Kellerman calls Mike Tyson “best P4P fighter of the 1980s”

Mike Tyson was roundly considered the best p4p in boxing until he lost to Douglas... in hindsight you may disagree, but at that time Mike was the guy.
 
Mike Tyson was roundly considered the best p4p in boxing until he lost to Douglas... in hindsight you may disagree, but at that time Mike was the guy.
He was but that peak P4P #1 rating only lasted a couple years during the 80's (1988-1989) and into 1990 until he lost to Douglas early that year. That only represents one-fifth of the decade. According to the same publication's ratings Hagler reigned as P4P #1 as well, no surprise, except he remained there for 4 consecutive years from 1983-1986. He was the P4P king for twice as long during the 80's era.
 
That's the idea of looking at the P4P rankings, which were around back then, along with the rest of their achievements over that time period. It was realistically a two man race between Hagler & Leonard. After those two it would've come down to Hearns & Mike.

Hagler has the best combination of P4P longevity (longest P4P #1 reign) and he was one of three fighters that won ‘Fighter of the Year’ twice that decade. Unless you see it how The Ring did at the time and edge Leonard over Hagler due to his win over him (which really helped his case in making him ‘Fighter of the Decade’). Overall though, Leonard wasn't viewed as the P4P king as long as Hagler was and he only won ‘Fighter of Year’ once during the 80's.
i thought ring had hagler as fighter of the decade? either way, Ray's career was interrupted and stunted by the retina surgery, he was in his prime and had at least a couple more years at his best. Some questions go unanswered for me, I don't know how well he would have done if he had a long reign like Hagler, he had some good fighters, not as good as him but very good fighters who on a good night may have been able to take him. Ray was something, it's a shame that he didn't fight to his potential. He admits he was never the same again when he came back, he didn't even move nothing like he did when he came back, still good, still gutsy and a champion but he really did little for his legacy in most of the comeback fights.

Tyson, as far as a media sensation, no fighter really came close in that decade, he was like Michael Jordan, no one saw just how badly he would implode. I'll take hagler, the guy who went to "jail" for his fights, locked out women, stuck with his original team and distrusted everyone, mike could have learned from him. Funny thing is, as much as temperament and intensity Hagler and Tyson were alike, Tyson never really seemed to be a fan of Hagler, could be one of those cases where guys are too much alike to like each other. Hagler, inhis case, he didn't even like being friendly with boxers in weight classes he'd never fight, as Barry McGuigan mentions in his bio.
 
Mike Tyson was roundly considered the best p4p in boxing until he lost to Douglas... in hindsight you may disagree, but at that time Mike was the guy.
Whether he deserved it or not, Julio was seen as top guy by many, in fact, after the Douglas fight, when asked who's number one now, Julio still said Mike Tyson, no doubt just thinking it was a bad night. Julio took over the sport even as he was losing his edge, for the next few years, they say Don King really relied on Julio when Mike got locked up.
 
i thought ring had hagler as fighter of the decade? either way, Ray's career was interrupted and stunted by the retina surgery, he was in his prime and had at least a couple more years at his best. Some questions go unanswered for me, I don't know how well he would have done if he had a long reign like Hagler, he had some good fighters, not as good as him but very good fighters who on a good night may have been able to take him. Ray was something, it's a shame that he didn't fight to his potential. He admits he was never the same again when he came back, he didn't even move nothing like he did when he came back, still good, still gutsy and a champion but he really did little for his legacy in most of the comeback fights.

Tyson, as far as a media sensation, no fighter really came close in that decade, he was like Michael Jordan, no one saw just how badly he would implode. I'll take hagler, the guy who went to "jail" for his fights, locked out women, stuck with his original team and distrusted everyone, mike could have learned from him. Funny thing is, as much as temperament and intensity Hagler and Tyson were alike, Tyson never really seemed to be a fan of Hagler, could be one of those cases where guys are too much alike to like each other. Hagler, inhis case, he didn't even like being friendly with boxers in weight classes he'd never fight, as Barry McGuigan mentions in his bio.
There are two notable ‘Fighter of the Decade’ awards nowadays, The Ring's & the Boxing Writers Association of America's (BWAA's). The BWAA's didn't start until the 90's though with Roy as their first recipient. These days the BWAA's FOTY & FOTD awards are viewed as more credible. And yeah, as far as popularity is concerned, Mike quickly became the face of boxing in the 80's. Nobody else was as popular during that decade (unless we count comeback Ali at the beginning of the decade). But that doesn't translate into him being the best P4P fighter of that era unless he's given bonus points for transcending the sport similar to what Ali did.

Fighter of the Decade
The Ring magazine Fighter of the Year
 
i'm pretty sure ring gave hagler fighter of the 80's, i also remember him speaking about the honor at some point.
 
i guess it was boxing illustrated that gave Marvin that title, i just looked it up.
 
i guess it was boxing illustrated that gave Marvin that title, i just looked it up.
I was gonna say, I posted The Ring's list for both FOTY & FOTD. Hagler wasn't their FOTD but he won FOTY twice in the 80's. Then again, so did Mike and Hearns. Leonard only won it once that decade yet he still won their FOTD award (largely in part due to his win over Hagler).
 
Last edited:
From the guys who peaked in the 80s, I'd say:
  1. Leonard
  2. Hagler
  3. Michael Spinks
  4. McCallum
  5. Tyson
  6. Nunn
  7. Hearns
  8. Holmes
  9. Arguello
 
Last edited:
From the guys who peaked in the 80s, I'd say:
  1. Leonard
  2. Hagler
  3. Michael Spinks
  4. McCallum
  5. Tyson
  6. Hearns
  7. Nunn
  8. Holmes
  9. Arguello
Holme's resume is pretty superior to Mike's imo

and Arguello's is too

frankly on that list I'd only put Mike ahead of Nunn and maybe McCallum
 
I’m glad you guys actually made some good points instead of just saying “hEaVywEiGhtS cAnT bE P4P” <45>

Kellerman is just one of these guys that puts a lot of stock in the “eye test”
Heavyweights can be P4P it's just that it's rare especially nowadays to see them ranked that high or even viewed in that light. It depends on the criteria used and how it's weighed. Months before Fury beat Wlad The Ring had Wlad ranked at P4P #2 only behind Floyd. That was Wlad's peak ranking (despite me not agreeing with it as it was purely down to his longevity). There were some that viewed Ali as the P4P best and Mike was too briefly for a couple years. Right now Fury is P4P rated by several sources. I'm not even going to count BoxRec seeing as right now they've got Wilder at P4P #5, AJ at #8, and Fury at #2.

As for Kellerman, it's like he's dismissing everything that happened before Mike reached his apex during that decade. Mike didn't even enter the P4P picture until 1986. Then it took him an extra couple years to put in enough work to reach the top there by 1988/1989. The others (namely Hagler, Leonard & Hearns) got an earlier start and had already put in a lot of work themselves prior to Mike's late 80's peak. Kellerman must feel that since Mike closed out the decade strong and on top of his game, undefeated, undisputed & lineal, along with being the most popular transcendent figure in the sport, that all of those things together made him the best P4Per of the decade. He's likely giving Mike bonus points for the latter as Mike was the face of the sport in the late 80's.
 
Leonard’s 80’s record

View attachment 785646
i don't think the record tells the whole story one way or another, sadly, it's kind of tragic how his career went, every bit as much or more than ali losing those three years. The guy who fought bruce finch, larry bonds, Hearns, was really just coming into his own. Most of those other fights were pretty unimpressive, the hagler fight notwithstanding. I still think he looked better against kevin howard than he would ever look again. After that, no matter what you think of the hagler fight, people still have an arguement that he lost that as well as the Hearns rematch, the Lalonde fight was great as far as excitement but Ray had no business being in that much trouble with a guy like that and Uno Mas was anticlimactic.

I still think the retina was an excuse to avoid marvin, he had to be scared about that fight and wouldn't take it until he had nothing to lose. I still think Marvin would have beaten him convincingly had they fought five years earlier, Marvin had some mental tics which ray knew about but at his best, as he usually was, he was an absolute beast.

What happens if ray never got injured? Who the hell knows, he already told duran and hearns no rematch, so he'd have made those fights wait either way, he also toyed with Marvelous by asking him to come down to 154, which would have been ridiculous for Marvin, a guy who fought at one weight his whole career. He had a lot of great prospects coming up, guys who were hungry and ready to give him a good fight, Curry, McCrory, even Colin Jones and Marlon Starling could fight, not to mention all the people calling him out all the time because he was the money man, like aaron pryor.
 
i thought ring had hagler as fighter of the decade? either way, Ray's career was interrupted and stunted by the retina surgery, he was in his prime and had at least a couple more years at his best. Some questions go unanswered for me, I don't know how well he would have done if he had a long reign like Hagler, he had some good fighters, not as good as him but very good fighters who on a good night may have been able to take him. Ray was something, it's a shame that he didn't fight to his potential. He admits he was never the same again when he came back, he didn't even move nothing like he did when he came back, still good, still gutsy and a champion but he really did little for his legacy in most of the comeback fights.

Tyson, as far as a media sensation, no fighter really came close in that decade, he was like Michael Jordan, no one saw just how badly he would implode. I'll take hagler, the guy who went to "jail" for his fights, locked out women, stuck with his original team and distrusted everyone, mike could have learned from him. Funny thing is, as much as temperament and intensity Hagler and Tyson were alike, Tyson never really seemed to be a fan of Hagler, could be one of those cases where guys are too much alike to like each other. Hagler, inhis case, he didn't even like being friendly with boxers in weight classes he'd never fight, as Barry McGuigan mentions in his bio.

Him and Hagler were very different though. Tyson was impatient, the fight vs. Marvis Frazier is a perfect example of that.
Hagler liked to ease into fights. The fight vs. Hearns was really the only one where he came out guns blazing from the opening bell.
 
Him and Hagler were very different though. Tyson was impatient, the fight vs. Marvis Frazier is a perfect example of that.
Hagler liked to ease into fights. The fight vs. Hearns was really the only one where he came out guns blazing from the opening bell.
that's right, hagler was serene appearing and calm in the ring generally but his whole image and the way he talked is the one thing Michael admitted to liking, the stuff like "i'm gonna tear his face off!" is not too dissimilar to Tyson saying he wanted to drive Jesse Ferguson's nose bone into his brain. Marvin admitted that the press had a lot to do with the raging maniac persona and said that after the first round, most of his opponents could care less about any of that. Marvin was smarter in his approach, in fact one of the smartest ring generals of all time, Tyson could have learned a helluva lot from him. However, most guys with that highstrung mentality end up fucking themselves at some point, Duran did, Tyson did, Liston did, and Marvin did. It's what Emmanuel Steward meant when he said Marvelous was "too intense and I think it hurts him". He definitely overthought things in the Leonard and Duran fights.
 
agree or disagree?
Depends on what his angle is. Some people rate P4P based on stats and comparisons. Some use the eye test, which I personally think is stupid.
Using the eye test, I can for sure see why someone would say Tyson was P4P king.
 
Prime Mike Tyson is the best boxer ever. His prime didn't last long enough for him to be considered one of the greats. Sugar Ray Leonard would have to be ranked above Tyson
 
To recap, as far as the actual rankings are concerned, Mike was voted P4P No. 1 by KO Magazine from 1988-1989 and also rated P4P No. 1 by The Ring Magazine in 1989. Meaning that late 80's Mike has actual proof that he was regarded as the P4P king at the time. Unfortunately for him, however, Hagler was viewed as P4P king for twice as long by that same publication over that same decade and he was in the P4P picture longer as well.

Therefore, Marvin Hagler was the “best P4P fighter of the 1980s” based on longevity (time spent at the very top) and the length of time in which he was present in the P4P conversation altogether.
KOMag.8707.jpg

nice research. Thanks
 
Last edited:
He needs clicks/ attention/ ratings. Tyson’s the only name he can say that gets it.
 
Fighter of the decade is Leonard or Hagler IMO. I’d give it to Ray. Tyson achieved a lot, but still less.

Kinda like the 20s. Dempsey was the superstar but Leonard was the finest boxer.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top