Mike Tyson where does he rank for you?

Frank Bullitt

Tyson all day for me, in his prime he would annihilate Ali.

Ali had the gift of the gab, he knew how to talk up a fight make people think he was great amazing etc, Tyson just went into the ring and did it.

walshb

Gintonious wrote: »

Tyson all day for me, in his prime he would annihilate Ali.

Ali had the gift of the gab, he knew how to talk up a fight make people think he was great amazing etc, Tyson just went into the ring and did it.

What, and Ali did not get in the ring and do it? Make people think he was great? His fights, wins and performances did that, not his talking!

Peak-Peak I would lean with the best Clay/Ali on points.

Many monsterous hitters did not dent Ali. Liston and Foreman
didn't do it. Frazier hit him with everything and didn't do it.
Shavers hopped off him and didn't do it.

Tyson could do it, but I will bet that Clay/Ali will be that bit too cute
and too tough and will win via points. Very close I add. Mike was no mug, and
no way anyone outpoints him easily. It will be tooth and nail.

walshb

StevePH wrote: »

(Like Tyson, Wlad has also dominated the heavyweight scene for a smiliar length of time - it doesn't serve as a reason to put either one in the Top Ten.)

C'mon, look at both in action and who they beat and how they did it. No comparison. Going by your logic I could apply this to many other so called greats. Really, only Ali, Louis and Holmes have that lenghty resume to cement their greatness. Liston did little when champ. Patterson did little. Dempsey did little. Tunney did little. Forerman did little. Frazier did little. But, they are all great fighters. Mike at peak did more than these guys. Wlad too. But, Wlad IMO does not impress in the way peak Tyson did.

Frank Bullitt

walshb wrote: »

What, and Ali did not get in the ring and do it? Make people think he was great? His fights, wins and performances did that, not his talking!

Peak-Peak I would lean with the best Clay/Ali on points.

Ali beat his opponents, Tyson destroyed them.

walshb

Gintonious wrote: »

Ali beat his opponents, Tyson destroyed them.

Is that it?

Ali destroyed many men. Completely different stylistic fighters. Many destroyers in boxing have been beaten and tamed by men who are not considered destroyers.

I'd like to hear how you think Mike destroys Ali, simply because he destroyed others?

Dohnny Jepp

Gintonious wrote: »

Ali beat his opponents, Tyson destroyed them.

Luckily you don't need to destroy the other man to win a boxing fight! Just beating them does just fine

Frank Bullitt

walshb wrote: »

Is that it?

Ali destroyed many men. Completely different stylistic fighters. Many destroyers in boxing have been beaten and tamed by men who are not considered destroyers.

I'd like to hear how you think Mike destroys Ali, simply because he destroyed others?

Tyson was a different breed than any of the heavy hitter that Ali fought, Liston, Foreman and Frazier. That coupled with the insane speed that Tyson could deliver his punches sets him apart from the 3 mentioned.

Tysons ability evade punches and get in close is another thing, his defense isn't given enough credibility, see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYZzMPsm6c4

Im not saying Ali was a bad fighter, just that, to me, Tyson was like no other heavyweight ever and Alis relaxed style to me would be outclassed by Tysons tempo.

walshb

Gintonious wrote: »

Tyson was a different breed than any of the heavy hitter that Ali fought, Liston, Foreman and Frazier. That coupled with the insane speed that Tyson could deliver his punches sets him apart from the 3 mentioned.

Tysons ability evade punches and get in close is another thing, his defense isn't given enough credibility, see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYZzMPsm6c4

Im not saying Ali was a bad fighter, just that, to me, Tyson was like no other heavyweight ever and Alis relaxed style to me would be outclassed by Tysons tempo.

Now, there is a good analysis. Beats what you said earlier;)

I wouldn't at all be surprised if he did do the trick, and yes, he was
that bit different than the ones I mentioned in how he delivered his shots.

But, Ali would be one fighter that could really take a shot, be so cute, deceptively strong and so fast.

Great match, and one that could go either way. Folks who are so certain either way puzzle me. Even when Mike could not KO a fighter, he could still outbox them. People forget this.

skregs

Tyson's style is at it's least effective against people who fight like Ali.

Tyson comes out agressive, avoids/endures hits, gets in close and savages people in the first few rounds, creating a huge pyschological advantage for himself. If they aren't knocked out in round one or two, they're usually terrified of him.
If you could survive until about round 7, he would run of of steam to a huge extent (albeit still hugely dangerous) and you could go toe to toe with him.

Ali would bounce around avoiding him and would never get intimidated, switch it on towards the end of the match when Tyson was tiring and counter attack rapidly.


That's not saying that Ali is better, but his style would beat Tyson's in a one on one

Galwayguy35

dmagic wrote: »

Hey guys asking this question for a research assignment. If you can help please do . Where does Mike Tyson rank in Heavyweight History for you? eg. where in the top 10 heavyweight boxers of all time?

He was small for a Heavyweight but what he lacked in height he made up for in punching power. In his prime he could take out anyone. I think its just sad to see him reduced to cameos in films like the Hangover 2

walshb

skregs wrote: »

Tyson's style is at it's least effective against people who fight like Ali.

Tyson comes out agressive, avoids/endures hits, gets in close and savages people in the first few rounds, creating a huge pyschological advantage for himself. If they aren't knocked out in round one or two, they're usually terrified of him.
If you could survive until about round 7, he would run of of steam to a huge extent (albeit still hugely dangerous) and you could go toe to toe with him.

Ali would bounce around avoiding him and would never get intimidated, switch it on towards the end of the match when Tyson was tiring and counter attack rapidly.


That's not saying that Ali is better, but his style would beat Tyson's in a one on one

Easier said than done. In his prime nobody came close to beating him whether it be 1 rd or 12 rds. Ali would be capable, but he'd have to at least be landing some leather throughout to soften Tyson up. It is a very tough task, one I think he succeeds with.

Frank Bullitt

walshb wrote: »

Now, there is a good analysis. Beats what you said earlier;)

I wouldn't at all be surprised if he did do the trick, and yes, he was
that bit different than the ones I mentioned in how he delivered his shots.

But, Ali would be one fighter that could really take a shot, be so cute, deceptively strong and so fast.

Great match, and one that could go either way. Folks who are so certain either way puzzle me. Even when Mike could not KO a fighter, he could still outbox them. People forget this.

This is true, maybe that post should have come first.

I think the more I think of it there are pros and cons for both. I am a huge fan of Tyson, grew up watching him and thats what I thought a boxer had to be, absolutely ferocious in the ring. It gets harder though the more I think of it to draw a comparison between the 2, and then to pick, my judgement is probably hindered by seeing Tyson live on TV and only seeing old footage of Ali.

That said though, I still go for Tyson in his prime over Ali in his prime, Ali could take a punch, but a punch off Tyson isn't the same.

eagle eye

Its unfair comparing fighters from different eras if they were to face each other because as time goes by technique gets better, training methods, diet, fitness, hell everything gets better.

If you are going to talk about who you think is the greatest you have to take what they did in their era and compare it against what others did in their own eras. For me Ali, Louis, Marciano, Holmes, Dempsey and Johnson are the ones at the top of the pile. Then you've got Tyson and Foreman, the late and great Joe Frazier and Lennox Lewis.

Boooourns

Gintonious wrote: »

This is true, maybe that post should have come first.

I think the more I think of it there are pros and cons for both. I am a huge fan of Tyson, grew up watching him and thats what I thought a boxer had to be, absolutely ferocious in the ring. It gets harder though the more I think of it to draw a comparison between the 2, and then to pick, my judgement is probably hindered by seeing Tyson live on TV and only seeing old footage of Ali.


That said though, I still go for Tyson in his prime over Ali in his prime, Ali could take a punch, but a punch off Tyson isn't the same.

Ali had one of the best chins of all time, don't forget Tyson didn't K.O everyone he met.

The Prodigy 2

Short fused Tyson would get easily frustrated with his inability to hit Ali, his footwork an reflex's would be the matter, tyson would be eating jabs an 1-2s all night

dave3004

Ali would beat Tyson.

Foreman would beat Tyson

Frazier Tyson would be too tight to call.

Tyson beats everyone else.




I also read that Tyson is a heavier hitter than everyone else…..No.

Foreman was/is.

Also, I noticed someone asking why Ali didn't fight Foreman a second time………He was dodging him out of the ring more than he was after he was dodging him in the ring !



IMO I think Big George / Ali are the greatest.

Total fights 81 Wins 76 Wins by KO 68 Losses 5

He only ever really lost 2 fights (Rumble in the Jungle) and to Young in 1977.

Other losses came after his crazy return to the ring 10 years later !

audi a4 2008

dave3004 wrote: »

Ali would beat Tyson.

Foreman would beat Tyson

Frazier Tyson would be too tight to call.

Tyson beats everyone else.




I also read that Tyson is a heavier hitter than everyone else…..No.

Foreman was/is.

Also, I noticed someone asking why Ali didn't fight Foreman a second time………He was dodging him out of the ring more than he was after he was dodging him in the ring !



IMO I think Big George / Ali are the greatest.

Total fights 81 Wins 76 Wins by KO 68 Losses 5

He only ever really lost 2 fights (Rumble in the Jungle) and to Young in 1977.

Other losses came after his crazy return to the ring 10 years later !

just a stupid posts and clearly no nothing about tyson,

walshb

audi a4 2008 wrote: »

just a stupid posts and clearly no nothing about tyson,

Is it stupid because you disagree with it?

Knows nothing about Tyson?

The poster merely claimed that Ali and Foreman would beat him, and, that Foreman hits harder. Hardly a deep analysis of Mike Tyson. So, why is it stupid?

TheWarrior

dave3004 wrote: »

Ali would beat Tyson.

Foreman would beat Tyson

Frazier Tyson would be too tight to call.

Tyson beats everyone else.


!

I agree with this, I've always felt that Foreman was the hardest punching heavyweight that ever lived - didnt have the exciting combos but certainly had the power.

Ali I feel would give Tyson a frustrating night out & grind him down to win on points

Frazier & Tyson would have been a spectacular clash - Frazier wins this on guts alone for me.

barney4001

HAD TYSON BEEN CONTROLLED HE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY HAVE BEEN THE BEST OF ALL TIME ,WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ALI

section4

Gintonious wrote: »

Ali beat his opponents, Tyson destroyed them.

do you realise what kind of heavyweights were around in the sixties and early seventies. If tyson fought these guys he would have had his hands fullmany times and if ali fought the guys tyson fought he would have it easy compared to some of the guys around in the 60 -70s

Tyson might have been champ in these years for a while, but i dont think any fighter that tyson fought, who was in his prime could have been champ in those times and in fact many of them would not even be contenders

Spazdarn

barney4001 wrote: »

HAD TYSON BEEN CONTROLLED HE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY HAVE BEEN THE BEST OF ALL TIME ,WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ALI

That's the thing, unfortunately Tyson wasn't controlled, can't really measure/count potential in fighters that have long retired.

Frank Bullitt

section4 wrote: »

do you realise what kind of heavyweights were around in the sixties and early seventies. If tyson fought these guys he would have had his hands fullmany times and if ali fought the guys tyson fought he would have it easy compared to some of the guys around in the 60 -70s

Tyson might have been champ in these years for a while, but i dont think any fighter that tyson fought, who was in his prime could have been champ in those times and in fact many of them would not even be contenders

Thats a bit of a weird claim, Tyson would stand up to any heavyweight of any era, he had the skill, speed and of course the power to deal with them.

Tysons defense in his prime would stand up to any fighter from the 60-70s easily, Cus Da'matto was able to build Tyson up from seeing fighters from that era and what they weren't applying in terms of defense.

And to say Ali would have beaten the guys that Tyson fought easily, Berbick beat Ali very easily, granted Ali was 39 and probably shouldn't have fought, then Tyson got rid of him in 2 rounds. Its not easily comparable and a bit out of the boundaries of your original statement, but it still happened.

section4

Gintonious wrote: »

Thats a bit of a weird claim, Tyson would stand up to any heavyweight of any era, he had the skill, speed and of course the power to deal with them.

Tysons defense in his prime would stand up to any fighter from the 60-70s easily, Cus Da'matto was able to build Tyson up from seeing fighters from that era and what they weren't applying in terms of defense.

And to say Ali would have beaten the guys that Tyson fought easily, Berbick beat Ali very easily, granted Ali was 39 and probably shouldn't have fought, then Tyson got rid of him in 2 rounds. Its not easily comparable and a bit out of the boundaries of your original statement, but it still happened.

berbeck would get beaten by, frazier, foreman, shavers liston, lyle, holmes, norton, quarry, etc etc. different

tyson would have serious problems, with frazier, ali, foreman, shavers, lyle, liston holmes, and a few others and i tell you soem thing else all these guys had more heart than tyson and they would never give in, tyson was brilliant in his prime, fast accurate great combinations, but when he was under pressure and it does not matter what point in his carreerr it happened, he bit holyfield cos he wanted out of the fight, he quit.

section4

Gintonious wrote: »

Thats a bit of a weird claim, Tyson would stand up to any heavyweight of any era, he had the skill, speed and of course the power to deal with them.

Tysons defense in his prime would stand up to any fighter from the 60-70s easily, Cus Da'matto was able to build Tyson up from seeing fighters from that era and what they weren't applying in terms of defense.

And to say Ali would have beaten the guys that Tyson fought easily, Berbick beat Ali very easily, granted Ali was 39 and probably shouldn't have fought, then Tyson got rid of him in 2 rounds. Its not easily comparable and a bit out of the boundaries of your original statement, but it still happened.

berbeck would get beaten by, frazier, foreman, shavers liston, lyle, holmes, norton, quarry, etc etc. different

tyson would have serious problems, with frazier, ali, foreman, shavers, lyle, liston holmes, and a few others and i tell you soem thing else all these guys had more heart than tyson and they would never give in, tyson was brilliant in his prime, fast accurate great combinations, but when he was under pressure and it does not matter what point in his carreerr it happened, he bit holyfield cos he wanted out of the fight, he quit.

dave3004

Lads Tyson would not be as good as the best from that day.

Do you think he could go the distance with Ali / Frazier in 115 degree heat ?

Well that's what the ring temperature was when they fought !

46 degrees celsius !!!!!!!

I was Sydney in 35 degree heat couple of weeks ago and found it unbearable.

Different breed the lads back then !

Frank Bullitt

section4 wrote: »

berbeck would get beaten by, frazier, foreman, shavers liston, lyle, holmes, norton, quarry, etc etc. different

tyson would have serious problems, with frazier, ali, foreman, shavers, lyle, liston holmes, and a few others and i tell you soem thing else all these guys had more heart than tyson and they would never give in, tyson was brilliant in his prime, fast accurate great combinations, but when he was under pressure and it does not matter what point in his carreerr it happened, he bit holyfield cos he wanted out of the fight, he quit.

Rubbish, he didn't quit, he says in his documentary he says he got frustrated cause Holyfield was using his head in the clinch and the referee was doing nothing about it, so he just bit him. The way your putting it, its as though he had had enough and wanted out. Thats also the Tyson who had no guidance at that stage, Don King was just interested in making his money.

And to say Tyson would have had issues with frazier, ali, foreman, shavers, lyle, liston holmes, thats looking at that with rose tinted glasses. They would equally have issues with him and possibly even more. Some of his victories were made easy looking by the fashion in which he got by them, but that was his art of skullduggary as well as his skill in the ring. He went 12 rounds with Ruddock who was a serious heavyweight at the time and had serious power as well, he was well capable of going the distance and staying to the game.

IMO the preference for Ali over Tyson is down to personality and the interferes with peoples opinion of them. Ali was charismatic and flamboyant, Tyson was intense and almost sinister looking. Ali could beat his opponents by using this thrash talk and mock his opponent, Tysons opponents just had to see how he walked to the ring and they were beaten. Its such a contrast in personality yet we still compare them. Fascinating really.

Lads Tyson would not be as good as the best from that day.

Do you think he could go the distance with Ali / Frazier in 115 degree heat ?

Well that's what the ring temperature was when they fought !

46 degrees celsius !!!!!!!

I was Sydney in 35 degree heat couple of weeks ago and found it unbearable.

Different breed the lads back then !

Who's to say it would have gone the distance with Tyson? Thats what made Tyson exciting and great to watch, the fight could end at any moment.

I'm sure you might have found it unbearable in Sydney when you were there, but using that as an example to say Tyson would have struggled is a bit weak, he was a professional athlete and would train for such an event. And this whole "different breed" statement can apply very much to Tyson as well.

walshb

section4 wrote: »

berbeck would get beaten by, frazier, foreman, shavers liston, lyle, holmes, norton, quarry, etc etc. different

tyson would have serious problems, with frazier, ali, foreman, shavers, lyle, liston holmes, and a few others and i tell you soem thing else all these guys had more heart than tyson and they would never give in, tyson was brilliant in his prime, fast accurate great combinations, but when he was under pressure and it does not matter what point in his carreerr it happened, he bit holyfield cos he wanted out of the fight, he quit.

Tyson imo would be very competitive in any era, including Ali's. Yes, Liston and Foreman and Frazier would be issues, as they would for any man, but Tyson could still be very competitive with the three of them. Sorry, Lyle and Shavers won't trouble the best Tyson. No way. Tyson too fast and heavy handed. If Jerry Quarry can take Shavers out easily, then Tyson destroys him. Lyle wasn't great, and could be hit easily enough. Tyson had the chin and power to beat Lyle every time.

Norton? No way. He crumbled several times against hitters. A beast like Tyson is a horrible match for Norton. Norton did not have the firepower to discourage Mike, nor the chin or defense to withstand Tyson.

Holmes? Well, he destroyed Holmes when they did meet, and I believe that Tyson beats any version of Holmes for reasosns I gave previously.

As good as Ali was, he wouldn't find the likes of Thomas and Biggs and Tubbs all that easy.

minty16

In terms of career, Tyson is around the 10 mark. His achievements were great for a very young man.

Walsh B, i have read over the thread and I think that although you make a point, it is a flawed one. When it comes to a boxer, you cannot say 'peak Tyson 86-89'- the statement is flawed, 3 years is nothing in boxing. In this case you could start narrowing it down to one year, two years , 2 fights, 3 fights, etc etc.. Heck, some fighters only fight 3 or 4 times in 3 years these days!

He was pretty great, unique, powerful and entertaining - But this was only for 3 years. After this, prison or no prison he failed and did not live up to his expectations.
He beat everything comfortably- but how good was the opposition ?
You talk about 'versions' of fighters, like Ali in his loss to Holmes - This is not a 'version of ali' it is an old man, everybody knows that Mohammad was an old man at this stage. Tyson on the other hand was finished before he was an old man. He has 'excuses' yes, but the fact is that his career at the very top was short lived. He never had to prove himself late in fights which IMO is fundamental to say, a Top 5 heavyweight. Tyson has admitted that he had a breathing problem from an early age which meant he 'had' to finish fights early!

It is sad what happened to Mike, he probably could have had a much greater career, BUT, you cant say this is certain or even likely. He went to prison and came out a different fighter, but things like mental state of mind would have had a big say on that- not necessarily loss of skills as he was a young man with no reason to suddenly 'lose' his skills. Again, if he is a top 5 heavyweight then surely you cant use these excuses? At the end of the day, there is no way Mike Tyson can be considered a top 5 heavyweight of all time based on his achievements. You can talk about fantasy fights but IMO it is flawed to base a ludicrous opinion that Tyson would knock Ali out based on a mere 3 years of knocking out middle of the road fighters early. It's just not enough, as much as I like Tyson.

walshb

minty16 wrote: »

Walsh B, i have read over the thread and I think that although you make a point, it is a flawed one. When it comes to a boxer, you cannot say 'peak Tyson 86-89'- the statement is flawed, 3 years is nothing in boxing. In this case you could start narrowing it down to one year, two years , 2 fights, 3 fights, etc etc.. Heck, some fighters only fight 3 or 4 times in 3 years these days!

He was pretty great, unique, powerful and entertaining - But this was only for 3 years. After this, prison or no prison he failed and did not live up to his expectations.
He beat everything comfortably- but how good was the opposition ?
You talk about 'versions' of fighters, like Ali in his loss to Holmes - This is not a 'version of ali' it is an old man, everybody knows that Mohammad was an old man at this stage. Tyson on the other hand was finished before he was an old man. He has 'excuses' yes, but the fact is that his career at the very top was short lived. He never had to prove himself late in fights which IMO is fundamental to say, a Top 5 heavyweight. Tyson has admitted that he had a breathing problem from an early age which meant he 'had' to finish fights early!

It is sad what happened to Mike, he probably could have had a much greater career, BUT, you cant say this is certain or even likely. He went to prison and came out a different fighter, but things like mental state of mind would have had a big say on that- not necessarily loss of skills as he was a young man with no reason to suddenly 'lose' his skills. Again, if he is a top 5 heavyweight then surely you cant use these excuses? At the end of the day, there is no way Mike Tyson can be considered a top 5 heavyweight of all time based on his achievements. You can talk about fantasy fights but IMO it is flawed to base a ludicrous opinion that Tyson would knock Ali out based on a mere 3 years of knocking out middle of the road fighters early. It's just not enough, as much as I like Tyson.

You say you have read over my posts. I am clear in saying for that timeframe 1986-1989, Mike Tyson was IMO a top 5 alltime heavyweight. An absolute beast. I clearly said that post prison should not be included. I would apply this to any fighter who would serve 3 years inside and then come out.

Folks want to discuss post prison Tyson, then others should be a allowed discuss Ali from 1976 onwards. Again, peak fighter, Ali is the best of all time.
1976-1980 Ali is not a great fighter. I see this man lose to many heavyweights, and some not top ten.

Hypothetical? Had Tyson been killed just before he meets Buster, would we consider himan alltime great heavy? I would, based on what he achieved for those 4 years. Sal Sanchezis considered an alltime great feather, and he passed away aged 21 or so, without achieveing many defenses.

Ovearall career Ali is clearly ahead of Mike, a point I have already made.

Overall career for Mike does not match Ali, but still, what he did in his prime was kinda brilliant. Undisputed champ, youngest champ, 9-10 defences. Never close to losing. Not even Marciano can boast this. So, even though it was 3-4 years, look what he got in compared to others that could be listed in the top ten.

And, even after his loss to Buster, and prison, he strung together some good wins, when he was clearly past it. Any fighter who gets incarcerated for three years cannot expect to be close to his peak.

So, I see no flaw. As I said, even for the brief 3-4 years, look what he achieved, and taking away Ali, Louis and say, Holmes, which heavyweight did
more? Maybe Holyfield, but allowing him, Mike still ranks high.

I am well aware of his flaws. Just never saw them when he was at his best for the 4 years I name.

This version of the fighter is a top 5 heavyweight. We only saw the flaws after Mike had been imprisoned for three years.

Even in the Buster fight, when most know that he was on the slide, ill prepared, he showed no flaws in his character. Showed an amazing chin, resilience and heart to take such a beating and still trying to gather the gumshiled to fight on.

It was the Holyfield rematch that changed everyone's opinion. Suddenly Tyson had no courage, no heart, no discipline. His whole resume pre Holyfiled seemed to get discarded.

Then folks want to extrapolate this version and use it to argue why he loses to Ali or Foreman when at peak. At peak, Tyson was all fighter, mentally and physically. And, even when the going was tough, he stuck to his task and prevailed.