities but just lack that extra gear that the 2 greatest of their sports had. And coincidently it was mental toughness for both, imo.

[Mr140]

Tyson is a atg but is by far the most overrated heavyweight to ever grace the planet. I mean if i had to make list i have to put Ali, Foreman, Louis, Holyfeild and Lennox above the man. Anyhow is this another fucking how great was Tyson really thread again, is this because marble made the legacy thread. The one talking about how Holyfeild is tarnishing his rep because he is fighting in his late 40's. I mean we have been over this a lot and its he same people with the same shit to say and that includes me as well because i sure as shit have not changed my mind about it at all lol.