Where Does Mike Tyson Rank As An ATG?

[New England]

When people have personal recollection it is both frustrating and a source of great insight. Many people who watched the great heavies think of Dempsey and Tyson as a special line. I well remember how dominant Tyson was at his best, for a while it looked like nobody would even touch him, much less beat him. In truth Lewis never had that patina of invincability...again to many Dempsey and Tyson are in a class by themselves as far as that quality.

tyson's invulnerable aura benefitted from his style. his fights were short, and brutal. when guys outlasted his early onslaught, he could be made to look much more human.


lewis' style wasn't one to look overtly dominant. he was a boxer first and foremost, in spite of the fact that his power allowed him to knock guys out with a similar viciousness to tyson.


i won't even get into the opponents that tyson fought when he was at his peak and training properly. they weren't very good.

[billeau2]

tyson's invulnerable aura benefitted from his style. his fights were short, and brutal. when guys outlasted his early onslaught, he could be made to look much more human.


lewis' style wasn't one to look overtly dominant. he was a boxer first and foremost, in spite of the fact that his power allowed him to knock guys out with a similar viciousness to tyson.


i won't even get into the opponents that tyson fought when he was at his peak and training properly. they weren't very good.

Thank you captain obvious!!

When I spoke of him and Dempsey I meant the qualities of that persona. it was quite fantastic in and of itself....He had Mike Spinks, an ATG so spooked the guy did everything but soil himself.

[Wuckoo]

i disagree with this. the tiny divisions rarely have great talent. if you're talented, you can fight above 105 lbs.


there are very few bonafide greats of that size. their competition just isn't that good. there's not much talent that can fight at 105, 108, 112 lbs, and stay there for an entire career. you have to be jockey sized. athletic dudes of that size are freaking rare.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with that. You're not talented based on your weight class. I'll admit the really low weights have next to nobody in them but some people are naturally that small. But there are still very few bonafide greats in those divisions.

[young_robbed]

i won't even get into the opponents that tyson fought when he was at his peak and training properly. they weren't very good.

This is true, but there were a few good guys that Tyson fought during his peak. Namely Tucker, Tillis, Tubbs (fat) etc. I don't consider old Larry Holmes and HW Michael Spinks to be great wins..

[BKM-2010]

I think Tyson could be ranked close to top 5 or just outside the top 10. What I'm trying to say is that this depends on the person's preference who does the ranking. Some people value an epic, short but memorable run in a devision more than a long, drawn out boring run and vice versa. Some people also put more emphasis on talent and skill, though if they do it too much IMO it's a mistake because ranking an ATG should be mostly based on their accomplishments. But people who do take that into account would also tend to rank Tyson a little higher based on that.

Personally I'd have him between the #6 to #8 spots. My top 5 is pretty set with Ali, Louis, Lewis, Foreman and Johnson.

[StarshipTrooper]

Duran quit on Leonard and no sane person would deny he's an ATG because of it.

Some do (usually Fl0mos).....wrongly, I believe, but they do or at least try.

[Mugwump]

I think Tyson could be ranked close to top 5 or just outside the top 10. What I'm trying to say is that this depends on the person's preference who does the ranking. Some people value an epic, short but memorable run in a devision more than a long, drawn out boring run and vice versa. Some people also put more emphasis on talent and skill, though if they do it too much IMO it's a mistake because ranking an ATG should be mostly based on their accomplishments. But people who do take that into account would also tend to rank Tyson a little higher based on that.

Tyson was undoubtedly gifted. Perhaps more so than Holyfield, Frazier and Marciano. But to rank any fighter alongside the greats despite lacking the one attribute ALL greats possess in spades (steel re-enforced willpower) diminishes the label "Great"

[rightsideup]

Tyson was undoubtedly gifted. Perhaps more so than Holyfield, Frazier and Marciano. But to rank any fighter alongside the greats despite lacking the one attribute ALL greats possess in spades (steel re-enforced willpower) diminishes the label "Great"

very well put.

[Joe Beamish]

Tyson was undoubtedly gifted. Perhaps more so than Holyfield, Frazier and Marciano. But to rank any fighter alongside the greats despite lacking the one attribute ALL greats possess in spades (steel re-enforced willpower) diminishes the label "Great"

Depends on your criteria. For me, I also look at "how great was a fighter as his peak?"

Tyson's best qualities were all great -- but very short-lived. His willpower and desire to win in the ring were in full evidence early in his career. But he had no education, no stability -- and his overwhelming success was too much for him, too soon.

He was still a unique, great talent who at his peak was top 3 all time in my view.

[BKM-2010]

Tyson was undoubtedly gifted. Perhaps more so than Holyfield, Frazier and Marciano. But to rank any fighter alongside the greats despite lacking the one attribute ALL greats possess in spades (steel re-enforced willpower) diminishes the label "Great"

I think this idiotic post warrants Ray Corso's trademark response: Have you ever even fought?
It's also a very weak cop-out to to place your argument on a stereotypical myth(I can name you several fights where Tyson overcame adversity while you sit there behind your computer claiming he had no heart) instead of taking the time to use the criteria which I described in the post that you quoted.