why mike tyson is the greatest of all time p4p

[MickyHatton]

Tyson had the fastest hands and most accurate hands in heavyweight history. the combination made his power increase ten fold. he really was a phenomenon in his prime, which was from 19-23. he at that point had a 50/50 shot at beating any heavyweight who ever lived at the worst. i watch his early fights all the time. mentally and physically he was a different fighter then. his bob and weave and peakaboo was so effective in his early years, he had incredible abdominal dorsal muscles then. he could have been the goat

Sorry cannot agree with you, Tyson was very quick and powerful he had good head and upper body movement and was quick on his feet but Ali when he fought as Clay was much quicker and far more accurate, I too watched Tysons fights and he missed repeatedly, granted when he did land he was possibly the greatest finisher of modern times but he was a very good heavyweight in a poor era.
There was no real competeion around, Berbick (come on), Biggs(ran scared), Smith(Bore fest), Thomas, Holmes(way too old), Tubbs, Bruno, Spinks(lol) and Williams!
The only decent fighter was Tony Tucker and he was no superstar!

When he then stepped up in class (albeit older) he lost to good champions in Holyfield and Lewis!!!

Tyson perhaps would have competed with the likes of Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Louis etc but could he have beaten any of them?

I personally dont think so, Tyson as I said was a very good heavyweight in an extremely poor era of heavyweight boxing!

Joe Louis fought the likes of Baer, Braddock, Schmelling, Conn, Walcott, Charles, Savold and Marciano!

Marciano fought the likes of LaStarza, Charles, Kid Matthews, Savold, Walcott, Moore, ****ell and Louis.

Ali fought the likes of Liston, Patterson, Cooper, Terrell, Quarry, Frazier, Ellis, Foster, Bugner, Norton, Shavers and Foreman.

[BKM-]

Sorry cannot agree with you, Tyson was very quick and powerful he had good head and upper body movement and was quick on his feet but Ali when he fought as Clay was much quicker and far more accurate, I too watched Tysons fights and he missed repeatedly, granted when he did land he was possibly the greatest finisher of modern times but he was a very good heavyweight in a poor era.
There was no real competeion around, Berbick (come on), Biggs(ran scared), Smith(Bore fest), Thomas, Holmes(way too old), Tubbs, Bruno, Spinks(lol) and Williams!
The only decent fighter was Tony Tucker and he was no superstar!

When he then stepped up in class (albeit older) he lost to good champions in Holyfield and Lewis!!!

Tyson perhaps would have competed with the likes of Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Louis etc but could he have beaten any of them?

I personally dont think so, Tyson as I said was a very good heavyweight in an extremely poor era of heavyweight boxing!

Joe Louis fought the likes of Baer, Braddock, Schmelling, Conn, Walcott, Charles, Savold and Marciano!

Marciano fought the likes of LaStarza, Charles, Kid Matthews, Savold, Walcott, Moore, ****ell and Louis.

Ali fought the likes of Liston, Patterson, Cooper, Terrell, Quarry, Frazier, Ellis, Foster, Bugner, Norton, Shavers and Foreman.

Funny thread.

I agree with a few things. But there is something about Tyson that made him great. It wasn't WHO he beat. Its HOW he beat who.

Larry Holmes was never stopped...Tyson brutalized him. Thats what made it a great win for Mike. Not because he beat a 39 year old Holmes..because he anhaliated Holmes..being the first and only one to do that.

He stopped Michael Spinks in 90 seconds. He is the only man in history to be able to do that. I dont believe any HW could have done that. Thats what made it a great win for Mike. Not cause he beat the former greatest LHW..its because he got the job done in 91 seconds.

And there's more. I think Tyson's wins are just as great, if not greater than the likes of Marciano, Louis or Holmes. We all know how great Ali is, so im not mentioning him.

Come on, do you think Max Schmeling or Archie Moore would have stood a chance against Razor Ruddock? How many of Louis opponents could have outpointed Tony Tucker?

[MickyHatton]

Funny thread.

I agree with a few things. But there is something about Tyson that made him great. It wasn't WHO he beat. Its HOW he beat who.

Larry Holmes was never stopped...Tyson brutalized him. Thats what made it a great win for Mike. Not because he beat a 39 year old Holmes..because he anhaliated Holmes..being the first and only one to do that.

He stopped Michael Spinks in 90 seconds. He is the only man in history to be able to do that. I dont believe any HW could have done that. Thats what made it a great win for Mike. Not cause he beat the former greatest LHW..its because he got the job done in 91 seconds.

And there's more. I think Tyson's wins are just as great, if not greater than the likes of Marciano, Louis or Holmes. We all know how great Ali is, so im not mentioning him.

Come on, do you think Max Schmeling or Archie Moore would have stood a chance against Razor Ruddock? How many of Louis opponents could have outpointed Tony Tucker?

I think you missed my point, I'm not saying that Tyson couldn't have held his own in those era's, what I am saying is that he did not have to fight regularly against class opponents, month in month out. The other 'greats' did.

Therefore here is my point, to become classed as one of the greatest p4p fighters (point of this whole thread)you have to dominate not only your division but do it in a manner that separates you from the day to day champion.
Now in the early days Tyson did nothing wrong, he basically steamrollered everything put in front of him, obviously after Berbick the opposition became better but not so that you would have thought Tyson would have laboured but he did, OK he still for a few years dominated and I don't want you to get the wrong idea as I rate him as a great heavyweight but for the level of opponent it became harder and harder.

Now if he laboured against the likes of Smith and struggled with a Buster Douglas how would he have fared with fighting Walcott, Charles or Conn back to back (like in Louis era) or even Frazier, Foreman or Norton (in the Ali era)?

Then he goes to prison, comes out, looks back on track and although he lost some great years he was still only 29 years of age and wins back a version of the title against Bruno. A year later his first 'real' test, he faces Holyfield and loses comfortably, OK you think the sign of a great champion is to avenge a defeat, he again fought Holyfield, realises that he cannot beat this man and the rest is history!

OK so you can say, maybe this is a style makes a fight type loss/losses but then he stutters his way along the years getting a couple of wins here and there and a couple of no contests and meets Lewis who is actually older than Tyson and again loses being again stopped Ala Holyfield and Douglas, from there he spiralled to losing to Williams and McBride.

Now take a similar situation in Ali, he met some poor fighters in his career (London, Mathis etc) but he also met some real fighters (Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Patterson etc) and he had a long spell out of the ring Ala Tyson yet he still went on to be probably the greatest heavyweight of all time, he avenged losses to Norton, Frazier and Spinks and was still winning titles into his late thirties, this is because after he lost his natural speed and rhythm his adapted his style and found other ways to win, Tyson didn't!

I class an Ali or a Robinson or even a Louis as a p4p great simply because they fought in era's where the fighters around them where of excellent ability, they dominated their divisions, avenged defeats and overcome many hurdles along the way, Mike Tyson had similar opportunities but he FELL at each hurdle therefore I stand by my statement that Tyson was a very good heavyweight in a poor era but NOT an all time p4p great!

[catskills23]

I think you missed my point, I'm not saying that Tyson couldn't have held his own in those era's, what I am saying is that he did not have to fight regularly against class opponents, month in month out. The other 'greats' did.

Therefore here is my point, to become classed as one of the greatest p4p fighters (point of this whole thread)you have to dominate not only your division but do it in a manner that separates you from the day to day champion.
Now in the early days Tyson did nothing wrong, he basically steamrollered everything put in front of him, obviously after Berbick the opposition became better but not so that you would have thought Tyson would have laboured but he did, OK he still for a few years dominated and I don't want you to get the wrong idea as I rate him as a great heavyweight but for the level of opponent it became harder and harder.

Now if he laboured against the likes of Smith and struggled with a Buster Douglas how would he have fared with fighting Walcott, Charles or Conn back to back (like in Louis era) or even Frazier, Foreman or Norton (in the Ali era)?

Then he goes to prison, comes out, looks back on track and although he lost some great years he was still only 29 years of age and wins back a version of the title against Bruno. A year later his first 'real' test, he faces Holyfield and loses comfortably, OK you think the sign of a great champion is to avenge a defeat, he again fought Holyfield, realises that he cannot beat this man and the rest is history!

OK so you can say, maybe this is a style makes a fight type loss/losses but then he stutters his way along the years getting a couple of wins here and there and a couple of no contests and meets Lewis who is actually older than Tyson and again loses being again stopped Ala Holyfield and Douglas, from there he spiralled to losing to Williams and McBride.

Now take a similar situation in Ali, he met some poor fighters in his career (London, Mathis etc) but he also met some real fighters (Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Patterson etc) and he had a long spell out of the ring Ala Tyson yet he still went on to be probably the greatest heavyweight of all time, he avenged losses to Norton, Frazier and Spinks and was still winning titles into his late thirties, this is because after he lost his natural speed and rhythm his adapted his style and found other ways to win, Tyson didn't!

I class an Ali or a Robinson or even a Louis as a p4p great simply because they fought in era's where the fighters around them where of excellent ability, they dominated their divisions, avenged defeats and overcome many hurdles along the way, Mike Tyson had similar opportunities but he FELL at each hurdle therefore I stand by my statement that Tyson was a very good heavyweight in a poor era but NOT an all time p4p great!

I am sick of people saying tyson laboured against smith . He won every round easily . He scored a shut out . How is that labouring?.

[Kid Achilles]

Come on, do you think Max Schmeling or Archie Moore would have stood a chance against Razor Ruddock?

Wow, did you hear that? It was the sound of your credibility shattering into a thousand pieces.

[MickyHatton]

I am sick of people saying tyson laboured against smith . He won every round easily . He scored a shut out . How is that labouring?.

Simple, it was a bore-fest, OK he won every round but so what, he looked poor that night!, if you you are sick of hearing about that it must mean that many have similar opinions?

Smith did not attempt to fight but Tyson looked slow and had no plan B once Smith went into defensive mode, for me that was the first warning sign, it was the first real gap in the armour!

[BKM-]

Wow, did you hear that? It was the sound of your credibility shattering into a thousand pieces.

Atleast i have some credibility because i dont lick every white HWs balls like you.

[yrrej]

Nah, not the greatest of all time. Think about this: Anybody over 200 pounds can knock out anybody else regardless of size if they hit them right. Sure, Tyson was great, but the greatest of all time were the little guys who could still knock out the bigger people in spite of their small size, people like "Hammerin'" Hank Armstrong....

[catskills23]

Simple, it was a bore-fest, OK he won every round but so what, he looked poor that night!, if you you are sick of hearing about that it must mean that many have similar opinions?

Smith did not attempt to fight but Tyson looked slow and had no plan B once Smith went into defensive mode, for me that was the first warning sign, it was the first real gap in the armour!

How was tyson slow in that fight? .It was tysons speed and quickness that caused smith to grab tyson everytime tyson tried to get off a punch. If a guy is there to hug you all night and wont fight then there is nothing tyson could do . It takes 2 to fight you know.

[Verstyle]

Simple, it was a bore-fest, OK he won every round but so what, he looked poor that night!, if you you are sick of hearing about that it must mean that many have similar opinions?

Smith did not attempt to fight but Tyson looked slow and had no plan B once Smith went into defensive mode, for me that was the first warning sign, it was the first real gap in the armour!

when 1 runs from u and hold the ENTIRE fight its pretty hard to do things. only thing tyson could do is really get 1 good shot in because of his circling and holding right after. do me a favor and watch more of the fight.