Leaving Tyson off the list of top 10 heavyweights is like...

[Sure Dawg]

I watched that old ESPN documentary on the top 10 heavyweights of all time and Mike Tyson didn't make the list.

10. Larry Holmes
Joe Frasier
George Foreman
Ezzard Charles
Rocky Marciano
Gene Tunney
Jack Johnson
Jack Dempsey
Muhammad Ali
1. Joe Louis

The insanity of that aside...who is the Tyson of MMA?


Cro Cop?

I feel he would have certainly made the list without the loss of Cus and coming of Don King. The difference in his boxing once Don King got a hold of him was enormous and clearly visable. The MASTERWORK bobbing and weaving as well as his footwork, nearly disappeared. King encouraged the loose cannon and street side of him, and he became much more of a brawler than a technician relative to himself before Don. While Cus was around he was a technical masterpiece, this cannot be argued.

 

[cunglaowins]

Problem with Tyson even in his prime is he lacks that dramatic comeback that guys like Ali and Frasier are known for. It makes for a compelling narrative: you’re down, you persevere and you overcome. Tyson either dominated or got finished. He never came back from being down

 

[WhuffieCollector]

I see Tyson as the Anderson Silva of boxing, but let me explain some more...

He burst on to the scene, wiped out the division with incredible KO's, and looked unbeatable in doing it.

Then, suddenly, he took his first big loss and never looked the same again.

The difference is, in MMA there have been very few super-elite fighters like Silva, so while Tyson is the Silva, there is not a list of 10 other fighters who had an even better career than he did, mostly because of how young the sport is.

If boxing began in 1980, Tyson is easily a top 10 HW, probably top 5, and in the conversation for greatest (although I think most would put him below Lewis and Holyfield, and maybe a couple of others).

But with boxing's history, and the greats that were around even just in the 20 years prior to Tyson, never mind the previous hundred years, they just aren't comparable, and so a guy like Tyson legitimately doesn't belong in the top 10 despite how great he was for a few years. He just didn't face that many great boxers in his prime, and lost to most of them when he eventually did.

Now, if it was a list of the top 10 most badass boxers...

 

[PeterGriffin]

There are two very different versions of Mike Tyson.


Mike Tyson, when managed by Cus D'Amato and trained by Kevin Rooney, was a very technical and powerful boxer.

Mike Tyson, when being taken advantage of by King and kicked around by life, was a powerful brawler.

 

[mkt]

Holmes, Ali and Louis are the only guys on that list that have a chance to beat unified Tyson.

Prime Foreman owns Tyson all day, just like he did shorter guys like Frazier and Ken Norton.

 

[Rawdog]

They are right tbh. Tyson's impact on the culture far outweighs his actual standing among the HW greats. Truth is Tyson lost to just about anyone who didn't piss themselves at the sight of him. And he didn't avenge those losses, people treat Buster Douglas like he was Matt Serra, dude had an awesome record.

Let's ignore Douglas, as much as you want to, how can you possibly with a straight face put him above Holyfield or Lewis? They might not be as interesting people but they were better and if anyone from that era(not counting old George Foreman who might have STILL been able to beat Tyson) should be on the list it should prolly be Lewis.

I get putting him above Holmes(cause he beat him) Tyson wins in boxing math there. But Holmes had fewer losses and was undefeated before Tyson beat him. People might be overrating the 70s legends(besides Ali who wasn't himself obv) he beat and that might be why he's there it ain't insane.

The Tyson of MMA is probably Conor, a one dimensional boxer, who broke PPV records and was larger than life but had serious cardio issues and struggled against the best. Maybe Chuck? Really hasn't been someone in MMA with his type of personality and style to succeed yet. Thiago Silva might be MMA Tyson minus the PPV success. And without the PPV success no one heard of him again after he got into legal trouble.

My top 10 would be a bit different but Tyson ain't top 10, top 15 is stretching it.

It is insulting to Tyson to compare him to Conor, Chuck, and especially Thiago Silva (wtf?).

What made Tyson special was his raw athletic ability. His explosiveness, speed, and reflexes have never been seen before in a guy his size. That is what put people in awe of Tyson. Tyson wasn’t Tyson because of trash talk. If there is a Tyson of MMA it’s Fedor. Both were feared and both had insane raw athletic talent.

 

[mkt]

Anyone that’s old enough to have watched Tyson fight in his “prime” knows he was a special fighter. Revisionist historians now say he wasn’t one of the greats.
IMO the Tyson from 1986-1991 beats anyone on that list. The Douglas fight was the beginning of him losing his focus & getting away from what made him great. But even then he was able to win fights not being entirely dedicated.
Most of the opinions in this thread are based off of a fighter that somewhere along the way lost his focus.

Actually you're the revisionist. I watched boxing back then but the HW competition level was very, very low. The best guys prime Tyson fought were a very undersized Michael Spinks and an old, fat Larry Holmes who joked about coming in out of shape and laughing all the way to the bank as he collected his paycheck. Put Mike in the 1970s and make him consistently fight Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers, Norton, Lyle, etc. and you'd see very different results. In fact, Foreman and Shavers returned to boxing in their 40s because they both thought Tyson was beatable.

 

[mkt]

. He just didn't face that many great boxers in his prime, and lost to most of them when he eventually did.

..

Exactly. Even before Tyson lost to Douglas and went to prison, some were talking about Holyfield being the relatively unknown fighter who could beat him. But the bottom line is that no fighter is in GOAT contention with such a short prime and with such poor competition. It doesn't matter what he theoretically could've done in a few short years. Ali came back from a similar layoff at a similar age and ruled the division in the best ever HW era, fighting guys younger than he was. Holyfied and Lewis were older than Tyson, so there are no excuses there either.

 

[WHITE ANDERSON]

mike tyson and cro cop are a good comparison. both guys are highly overrated due to several flashy KOs but neither was ever the best HW in the world. cro cop was a clear #3 in PRIDE and tyson openly ducked holyfield for six years before getting DESTROYED

tyson and conor are also a good comparison because of their behavior around women

 

[phoenixikki]

Anyone that’s old enough to have watched Tyson fight in his “prime” knows he was a special fighter. Revisionist historians now say he wasn’t one of the greats.
IMO the Tyson from 1986-1991 beats anyone on that list. The Douglas fight was the beginning of him losing his focus & getting away from what made him great. But even then he was able to win fights not being entirely dedicated.
Most of the opinions in this thread are based off of a fighter that somewhere along the way lost his focus.

Agree 100%. It's just such an elitist attitude to hate on Tyson. If you truly know something about combat sports you can recognize true power, speed and technique. Considering that prime Tyson would beat any boxer dead or alive.

 

[Intellidamus]

Actually you're the revisionist. I watched boxing back then but the HW competition level was very, very low. The best guys prime Tyson fought were a very undersized Michael Spinks and an old, fat Larry Holmes who joked about coming in out of shape and laughing all the way to the bank as he collected his paycheck. Put Mike in the 1970s and make him consistently fight Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Shavers, Norton, Lyle, etc. and you'd see very different results. In fact, Foreman and Shavers returned to boxing in their 40s because they both thought Tyson was beatable.

Lol. I watched Tyson back then & my opinion was the same as it is now. So no revision or modification.
His combination of speed, movement & power during his prime would have stood up under any era. He could only beat who was put in front of him. And put any fighter under a microscope & we can armchair them all day. His losses later in his career to Holyfield & Lewis were definitely as a fighter far less focused & dedicated than the one during that 5 year stretch.

 

[AndersonSilva23]

Holyfield really beats any version of Tyson. He just had too much heart for Tyson. Too much of a bulldog. Tyson always wilted eventually..

No way any version of Holyfield or Lewis come close to beating Prime Tyson. During the Cus D’Amato days Tyson had amazing head movement combined with outstanding hand speed, strength, stamina, accuracy, coordination and timing. Tyson also possessed great defensive abilities, holding his hands high in the Peek-a-Boo style to slip under and weave around his opponent's punches while timing his own. Eventually he started relying only on his power letting most of his fundamentals go. He became a lazy fighter who would walk towards his opponent trying to knock them out (he became a shadow of his great former self). I honestly don’t think any of the heavyweights in the greatest of all time lists beats prime Iron Mike Tyson.

 

[PalmStrike]

I don't know how to post videos, but check out Teddy Atlas on Mike Tyson. It's on Rogans podcast about 2 and a half minutes in.

I like Atlas a lot but he has been a hater for a while now.

In the ESPN Tyson series, he craps all over Mike any chance he gets.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

Regardless that's a terrible list with or without Tyson on it.

 

[Dorkman]

Didn't make it, Holyfield elther.

List seems like it was written by an old purist who dosen't recognize anything past his glory years. Lewis had an amazing career, and retired with the lineal title. How he dosen't make it is ridiculous.

 

[mkt]

Lol. I watched Tyson back then & my opinion was the same as it is now. So no revision or modification.
His combination of speed, movement & power during his prime would have stood up under any era. He could only beat who was put in front of him. And put any fighter under a microscope & we can armchair them all day. His losses later in his career to Holyfield & Lewis were definitely as a fighter far less focused & dedicated than the one during that 5 year stretch.

It doesn't matter if you watched or not. The problem are your biases and lack of critical thinking. Even if we assume Tyson was one of the world's best boxers from age 19-22 under one specific trainer (zero evidence since he never fought an elite HW), this doesn't put in GOAT status. A GOAT has longevity and a strong mental game. They're able to adapt their game as they age. Fighters like Lewis and Ali were still very good boxers in their mid-30s. Tyson was good (maybe great) but unproven when he was very young, and had a style that appeared to rely heavily on 21-year old reflexes and fast-twitch muscles. Unlike Ali, he could never regain greatness after a loss and layoff.

 

[Intellidamus]

It doesn't matter if you watched or not. The problem are your biases and lack of critical thinking. Even if we assume Tyson was one of the world's best boxers from age 19-22 under one specific trainer (zero evidence since he never fought an elite HW), this doesn't put in GOAT status. A GOAT has longevity and a strong mental game. They're able to adapt their game as they age. Fighters like Lewis and Ali were still very good boxers in their mid-30s. Tyson was good (maybe great) but unproven when he was very young, and had a style that appeared to rely heavily on 21-year old reflexes and fast-twitch muscles. Unlike Ali, he could never regain greatness after a loss and layoff.

Now we have the self anointed master of “critical thinking” before us. And your posts within this thread
have bias written all over them. Greatness can be recognized over varying periods of time. Mike Tyson was undoubtedly great for that 5 year stretch. Did he sustain that greatness over a long period of time? No, but there is no question he was great. I can see where that works against him but head to head he could have beaten anyone at his peak.

 

[Lemmy Caution]

LOL Gene Tunney at number 5 and he only fought at HW twice against the same guy, an old semiretired version of Dempsey.

That's like saying that Hendo is top 5 HW just for defeating Fedor in 2011. So stupid. That list sucks


We don't have one yet. Tyson was very special

Tunney makes no sense. Greb has to be held above Tunney. Greb declined a job as Jack Dempsey's sparring partner in preparation for Dempsey-Tunney I, saying "I'd feel like a burglar taking Jack's money. Nobody can get him in good enough condition to whip Gene."

 

[Dbreiden83080]

No way any version of Holyfield or Lewis come close to beating Prime Tyson. During the Cus D’Amato days Tyson had amazing head movement combined with outstanding hand speed, strength, stamina, accuracy, coordination and timing. Tyson also possessed great defensive abilities, holding his hands high in the Peek-a-Boo style to slip under and weave around his opponent's punches while timing his own. Eventually he started relying only on his power letting most of his fundamentals go. He became a lazy fighter who would walk towards his opponent trying to knock them out (he became a shadow of his great former self). I honestly don’t think any of the heavyweights in the greatest of all time lists beats prime Iron Mike Tyson.

Tyson had very little heart man. Holyfield was going to be there dragging him into deep water. Of the all timers like Ali, Holyfield, Frazier, Holmes, Tyson lacks heart. Amazing skill but when it gets rough and tough. He wilts.. Tyson showed great skill as champ in his first run against very non-historically great fighters. He did not fight Holyfield or Lewis or even Bowe. He was beating up on Spinks and Tony Tubbs..

 

[mkt]

Now we have the self anointed master of “critical thinking” before us. And your posts within this thread
have bias written all over them. Greatness can be recognized over varying periods of time. Mike Tyson was undoubtedly great for that 5 year stretch. Did he sustain that greatness over a long period of time? No, but there is no question he was great. I can see where that works against him but head to head he could have beaten anyone at his peak.

Way to not engage with any of my points and inject a worthless ad hominem. Google the term...I know Latin and logic are probably above your pay grade. Tyson isn't a GOAT and doesn't belong on an all-time great HW boxing Top 10 list. Case closed.