Why does boxrec.com rank Mike Tyson # 75 on its list of best all-time lb4lb fighters?

I agree with his placement. Tyson doesn't have the names like Ali nor the dominance like Joe Louis. He did become undisputed at like 21 years of age, which is amazing, but remember Boxrec is a computerized ranking system so it may not even take that into account.
 
Meh he's obv not top 10 p4p material, who knows if he's 35 or 75? The 75th best boxer all time across all weight classes is still going to be a fucking phenomenal boxer.
 
Feel like it’s too high. He was the 3rd best of his own ERA at HW and barely and probably doesn’t even crack the top 10 HW’s all time and P4P historically was to pump up the status of the lighter fighters so Idk he should be lucky to be that high
 
As already stated Boxrec uses a computerized ranking system which has its positives and negatives. Plus it changes from time to time. It eliminates bias but can also ignore certain accomplishments.
 
well they heavily overrate pre-1960’s fighters with their point accrual system. when fighters used to fight constantly, they beat more decent fighters as a whole. just a flaw in the system.

Wait. Can you clarify for me. Fighters that fought more and beat better fighters get overrated? Maybe I am not reading it right.
 
Wait. Can you clarify for me. Fighters that fought more and beat better fighters get overrated? Maybe I am not reading it right.
not necessarily beat better fighters. just that with more fights, your accrual of points (based on your opponents’ accrued points) goes up. losses also don’t hurt as much when you rematch a guy 8 times.
 
not necessarily beat better fighters. just that with more fights, your accrual of points (based on your opponents’ accrued points) goes up. losses also don’t hurt as much when you rematch a guy 8 times.

K I see the criticism with the system. The one thing I will appreciate about numerous rematches is that some of these guys had to face a brutal opponent numerous times. Tunney fought Greb 5x. That's insane. You don't see that anymore.

So in a number of ways I really appreciate the early fighters had to overcome.
 
that's too high if you consider all weight classes. if we talk pfp potential, Mike might be a top tenner.
 
It is possible to find 74 professional boxing resumes that are arguably superior to Tyson's. That being said, if you add superstardom as a p4p criteria, he moves drastically up the rankings.
 
K I see the criticism with the system. The one thing I will appreciate about numerous rematches is that some of these guys had to face a brutal opponent numerous times. Tunney fought Greb 5x. That's insane. You don't see that anymore.

So in a number of ways I really appreciate the early fighters had to overcome.
i can appreciate the difficulty for sure. i just find it a bit redundant, in most cases.
 
His record, the length of his careee and the level of talent he fought
 
ranking HWs p4p is dubious anyway. The Heavyweight division is basically an open division.

No weight ceiling. And last I remember, no floor (RJJ fought as a 193 HW against John Ruiz).

Mike Tyson was a career 5’11” HW with a 5’11” reach. And an undisputed all-time great HW. No. There are not 74 better “p4p” fighter in the history of the sport than Mike. Impossible.
 
Last edited:
Boxrec rankings are like the nfl defining what is a catch. We all know it’s a shitshow, but we can’t help throwing a tantrum when they screw it up
 
Back
Top