Is Mike Tyson A ATG?

[The_Demon]

I accidentally voted no,he is an ATG

Only because of how he beat people,not who he beat

[SBleeder]

bunch of idiots are posting in the history section of late...

to claim Mike Tyson is not an ATG is laughable and shows just how much these morons know about the sport of boxing... Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion in history he cleaned the division and unified the title beating every fighter in the division who was thought of as being a threat to him or who was at the top of their game.. Tysons PPV numbers are the greatest ever for a heavyweight, Mike made more money than any fighter in boxing history and is a 2x champion.... the clowns on here who claim he is not an ATG are the same ones who claim Marco Antonio Barrera is an ATG

He cleaned the division of tomato cans; there were no great heavyweights in that era. And how much money a fighter generates does not make one an ATG. He was a good fighter, but does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Ali, Louis, Dempsey, etc. People like you who claim Tyson was an ATG strike me as people who have never seen the real ATGs fight.

[The Iron Man]

Its been a while since Ive seen that fight, I'm going to have to watch it again.

I also don't class him as a ATG either, he falls way short in terms of consistency and reaction to adversity. His accomplishments are that he unified the belts, but you have to do more than that to be a ATG in my opinion.

He seemed pretty damn consistent from 1985 until 1990 (37-0-0).

As for adversity, i think going to prison for 3 years and then winning the WBC and WBA belts within 4 fights while not being your best is pretty good. Not to mention everything he faced before destroying Spinks.

[Flows]

He cleaned the division of tomato cans; there were no great heavyweights in that era. And how much money a fighter generates does not make one an ATG. He was a good fighter, but does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Ali, Louis, Dempsey, etc. People like you who claim Tyson was an ATG strike me as people who have never seen the real ATGs fight.

1988 Larry Holmes
1988 Spinks
1989 Frankie
1990 Douglas
1996 Bruno
1996 Holyfield
1997 Holyfield

[SBleeder]

1988 Larry Holmes
1988 Spinks
1989 Frankie
1990 Douglas
1996 Bruno
1996 Holyfield
1997 Holyfield

Holmes was 38 and hadn't been in the ring for 2 years.

Spinks was a great light heavyweight, not a great heavyweight.

Douglas wasn't a great fighter, and still made Tyson his b**ch for 10 rounds.

Holyfield beat him twice, once by KO and once because Tyson realized he couldn't win.

Bruno? He never beat any great fighters either.

[CarlosG815]

He cleaned the division of tomato cans; there were no great heavyweights in that era. And how much money a fighter generates does not make one an ATG. He was a good fighter, but does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Ali, Louis, Dempsey, etc. People like you who claim Tyson was an ATG strike me as people who have never seen the real ATGs fight.

He fought everybody there was to fight. You can't blame the era, as you have to consider who would have been great had Tyson never been born.

There were many promising heavyweights that may have had excellent careers had it not been for Mike Tyson.

Tyrell Biggs
Razor Ruddock
James Tillis
Marvis Frazier
Tony Tucker
Tony Tubbs
Frank Bruno
Alex Smith
Buster Mathis

In hindsight, we see these guys and remember them only for their destruction at the hands of Tyson. They would have been contenders in many era's but after fighting Tyson lost a lot of. Not just physically, but mentally. Imagine being a fighter and having 30 pro fights, never losing, or losing just a few in good matchups, then getting physically punished, hurt, emasculated, etc in front of the entire world. You begin to doubt yourself and while you may recover physically, I don't see how you could fully recover mentally after getting beat up by Tyson.

People try to discredit the fight with Spinks because, again, Tyson was so much better and dismantled him so quick that they use hindsight and say that Spinks never belonged in the ring, but at the time Spinks had many supporters and the fight was talked about constantly, sort of like Mayweather/Pacquiao, without all the bull**** drug testing drama. It was almost talked about as if Tyson was ducking Spinks! He was being called out post fight by Larry Merchant and other ring interviewers, ****zine covers etc. Then he fights him, destroys him in 90 seconds, and people will discredit it to ****, even though Spink's had beaten Larry Holmes twice and would have at least lasted against most any heavyweight at the time (aside from the Great Tyson).

Pinklon Thomas and Larry Holmes were still good fighters and could compete with any fighters at the time. These were fights that everybody wanted to see, and again, many people supported these men and thought they could win.

It wasn't until AFTER he decimated those men that people looked back and picked a million reasons why they never should have stepped in the ring with Tyson, and that's a pretty ****ty way to evaluate.

Pacquiao huggers do the same thing to Shane Mosley. It was a great fight, lots of hype, Mosley had the best chance in the world - until the day after the fight - Now the grandpa Mosley jokes start rolling, and it's a bull**** win, using hindsight. It's important to notice that Larry Holmes, after his 5 round destruction at the hands of Tyson, went on to win his next 6 fights, including a defeat of the undefeated Ray Mercer, and also taking Evander Holyfield 12 rounds, although losing the decision. The point is, Larry was still a top contender and capable of beating any heavyweight of the time, aside from Tyson - because that's how good he was. Yeah he lost the previous 2 fights, but that was against another ATG, and more slick, undefeated Michael Spinks, and he STILL was never KO'd up to that point, nor was he KO'd after Tyson.

Sorry that it doesn't work that way guys. That's like me saying "Building this car must be tough, I'll give you 100k if you do it!" Then you build it in under an hour and I discredit it and tell you the job isn't worth jack - even though nobody else could do it the way you did. It's bull****.

Some people will try to discredit his victories and that will never change, but the fact is that he faced everybody, at anytime, and never waited until a fighter was a known washup to face them.

He cleaned up the division and dominated everybody, and there were some damn good fighters, with Razor being the best matchup for Tyson - those are my favorite fights, as I always had the feeling he was one guy that could beat Tyson had he just made a few less mistakes and capitalized more on Mikes.

[BritishBoxing92]

yes......

[SBleeder]

He fought everybody there was to fight. You can't blame the era, as you have to consider who would have been great had Tyson never been born.

There were many promising heavyweights that may have had excellent careers had it not been for Mike Tyson.

Tyrell Biggs
Razor Ruddock
James Tillis
Marvis Frazier
Tony Tucker
Tony Tubbs
Frank Bruno
Alex Smith
Buster Mathis

In hindsight, we see these guys and remember them only for their destruction at the hands of Tyson. They would have been contenders in many era's but after fighting Tyson lost a lot of. Not just physically, but mentally. Imagine being a fighter and having 30 pro fights, never losing, or losing just a few in good matchups, then getting physically punished, hurt, emasculated, etc in front of the entire world. You begin to doubt yourself and while you may recover physically, I don't see how you could fully recover mentally after getting beat up by Tyson.

People try to discredit the fight with Spinks because, again, Tyson was so much better and dismantled him so quick that they use hindsight and say that Spinks never belonged in the ring, but at the time Spinks had many supporters and the fight was talked about constantly, sort of like Mayweather/Pacquiao, without all the bull**** drug testing drama. It was almost talked about as if Tyson was ducking Spinks! He was being called out post fight by Larry Merchant and other ring interviewers, ****zine covers etc. Then he fights him, destroys him in 90 seconds, and people will discredit it to ****, even though Spink's had beaten Larry Holmes twice and would have at least lasted against most any heavyweight at the time (aside from the Great Tyson).

Pinklon Thomas and Larry Holmes were still good fighters and could compete with any fighters at the time. These were fights that everybody wanted to see, and again, many people supported these men and thought they could win.

It wasn't until AFTER he decimated those men that people looked back and picked a million reasons why they never should have stepped in the ring with Tyson, and that's a pretty ****ty way to evaluate.

Pacquiao huggers do the same thing to Shane Mosley. It was a great fight, lots of hype, Mosley had the best chance in the world - until the day after the fight - Now the grandpa Mosley jokes start rolling, and it's a bull**** win, using hindsight. It's important to notice that Larry Holmes, after his 5 round destruction at the hands of Tyson, went on to win his next 6 fights, including a defeat of the undefeated Ray Mercer, and also taking Evander Holyfield 12 rounds, although losing the decision. The point is, Larry was still a top contender and capable of beating any heavyweight of the time, aside from Tyson - because that's how good he was. Yeah he lost the previous 2 fights, but that was against another ATG, and more slick, undefeated Michael Spinks, and he STILL was never KO'd up to that point, nor was he KO'd after Tyson.

Sorry that it doesn't work that way guys. That's like me saying "Building this car must be tough, I'll give you 100k if you do it!" Then you build it in under an hour and I discredit it and tell you the job isn't worth jack - even though nobody else could do it the way you did. It's bull****.

Some people will try to discredit his victories and that will never change, but the fact is that he faced everybody, at anytime, and never waited until a fighter was a known washup to face them.

He cleaned up the division and dominated everybody, and there were some damn good fighters, with Razor being the best matchup for Tyson - those are my favorite fights, as I always had the feeling he was one guy that could beat Tyson had he just made a few less mistakes and capitalized more on Mikes.

Never said he wasn't the best heavyweight of his time; from 1986 to 1989 he was dominant. That doesn't make him an ATG. Tommy Burns was champion for almost three years, and fought EVERYONE (the first fighter to give a black man a title shot), and I never see him on anyone's list of great heavyweights.

[CarlosG815]

Never said he wasn't the best heavyweight of his time; from 1986 to 1989 he was dominant. That doesn't make him an ATG. Tommy Burns was champion for almost three years, and fought EVERYONE (the first fighter to give a black man a title shot), and I never see him on anyone's list of great heavyweights.

How about dominance from 85-92

Youngest HW champion ever

1 defeat in his prime

Won the title again after a 3 year hiatus

His exciting style carried boxing, and is still an attraction to young boxing fans who weren't around during his time - he brings attention to the sport 23 years past his hayday.

[SBleeder]

How about dominance from 85-92

Youngest HW champion ever

1 defeat in his prime

Won the title again after a 3 year hiatus

His exciting style carried boxing, and is still an attraction to young boxing fans who weren't around during his time - he brings attention to the sport 23 years past his hayday.

His wins over top heavyweights didn't begin until 1986, and ended in 1991 with wins over Ruddock (who pushed him in tough fights).

Youngest champion ever doesn't mean much to me considering he had had 27 fights before winning the title. Bonecrusher Smith, certainly not an ATG, had only 19 fights before winning the WBA Title.

Both Holyfield losses were still in his prime. And that defeat you reference wasn't just a defeat, it was a humiliation.

I'm not impressed with him knocking out Bruce Seldon, or a 34 year-old Bruno.

His style may be exciting to some, but that doesn't make him an ATG.

Wins over great opponents in their prime is what qualifies a fighter as great, and Tyson simply doesn't have any.