Is Tyson ranked too low all-time?

I've been thinking, "what's so different about Tyson's run at the top compared with guys like Dempsey and Marciano?"

In terms of duration and number of world title fights, there's not a whole lot different. Tyson finished his career with a much more negative run, making his failures fresher in our minds. I think it's fair to say that more recent fighters get penalized more severely for ending their careers on bad notes than the fighters of yesteryear. Maybe it's just easier to remember.

Dempsey gets credit for his star shining brighter than perhaps his resume, so why not Tyson? From 85-90, he was the truth and so far ahead of his peers. I guaran f'in tee if you transpose what Tyson did in the 80's to the teens and twenties, he'd be in the top 6, not lingering around the 15 slot.

I'm not saying Dempsey and Marciano are overrated. I actually think the backlash on both guys has made them both underrated. I'm just saying the reasons for not including Tyson in that group are purely interpretive and mght change with the passing of time.

He gets things held against him that don't exist for every fighter: losses well past his prime, not exactly living up to expectations, acting the fool, getting penalized for the division being at a weak period, having his best wins come against guys who were past their peak, etc. I could apply the above critique to a lot of guys ranked above him, so what gives? Where do you think he belongs? Can you make a case for top 8 or 10?

unfortunately for Mike Tyson the stint he did in jail for rape will always leave massive questions over to how good he really was because he spent most of his prime locked up. no question that Tyson was an absolute rarity, a boxing genius if you like between 85-90. the combination of speed, power and boxing skill was absolutely devestating and that's what makes this question all the more frustrating and difficult to answer. he was a beast, he won the undisputed heavyweight crown of the World when he was 20 by knocking his opponent down 3 times with one punch. i mean how else do you explain that as being anything other than exceptional. we all know the loss of Cus D'Amato ruined Tyson's career. the night in Tokyo against Buster Douglas doesn't help Tyson's case either. personally i think that if Tyson had had the right guidance and focus throughout the duration of his career, and of course if he didn't go to jail, then we could be talking about a top 3 of all time great behind Ali and Louis (i know your opinions about Louis but i genuinely believe he was second only to Ali, that is of course only personal opinion formed through a fanatic's eyes )

dbudge wrote:unfortunately for Mike Tyson the stint he did in jail for rape will always leave massive questions over to how good he really was because he spent most of his prime locked up. no question that Tyson was an absolute rarity, a boxing genius if you like between 85-90. the combination of speed, power and boxing skill was absolutely devestating and that's what makes this question all the more frustrating and difficult to answer. he was a beast, he won the undisputed heavyweight crown of the World when he was 20 by knocking his opponent down 3 times with one punch. i mean how else do you explain that as being anything other than exceptional. we all know the loss of Cus D'Amato ruined Tyson's career. the night in Tokyo against Buster Douglas doesn't help Tyson's case either. personally i think that if Tyson had had the right guidance and focus throughout the duration of his career, and of course if he didn't go to jail, then we could be talking about a top 3 of all time great behind Ali and Louis (i know your opinions about Louis but i genuinely believe he was second only to Ali, that is of course only personal opinion formed through a fanatic's eyes )

Good points. I'm just saying even just looking at his short prime, is it so much worse than guys ranked above him? Do you think he might just be measured against his own expectations a bit, rather than against other champions? And btw, I have Louis #2 also.

i guess it's a level of competition thing. was Tyson fighting competition that was as elite as Dempsey or Marciano were. i know a lot of people criticise Marciano especially but he has the names on his record to back it up. not only does he have the names but he has the emphatic style victories. everytime Tyson came up against somebody genuinely elite he failed. he failed against Holyfield, he failed against Buster Douglas (who wasn't even elite), he failed against Lewis (due to age because his prime was wasted in prison). his biggest wins were against Berbick, Spinks (a light heavyweight) and Holmes (an old as fuck Holmes!!!), was Berbick really as elite as a Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Sharkey, Carpentier, Willard etc etc.....

i think the difference between Marciano/ Dempsey and Tyson is that Dempsey and Marciano had the names, the records and the much much better overall careers to cement their higher ranked legacies. Tyson hypothetically might have been unbeatable during that short space of time at the end of the 80s. but hypothtical doesn't count for shit. great fighters bounce back better from bad defeats, Tyson never did after he lost in Tokyo. Dempsey lost big fights and came back stronger. Marciano never lost. i think it would be extremely difficult to make a case for Tyson to be ranked higher on an all time list than Marciano and Dempsey for these reasons

dbudge wrote:i guess it's a level of competition thing. was Tyson fighting competition that was as elite as Dempsey or Marciano were. i know a lot criticise of people criticise Marciano especially but he has the names on his record to back it up. not only does he have the names but he has the emphatic style victories. everytime Tyson came up against somebody genuinely elite he failed. he failed against Holyfield, he failed against Buster Douglas (who wasn't even elite), he failed against Lewis (due to age because his prime was wasted in prison). his biggest wins were against Berbick, Spinks (a light heavyweight) and Holmes (an old as fuck Holmes!!!), was Berbick really as elite as a Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Sharkey, Carpentier, Willard etc etc.....

i think the difference between Marciano/ Dempsey and Tyson is that Dempsey and Marciano had the names, the records and the much much better overall careers to cement their higher ranked legacies. Tyson hypothetically might have been unbeatable during that short space of time at the end of the 80s. but hypothtical doesn't count for shit. great fighters bounce back better from bad defeats, Tyson never did after he lost in Tokyo. Dempsey lost big fights and came back stronger. Marciano never lost. i think it would be extremely difficult to make a case for Tyson to be ranked higher on an all time list than Marciano and Dempsey for these reasons

Thank you for your thoughts. Interesting stuff. I agree with the Marciano comparison. Rocky beat everyone and retired without a single compelling contender remaining. Tyson can't touch that. Dempsey, I'm not so sure. Keeping in mind all the good stuff about Dempsey, which there are tons, he beat Jess Willard who was one of the biggest mortadella heavyweight champs ever. He drew the color line. He put the title on ice. He won one of twenty rounds against Tunney.

But Dempsey gets all that mojo for being a phenomenon. He was riveting figure, whose savagery brought the multitudes into the sport. Like I said, his star outshines his actual merit by a shade. So I'm not quite sold on why he should be higher than "Iron" Mike. Unless we wanna count all the bad stuff against Mike, which I guess makes sense too. The Buster thing is a black eye, but my heart and brain tells me that version of Buster woulda massacred Gene Tunney. It's just too bad for Mike that Buster was a one time lucky freak.

no problem. keep on posting your stuff, i love discussing the history of this noble art despite it happening way ahead of when i was born.... so on that note i would totally disregard any opinion that i have just given you!!!!

and just to finish off...

But Dempsey gets all that mojo for being a phenomenon. He was riveting figure, whose savagery brought the multitudes into the sport. Like I said, his star outshines his actual merit by a shade. So I'm not quite sold on why he should be higher than "Iron" Mike

the same reasons can be used to rate either Tyson or Dempsey's legacies as higher than eachother. they were both stars that were born out of being phenomenoms in their times. i think what swings it into Dempsey's favour is what he actually achieved over a longer period of time. Tyson was KO'd badly so many times in big fights against other top fighters. Gene Tunney was one of the very best in his time, Buster Douglas was not. anyway i don't want to argue against your points anymore because i actually think that if Tyson hadn't royally fucked it by being such a wrong'un out the ring then there is definitely no way we are having this conversation now and Tyson is a top 3 of all time heavyweight. shame it didn't work out that way for the sake of boxing history and folklore

Dempsey's time as Champ was not impressive, but that was because he beat pretty much everybody on his way to becoming Champ.

Marcanio beat everybody put in front of him. And when behind, he came back to win the fight.

Can the same be said of Tyson? When Tyson was behind, he folded up, either fouled his way out, or quit.

When faced against tough comp that wasn't intimidated by him, he almost always lost.

GrantZilla wrote:Dempsey's time as Champ was not impressive, but that was because he beat pretty much everybody on his way to becoming Champ.

Marcanio beat everybody put in front of him. And when behind, he came back to win the fight.

Can the same be said of Tyson? When Tyson was behind, he folded up, either fouled his way out, or quit.

When faced against tough comp that wasn't intimidated by him, he almost always lost.

+1

ive always thought that dempsey was kind of overrated. his run wasnt that impressive. but as grant said, he was tougher than tyson. even if dempsey lost, he never folded.

I look at him like I look at Gale Sayers. He had an unbelievable start and showed such flashes of brilliance that even though he burned out quickly he's in my opinion one of the best to ever do it. However, consistency matters in an ATG discussion. Tyson didn't have it.

tyson is rated properly.just a point of fact tyson did not win the undesputed title at 20 beating berbick since spinks was the real lineal champ..a few things about mike1.the inabilty to adapt.2.a huge front runner who was a great puncher but realy did not know how to fight.years ago my son was a huge tyson fan and i told him the first guy that punched back beats him..douglas was realy the first.bonecrusier smith if he didnt have a mindset to go 12 and survive may have won.when he finaly desided to punch back he buckled tysons knees twice in the 12th round.
yes mikes career takes a nosedive if you count fights when mike wasnt mike but i dont veiw thoses defeats in the rankings.what i do view in thoses fights and others was mike lacked heart.he quit against mcbride.he quit against danny williams.took a ten count when he could of got up finished the round and not come out for the next one due to a legit reason.his knee got tore up..he quit against lewis.yes took the ten count when he could of gotten up..and quit against hollifield by bitting the ears twice looking for a way out and mentaly started to become weak in the smith fight..
he did fight i feel some respectible fighters but none in reality attempted to test him.tony tucker did early then fought to survive and he did..tyson was not in his absolute prime when he went to jail.he was at the lower right hand side of the bell curve defining prime.had he not gone to jail i feel bowe would of beat him like douglas did...
overall dempsey and marciano realy could fight.could adapt and did when called for.there are other thiongs also..being rated 15th of all time or so is not a shame but recognition of greatness and dispite all said mike was great i feel.maybe 25000 or more hws maybe a lot more since 1900 and 15th is nothing to be ashamed about.
marciano never lost confidence at all.his will mindset and determination to win increased as the fight wore on or if things got tough..dempsey to a lesser degree had thoses qualites also..mike did not have that confidence level once he got hit.or got into the second half of the fight..i can go on and on about mike but one thing ill disagree with is folks who dont think mike was a great fighter.that i feel he was.

Wow, those are all some really good thoughts. Grant nailed it I think with the common sentiment on Tyson. He had too much dog in him to put him ahead of those guys. And btw, I never suggested he should be ahead of Marciano.

Some of the points that put it into perspective are that Tunney was the best of his time and what I think Tokyo Buster does to him is irrelevant. Tyson did rule by intimidation and when that was stripped, it was the Humpty Dumpty syndrome. And Dempsey's pre-title run was impressive.

A few things I disagree with. First of all, Dempsey got knocked out by old Jim Flynn in one round in 1917. He was champ in 1919. Less than a year before he became champ, he lost to a fat pig named Willie Meehan, for the second time. So if we're gonna give Tyson hell for performances outside his prime, we should factor in Dempsey's failings too. When Tyson was a spent force or when Dempsey was learning on the job are areas that maybe should be acknowledged only in passing.

And I agree Tyson didn't do well in the face of resistance. That is well-chronicled, but I thought he was valiant in defeats to Evander in the first fight and to Lennox.

Being a dog in the ring and disgracing the sport didn't kill Liston's standing. Fighting an inglorious group of contenders didn't hurt Joe Louis. I'm just saying he catches heat for things where a lot of guys get a pass. Tyson makes me pause when I'm about to say Larry Holmes was the best heavyweight I've seen in my lifetime.

ScottLevinson wrote: A few things I disagree with. First of all, Dempsey got knocked out by old Jim Flynn in one round in 1917. He was champ in 1919. Less than a year before he became champ, he lost to a fat pig named Willie Meehan, for the second time. So if we're gonna give Tyson hell for performances outside his prime, we should factor in Dempsey's failings too. When Tyson was a spent force or when Dempsey was learning on the job are areas that maybe should be acknowledged only in passing.

Thing with those loses for Dempsey is, you have to just look at those fights the way you'd look at amatuar fights for todays fighters. Since there was no real amataur system, and it was all learning on the job.

Dempsey didn't get favorable decisions in Meehan fight. It was four rounder, and because Meehan was able to survive and bum rush Dempsey, he got the favorable call.

Jim Flynn is debated to this day whether or not Dempsey took a dive. His ex wife claimed Dempsey told her that he did becayse they offered him more money to lose then win, but Dempsey always denied that he did.

GrantZilla wrote:

ScottLevinson wrote: A few things I disagree with. First of all, Dempsey got knocked out by old Jim Flynn in one round in 1917. He was champ in 1919. Less than a year before he became champ, he lost to a fat pig named Willie Meehan, for the second time. So if we're gonna give Tyson hell for performances outside his prime, we should factor in Dempsey's failings too. When Tyson was a spent force or when Dempsey was learning on the job are areas that maybe should be acknowledged only in passing.

Thing with those loses for Dempsey is, you have to just look at those fights the way you'd look at amatuar fights for todays fighters. Since there was no real amataur system, and it was all learning on the job.

Dempsey didn't get favorable decisions in Meehan fight. It was four rounder, and because Meehan was able to survive and bum rush Dempsey, he got the favorable call.

Jim Flynn is debated to this day whether or not Dempsey took a dive. His ex wife claimed Dempsey told her that he did becayse they offered him more money to lose then win, but Dempsey always denied that he did.

i remember marb saying that dempsey hadnt eaten in a few days before the flynn fight. dont know if its true.

I beleive it. During that time, Dempsey was "riding the rails" to one fight to another for food money

scott some good points.dempseys fights with meehan though was only 4 round fights.maybe mikes valantry in the lewis fight was a combination of lewis being extra cautious when manny stewart and folks i were with were screaming open up dam it hes been ready to go for a few rounds..not physcialy ready to go but mentily since mike had the look of defeat on his face and did no punching at all..overall i agree mike was a great HW.greatness is the bottom line.

grant i didnt see your post since i was typing and i type one finger..yep 4 round fights with meehan.

dempsey like many fighters since evolved into a differnt fighter then the guy that fought flynn and the 4 rounders with meehan.