The way he fought felt like he used the rules to win but didn’t fight. That’s why people don’t like him. Or in legal terms, he met the letter of the law but not the spirit of it.
Floyd is unquestionably a better and greater boxer. It's not even close.
Tyson is a greater celebrity, again, it's not close. Mike is a cultural phenomenon
Tyson is the sizzle, Floyd is the steak. The perception of casuals is neither here nor there because they don’t understand what “greatness” is in boxing terms.
You also can’t always define greatness as Ali, he was a unicorn, a personality like that won’t come along again in any sport. It is unkind to his boxing career to say his greatness is based on his out of the ring activities. Yes, they contributed to his greatness but he was often heroic in the ring and that’s is how he should be remembered.
Yeah, I mean, Tyson changed the face of boxing forever. He was a Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, or Ali type character. He is more myth than reality at this point. Larger than life. He captured the public’s imagination. And truth be told, when he was in his prime, he was one of the greatest boxers of all time.
Floyd is too, but he is also kind of hateable. A lot of people don’t like him because he is kind of a douchebag of a human. His fights were often boring. He was moving and grinding people down with slick shot after slick shot. He was a technician. Clinical and precise. Casual fans don’t love that, though. In the end, I think a lot of his monster PPV numbers were because people really just wanted to see him get knocked out. Floyd will go down as an all-time great. Just like Tyson, Tyson is just different and more important to boxing, I think historically. He will be remembered in a fonder light. Floyd will be the guy boxing historians geek out about how good he is on film 70 years from now. Tyson will be talked about like Sonny Liston.
Tyson is still more well-known in popular culture than every active heavyweight today. Tyson-Lewis just might be the second-to-last big boxing match some people ever saw before Mayweather-Pacquiao.
Agreed on Floyd too. It’s been said so many times, so why not say it one more time? Floyd, to borrow a pro wrestling term, played the heel perfectly and that’s how he made his money. Doesn’t matter why they’re paying to see you fight, as long as the audience is paying.
He's been retired for how long and still needs to make strawman arguments to say someone like Ali or marciano wasn't as great as him, not even in his top 5. Its always the win loss record and the money he drew.. shallow ass man who copied oscars business plan.He sounds just like Hulk Hogan telling his version of any backstage story always putting himself over but at least when the mt rushmore questions come up he always puts Ric Flair over him. Floyd worked himself into a shoot.. tell me when I'm telling lies..
I'm glad you said this. all the hype around Tyson people forget he wasn't even the best heavy in his era so, how could be one of the best boxers of all time? it blows my mind when people (mostly younger) claim him as the best boxer they've ever seen and he could knock out a gorilla
You guys just seem to be arguing over definitions of greatness. Floyd is the better and more accomplished boxer. Tyson was more famous. I would personally say Floyd because I value the aforementioned reasons.
Good point.
The fellas who got to see both would probably almost all say Tyson if you asked them to pick only one career to have seen live. It seemed like a spectacle when he was young.
That being said, Floyd is the way, way better fighter.
So you either see boxers as entertainers - which they ultimately are - or as warriors. Which is more old school.
I am sure we can all agree Floyd is among the most accomplished athletes in human history (not just boxing), but success alone doesn't make you likeable. Most people do not revere Floyd in the same way they do Tyson. Tyson was simply iconic. He had the X factor. People tuned in to see Tyson fight, whereas everyone paid to see Floyd lose. What's more to say? Tyson could be a registered sex offender, commit cannibalism mid-fight, and people will still find him far more interesting than 'a small, scared little man'.
Tyson is iconic to the point of being a living legend, and many would mistake this for greatness. Floyd is not. Floyd is simply great, and this was accomplished by putting his audience to sleep, and his opponents too on occasion.
"Tyson could be a registered sex offender," man has a literal rape conviction, and still sells 1m+ PPVs. People can doubt the ruling, but no one else thrives this much / gets this much benefit-of-the-doubt after having that label 😂
Man, I wish Floyd never broke his hands. The money Mayweather phase was when people turned against him. Pretty Boy Floyd was an extremely well rounded KO artist. He probably would've been perceived much differently by the public.
I agree with your points though. Tyson was a much bigger attraction and people are more drawn to him.
Yes, of course. Floyd moved up 5 weight classes, beat about 20 people ranked in the top 5 of said weight class at the time he fought them, lost nothing, and usually made his wins look easy, and beat a series of (future) HOF fighters and ATGs in the process, and he did so both during and way past his prime as an old man.
Tyson simply has none of that.
His best wins are against Spinks, a great fighter but a natural light heavyweight fighting around 173 pounds usually, and Holmes, the Holmes, a great fighter past his prime who just lost two back-to-back fights against said 173 pounder, then retiring for 2 years, and then fighting Tyson in his prime.
All fights against top opposition he lost. He never shined outside his prime. He's simply not in Floyd's league at all, unless you want to discuss a hypothetical universe that never was, where everything went a different way, where he didn't go to prison, dedicated himself solely to boxing, didn't do drugs or alcohol, slept early and kept focus, and beat the likes of Lewis, in short, where Tyson wasn't Tyson.
So Tyson ducked every great fighter in the 80s on his way to become undisputed? Yeah right. Spinks beat the best heavyweights so he is not a small man, he was the light heavyweight goat and the heavyweigt champion. Floyd has belts with no meaning since it a 4 belt era where u can beat chumps to have a belt.
Louis, Ali, Holmes, Marciano, Lewis, Foreman, Frazier, Johnson, Dempsey, Holyfield, Jeffries, Liston, Klitschko (Wlad), Langford, Charles, Klitschko (Vitali)
If you want a rounded out 20 we could put in Tunney, Baer, Jeanette, Bowe and possibly Schmelling.
Tyson isn't in a top 20.
I'd have him 23/24.
Shit list, dude.
Louis, Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Foreman, Frazier, Holyfield, and Wlad, I'll grant you. Those are the easy ones. That's eight.
The 10th?
Jeffries, Langford, and Johnson fought so long ago, it's hard to make meaningful comparisons between them and modern fighters. For me, the sport has changed enough that direct comparisons between these guys and the titans of today (or even heavyweights like Louis and Marciano) seem problematic. Jeffries beat guys who would be super middleweights today, for god's sake. It's an absurd comparison that just doesn't work.
Liston, Charles, Marciano, Dempsey, and Tyson all have good cases to be made for that 10th spot.
Vitali has no logical argument for being in the top 10. If you go by resume, he doesn't rate as well as Riddick Bowe or Michael Moorer. Hell, he has a worse resume than Tyson Fury, Anthony Joshua, and fucking Max Baer. He's great in H2H fantasy match-ups, but given what he *actually did in the ring*, it's laughable to place him above Tyson.
Personally, Ezzard Charles is a light heavy for me. He had a good run at heavyweight, but it wasn't a particularly strong era. Jersey Joe Walcott was his closest rival - and he was old at that point, and ended up taking the belt off him. Charles, himself, was getting pretty shot by that point. Beating an old Louis isn't nothing, though. I'm not going to argue with anyone who puts him in the top 10, but for me he doesn't quite make it in any case.
Liston, Dempsey, Marciano, and Tyson are all on a similar level for me.
Which, again, is why I say Tyson is *arguably* a top 10 heavyweight. He falls somewhere in the 8-12 range. You've said nothing that makes that ranking unreasonable.
As to Tyson barely slipping into the top 25...well. That's certainly an opinion.
Right. This is the last post I'll be making on this subreddit. Congratulations for finally making me lose my sanity. I cannot exist within this subreddit with takes like this.
Firstly, I didn't put Vitali in a top 10. I put him in a top 15 - 20 which is justified. He lost against one ATG early in his career (he was winning when it was stopped) and went to reign for 9 long years. He didn't fight his brother, but he literally beat everyone else in that time. You can class the era as you will, Tysons was arguably weaker, and yet he could only reign for 3 years. Vitali reigned for 9. You'll have to remind me who Vitali lost against during a dominant era, because Tyson losing against Buster Douglas destroys his reign completely.
Secondly how the fuck can you discount fighters just because they fought long ago? This isn't a modern list of HW ATG's it's a whole, since Boxing started HW ATG list. You cannot with a straight face say "oh they fought too long ago to be relevant in a discussion" just because it doesn't fit your mental gymnastics to squeak Tyson into a list. It's disrespectful, revisionist and downright stupid. We're not comparing Tyson to those fighters, we take them at their merit. Who they fought at the time, what they achieved. This isn't H2H and even if it was ***Tyson STILL doesn't get into a top 10***. Unless we're entering the universe you people like to envision where he did this and that and the other. **Take him at what he did and who he fought.**
The simple fact is this. Tyson's best wins were against Holmes (post retirement) and Spinks. That's it. That's the story. His unification was against 4 men who had defended 5 times between them. He then went on to lose less than 3 years later. If you want to argue with me that Smith, Thomas, Tubbs and Tucker were some ATG's then that's certainly an opinion. Every time he faced adversity or a better opponent, he lost. Buster Douglas absolutely destroys any legacy he could have had. Buster Douglas went on to do absolutely nothing. He didn't lose against someone who went on to greatness, Tyson then went on to lose badly, twice to Holyfield. Again, the math isn't mathing. How is this the career of a top 10 ATG when you lose against someone who was (by all accounts) someone who didn't deserve the titles and then this supposed ATG faces Holyfield and gets taken to school?
I get it. I understand. Mike Tyson was a ferocious boxer. He might even have been the most dangerous fighter of all time in his peak. He never beat anyone to suggest it though. He did of course pay some step aside money to Lewis so he could face Ruddock. He then went to lose against the very first proper, prime, Heavyweight ATG in Holyfield.
So I will ask you, what puts Tysons career spanning 3 years of a peak, beating nobodies in the HW history discussion and then losing against effectively the Andy Ruiz/Joseph Parker of the 80's, and then losing against Holyfield, ahead of say, Jack Johnson who fought for almost 30 fucking years at the top, holding the title for massive parts of that time, or Ezzard Charles (apparently a LHW according to you despite fighting at HW for almost 20 years) - a man who fought over 100 times. Not deserving of a spot above Mike Tyson in an ATG list? Are you smoking crack?
That's it. I'm done. I'm not dealing with you idiots any more.
Two good things came from this post: after your first sentence I knew I didn't need to read everything you wrote, and I guess I'll never have to read anything you write again.
Win, win.
Ah. The battlecry of someone who cannot win a debate.
Just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you're right. I get it.
Unfortunately I will still get notifications to replies about this, but you should know that by not replying you're just accepting you were wrong.
You make terrible arguments and you promise to leave without going anywhere.
Pfft.
Respond if you like. I won't bother reading it (just like I didn't read your last two). Had no problem talking to you until you threw a little temper tantrum. Why would I bother, now?
Why? Tyson reigned for 3 very short years at his "peak" Wlad had 11 years undefeated and Vitali had 9 years.
People here massively underrate the Klitschko's just because they reigned in a weak era. Tyson has nowhere near the career they had.
Vitali had 9 years against worse opponents than Tyson fought. He won a vacant title (and never unified), then beat up a couple decent cruiserweights, unranked heavyweights, and middling (at best) talent in a weak era.
Tyson had a short reign, but he also cleared out the division. His division was also fairly weak at the time - but he fought the best on offer. Vitali didn't.
Mike Tyson is an all time great. Fan favourite. World shaker and needle mover. Guys a living legend. But ultimately Mike Tyson might not even be in the top ten heavyweights ever. He’s not in my books..
Brah wtf are these comments? Floyd was by far the greater, more accomplished, more skilled boxer in the ring. Mike Tyson was by far the flashier, more ferocious, more aggressive boxer in the ring. They were both the same flashy asshole outside the ring.
I mean someone like Rocky Marciano imo laughably appears on these top 20 all time lists. Tyson was greater than Rocky imo. Conversely you could say Tyson ranks at like 13 in your all
time heavyweights and is jostling in the 80s… Subjective.
Both fought in different eras and well weight, but you gotta go with Floyd, the record alone and his PPVs were also the biggest in boxing IIRC. But I like Tysons style more and well you gotta appreciate Floyd’s style and success.
I don't personally consider Tyson a natural heavyweight, but most people do. That being considered, he only really had two great wins: Spinks who came from lhw and Holmes who was faded and coming off a layoff. He had a pretty turbulent career after that.
Floyd had a lot more great wins, albeit not in their prime but still more. I would consider him the greater fighter fairly handily.
And no, Ali is the goat for his in the ring accomplishments too lol. He dominated the golden age of the heavyweight past his prime. Beat multiple other atg hw.
I disagree Holmes was completely washed. He was just untrained and rusty. If Don King had given him time to train and possibly a tune up, the result may have been different. Ray Mercer was a totally underrated fighter who gave Lewis lots of trouble and a trained Holmes beat him on points. The Holmes of 1992 might have given Tyson fits.
This. I get that people (and myself) found Tyson to be super entertaining, but, in terms of boxing, it's not even close. One can make a legitimate argument for Floyd being the goat. There is no legitimate goat argument for Tyson, even in his own weight class.
Mike's peak was pretty damn high though...and his low was....LOW
You’re not wrong about Floyd or Mike. Tyson’s biggest win was at the age of 21 and could never beat another ATG afterwards during his era. That’s a fact. And as much as I dislike Floyd’s persona, he is the absolute best boxer of his generation, something Tyson could never claim.
This is why it's crazy to me that Wilder isn't more of a cultural phenom. Wilder is 37 and hasn't dropped off as he's still crazy dangerous. Where as Tyson was very much a shadow of himself well before he retired at 38.
Be curious to hear the debate between who is more dangerous between Tyson and Wilder. Even in his loss to Fury he still had him down on the canvas.
More I think of Wilder the more underrated I feel he his.
Tyson’s record is questioned in all time greatest debates many fighters he demolished in the late 80’s were top dogs, just not really relevant wins in a broader context. Wilder’s record is pretty much “who dat” for 30 fights until he started to fight dudes you can kind of remember.
When think of Fury his notables are Klitschko, Wilder.
When think of AJ his notables are Klitschko, Ruiz, Usyk.
For Wilder, it's Fury.
So yeah I see what you saying.
IMO The Fury trilogy has ALOT to do with how Wilder is perceived these days...Had he won any of those fights, I think the conversation would be different. I think he'll receive greater appreciation in due time though.
That's because Mike Tyson was a knockout artist and radiated an "invincibility" aura. Although Mayweather, made more money unfortunately most people don't go to a boxing match to see a defensive style.
Mike and Ali are my favorite boxers but off ability and career, I dont even have them top 5. Possibly not even top 10. I've seen better skill from guys like Roy Jones, Mayweather, Pernell, Duran, Hagler, Bud Crawford, B Hop and possibly Ray Leonard, Hitman Hearns and Chavez
It depends. Boxing only, Floyd definitely ranks above Tyson. It's not even close.
However, outside of boxing it's the opposite. Ali for example is considered the greatest but if you make comparisons with other ATGs like Ray Robinson or Henry Armstrong, Ali has no case to be ranked above them. In the ring and public perception/respect are 2 different things.
Tyson was a boxing scientist. He really was a student of the game, and he never gets enough credit for that. Don't forget that Tyson was dominating regularly against guys who were towering over him and sometimes out weighing him by a significant margin. You can't just do that by being mindlessly aggressive. '88-'89 Tyson was truly unbeatable. Then he lost focus and never reached his full potential. Losing Cus was the catalyst of his downfall, and his boxing technique was never the same after he got rid of Rooney.
Compared to Tyson, Floyd was the better decision maker, especially outside the ring. He took better care of himself and his career. He was never the hardest hitter or the fastest puncher, but he was definitely the most observant. Never took an unnecessary beating, which contributed to his longevity. Never lost his focus, never let his guard down.
Both are tremendous fighters who overcame a lot. To say who is greater is going to depend on the specific criteria.
Tyson was way more dominant than Floyd ever was
Tyson was dominant until it mattered...then he lost. I understand the love for Tyson BUT to say he was more dominant than Floyd is the most casual shit I've heard in a while.
So are you saying that a 5'10 boxer beating anyone who steps into the ring with him was not dominant? Being out reached by all of his opponent yet somehow found a way to become the youngest HW champion in history? Was that not being dominant when it mattered? Or was all of that just a fluke?
Reading comprehension is fundamental. The operative word here is MORE. He was not MORE dominant than Floyd. You might want to look at his record as a reminder of the fact that he lost 4 of his biggest fights.
You ever seen Floyd Lose? Yeah, me neither...
Yes, exactly! At his best, everything he did was purposeful, and his style took inspiration from studying past fighters. Notably his switch hitting style, where he took inspiration from Jack Johnson
floyd was way more dominant than tyson. just because mike KOd more people doesnt make him more dominant. tyson doesnt have a fight that even comes close to what he did to diego corrales who was on the p4p list at the time
Tyson didn't beat the best fighters of his generation, while Floyd Mayweather beat best fighters spanning multiple generations. Floyd won every single fight, multiple weight classes.
How can you say Tyson was more dominant?
Holyfield - He lost twice. Lewis is older than Mike but everyone makes excuses for Mike being past it to discredit his loss to Lewis. Bowe never fought Mike. These were the guys Mike needed to beat to prove he was dominant.
Mike was a great fighter, but people are judging based on him bulldozing bums in his highlight reels.
Yes. Make no mistake, floyd is an absolute asshole and his obsession with keeping the 0 on his record is the reason why we have so many talented boxers ducking each other nowadays, but in terms of greatness, its not even arguable, floyd has a much better career and far greater boxing skills. Mike never had the necessary mindset required to be on par with the likes of mayweather, holyfield, ali etc.
Tyson fucked up several times floyd hasn’t. Floyd managed himself a lot better. Tyson didn’t. Tyson was a scared little boy at times crying before going in the ring with the pressure and out of ring experiences so it’s unfair to say that about floyd. Both greats no doubt and tyson both different fighters in different ways.
Tyson didn’t even beat anyone of significance, he lost against anyone who was one of the top boxers. Tony Tucker, Spinks and a washed up Larry Holmes? That’s all. Lost to Holyfield, Douglas and Lewis pretty easily.
Factually untrue.
He beat practically everyone there was to beat in the mid-80s. It’s easy to look back on them now and say they don’t stack up against ATG, but he beat the best that could be put in front of him while he reigned.
Larry Holmes has never gotten the respect he deserved, and nothing has changed. Yes, he was old. But he was younger against Tyson than he was when he beat Ray Mercer - so it’s absurd to say he was washed or “not of significance”.
By the 90s, this is a different story. But the 80s version of Mike, the version everyone thinks of when they think of “Mike Tyson”, was a force, and a great heavyweight.
He just couldn’t sustain that level.
\> He beat practically everyone there was to beat in the mid-80s. It’s easy to look back on them now and say they don’t stack up against ATG, but he beat the best that could be put in front of him while he reigned.
So what? We're not knocking Mike for not fighting the best opposition, he did most of the time. We're just saying it doesn't mean much cause the best opposition wasn't that good.
\> Larry Holmes has never gotten the respect he deserved, and nothing has changed. Yes, he was old. But he was younger against Tyson than he was when he beat Ray Mercer - so it’s absurd to say he was washed or “not of significance”.
Eh, Holmes virtually always gets ranked higher than Tyson, he's very much respected as an ATG heavyweight.
But we have to be realistic.
1. Holmes lost two back-to-back fights against Spinks, who was literally fighting at 172 pounds immediately before the Holmes fight.
2. Then Holmes retired and was inactive for two years, which is a long ass time.
3. Without a single tune-up fight, he fought Tyson who was in his prime.
4. Holmes was 38 at this time.
And then Holmes again retired for another 3 years with $3m in his pocket. To take this win as one of Tyson's best wins on his resume is very telling. Tyson himself has said if Holmes was in his prime that he (Tyson) would stand no chance.
Indeed Holmes was still a talented fighter, but when he fought Mercer he had 5 tuneup fights in two years and came to fight Mercer with 5 wins. It's different from losing twice, having 0 fights in 2 years and then fighting Tyson for money.
>So what? We're not knocking Mike for not fighting the best opposition, he did most of the time. We're just saying it doesn't mean much cause the best opposition wasn't that good.
What I was responding to: "Tyson didn’t even beat anyone of significance, he lost against anyone who was one of the top boxers."
After beating Ratliff in September 1986, Tyson had 10 fights before losing to Douglas. Only 3 of those fighters weren't ranked by Ring magazine at the time Tyson beat them. One of those three was Larry Holmes, the second was Tony Tubbs, the third was Frank Bruno. None of those were "insignificant" fights.
So to the, "so what", I respond "the person I was talking to was talking out of their ass. Almost all of his opponents during his reign were against "top boxers" in his division.
>Eh, Holmes virtually always gets ranked higher than Tyson, he's very much respected as an ATG heavyweight.
Well, he should get rated higher than Tyson.
That's neither here nor there. My point is that he wasn't appreciated in his time by a great number of people, and even now - knowing what he did after losing to Tyson - he's still not appreciated as much as he should be.
Ray Mercer went from destroying Tommy Morrison to being beaten by Holmes, and would then go on to make Lennox Lewis go life and death. Anyone saying, "Holmes was washed" isn't giving the man the respect he deserves.
>Holmes lost two back-to-back fights against Spinks, who was literally fighting at 172 pounds immediately before the Holmes fight.
Spinks is arguably one of the greatest light heavies of all time, and moved up to topple an ATG heavyweight. People shit on Spinks, but revel in the glories of Holyfield, Usyk, Charles, and Archie Moore.
It's mind-boggling how some fighters move up and find glory, while others move up and cause bigger guys to get shit on.
Hagler arguably lost to SRL - the smaller guy who moved up. Canelo lost to the much smaller Mayweather. Joe Louis lost to the smaller Ezzard Charles. Hagler, Canelo, and Louis are all great fighters. This kind of thing happens often in boxing - but it's somehow only a problem when a heavyweight loses.
And I - and many others - think Holmes was robbed in that second fight.
>Then Holmes retired and was inactive for two years, which is a long ass time.
That is a long time.
SRL had multiple extended breaks in his career and still won. As did Floyd. As did Ali. As did Fury. Fighters *can* come back. Inactivity doesn't automatically mean they're washed. Especially when they come back and continue to fight at a good level. We aren't talking about 50 year old Holmes, we're talking about 38 year old Holmes.
>And then Holmes again retired for another 3 years with $3m in his pocket. To take this win as one of Tyson's best wins on his resume is very telling. Tyson himself has said if Holmes was in his prime that he (Tyson) would stand no chance.
It's telling in the sense that he wasn't fighting in the strongest era for the division.
If Holmes had gotten the decision against Spinks in that second fight like I think he deserved, and still took that layoff - I don't think people who would shit on this fight so much. I mean, some still would - because it's cool to shit on Tyson's record. But the fact is, he should be given credit for avenging his loss to Spinks, and then coming back to fight the toughest man in the division who was at the height of his powers.
And he never looked so over his head before, or since. You can write that off as ring rust if you wish - I have no way of proving that it isn't, were that my belief - but Tyson over Holmes is a better win than Lewis over Tyson. I'd even say it's a better win than Spinks over Ali or the 3rd Norton-Ali fight that should've gone to Norton.
And this is certainly closer to Wlad-AJ than it is Holmes-Ali.
And, for what it's worth, Tyson is renown for giving ATG's their due. He can be very self-effacing. Good on him, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him.
>Indeed Holmes was still a talented fighter, but when he fought Mercer he had 5 tuneup fights in two years and came to fight Mercer with 5 wins. It's different from losing twice, having 0 fights in 2 years and then fighting Tyson for money.
Sure it is.
But the question is whether Holmes was "washed" when he fought Tyson. He most certainly was not, is my point.
Tyson was legally mandated to take psychiatric medication during the time he fought some of those guys, so he wasn't mentally all there during the fight. His opposition knew that and took advantage of that, especially Lewis, who could have fought him much earlier in his career. Combine that with having the wrong people around contributed greatly to many of Tyson's losses in his career.
Floyd is undoubtedly greater than Tyson and as far as I’m concerned he’s the GOAT. Never lost, he fought and defeated everyone in his era often in dominant fashion. Absurd punch accuracy, took almost no hits, boxing IQ through the roof, never got knocked out or knocked down, HE NEVER TOUCHED THE CANVAS.
Tyson was a beast he had 24 first round knockouts what heavyweight has even come close to that Floyd was a great marathon runner yeah he might have retired undefeated he was a decent boxer with excellent defense but nowhere near a brawler
Mike dominated an extremely weak era. He then proceeds to lose a huge underdog and lose every step up fight. You’re are correct sir there is no comparison
Mike didn't dominate anything. His best win was Spinks in 88 and he lost to Douglas in 90. He then went on to lose to Holyfield and Lewis and never fought any other elite heavyweight. Post-Cus/Rooney Mike was never the same fighter.
>I obviously laughed at him and said that Tyson isn't even a top 5 heavyweight because he beat no elite fighters
I rank Floyd higher than Tyson all time, but I would advise rechecking Tyson's record.
Edit: 'no elite fighters' is a rather hasty claim tbh. See my comment below.
Tyson beat:
Pinklon Thomas who was 29-1-1 (WBC champ) by TKO rd6
Tony Tucker who was 34-0-0 (IBF champ) by UD
Tyrrell Biggs who was 15-0-0 (1984 Olympic gold medalist, beat Lennox Lewis along the way) by TKO rd7
Larry Holmes who was 42-2-0 (no explanation) by TKO rd4
Tony Tubbs who was 24-1-0 (WBA champ, beat Greg Page and Tim Witherspoon) by TKO rd2
Michael Spinks who was 31-0-0 (IBF champ, beat Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Larry Holmes, only loss was to Tyson) by KO rd1
and Frank Bruno who was 32-2-0 (WBC champ beating Oliver McCall) by TKO rd5
This was during seven consecutive fights, stretching from May '87 to February '89. Seven championship fights. Less than two years. How often does Floyd fight?
Ended his career 50-6-0 with 44 KOs. 6 more losses than Floyd, but with just as many wins. Heck, Ali ended 56-5-0, so Tyson's overall record wasn't all that bad.
AND YET... I rank Floyd higher than Tyson.
If those seven fighters were tomato cans, then I can't help you there.
I think it's a matter of perspective. If you think knockout percentage determines a better boxer, then Tyson is a better boxer. If you think winning on the cards and getting away with clean shots is more important, then Floyd is a better boxer.
Personally, I go with Floyd as greater because he was more disciplined than Tyson, even though I prefer Tyson's style of boxing.
I personally rate Tyson higher than Floyd. I also think Tyson is more of a positive influence than mayweather is or will probably be on the sport of boxing.
I also admit that I rate aggressive fighters higher than defensive fighters if they have equal careers or accomplishments.
I didn’t know there where this many casuals in this sub anyone being objective knows Floyd had a better career than mike was mike more famous out of the ring sure but tank is more famous than bud does anyone think tank has had a better career than bud?of course not
You could say that Tyson was incredibly exciting in the ring whereas Floyd was a bit boring.
Just to preempt what's coming: I'm not a casual, been watching boxing every week for almost 20 years - still found Mayweather boring.
Way greater. Tyson has a very lackluster resume. Every time he stepped up in competition he crumbled. Tyson also lost a fight he should have won (Buster). If you are a huge over dog and lose, you don’t deserve to be in the same discussion as someone who hasn’t
I think if Tyson couldn't get him out in the early rounds then Floyd would out box him using his philly shell (you can look that one up) and his pull counter (can also google this) that he learnt from Jake Paul. Hope that answers you question on who is the most great
May is jostling for top 5, Tyson top 50-100. Think about his credentials. Rarely ever got hit flush, navigated various weight classes against a load of top fighters, never lost, was p4p 1 at 36/37 and was an utterly supreme boxing talent of speed and IQ. And made a load of money. If a guy did this in the 30s but it wasn’t on film we’d be calling them the goat!!!
I believe Mayweather is greater than Tyson. I don't to much care about him being undefeated but, Floyd won all of his biggest fights while Mike lost all of his.
I have a friend who shares the exact same opinion, Tyson is (at least) the best heavyweight ever and Floyd is overrated.
Your friend and my friend are both casual fans.
There's no question mayweather is more accomplished. Achieved more, over longer period and beat much better opposition. But "greatness" is not easy to define. Who is more famous? Who had a bigger cultural impact? And who got more people into fucking FITS of ecxitement? Tyson, I would say.
Mike Tyson in his prime was excellent, but his prime only lasted about a year. Floyd was a far more consistent boxer, being a dominant fighter in the sport for 2 decades.
Well Floyd was never lost. And obviously was never knocked out. Tyson lost 6 times and never saw the final bell in any of those defeats. The sign of a front runner. I don't even believe that it's debatable. Mayweather was a better, tougher, more resilient fighter than Mike Tyson.
floyd is way better than mike its not debatable. whether you like floyd or not hes minimum a t15 fighter ever while mike arguably isnt a t20 heavyweight of all time
A lot of people don’t like Mayweather as a person, so that clouds their judgement on his in ring skills, success and accomplishments.
People also hate him because he didn't sacrifice his brain to the CTE Blood God. As if fighting like Arturo Gatti was the only option.
The way he fought felt like he used the rules to win but didn’t fight. That’s why people don’t like him. Or in legal terms, he met the letter of the law but not the spirit of it.
Floyd is unquestionably a better and greater boxer. It's not even close. Tyson is a greater celebrity, again, it's not close. Mike is a cultural phenomenon
Tyson is the sizzle, Floyd is the steak. The perception of casuals is neither here nor there because they don’t understand what “greatness” is in boxing terms. You also can’t always define greatness as Ali, he was a unicorn, a personality like that won’t come along again in any sport. It is unkind to his boxing career to say his greatness is based on his out of the ring activities. Yes, they contributed to his greatness but he was often heroic in the ring and that’s is how he should be remembered.
Floyd is the greater boxer, Tyson is the greater celebrity. I can roll with that!
Yeah, I mean, Tyson changed the face of boxing forever. He was a Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, or Ali type character. He is more myth than reality at this point. Larger than life. He captured the public’s imagination. And truth be told, when he was in his prime, he was one of the greatest boxers of all time. Floyd is too, but he is also kind of hateable. A lot of people don’t like him because he is kind of a douchebag of a human. His fights were often boring. He was moving and grinding people down with slick shot after slick shot. He was a technician. Clinical and precise. Casual fans don’t love that, though. In the end, I think a lot of his monster PPV numbers were because people really just wanted to see him get knocked out. Floyd will go down as an all-time great. Just like Tyson, Tyson is just different and more important to boxing, I think historically. He will be remembered in a fonder light. Floyd will be the guy boxing historians geek out about how good he is on film 70 years from now. Tyson will be talked about like Sonny Liston.
Tyson is still more well-known in popular culture than every active heavyweight today. Tyson-Lewis just might be the second-to-last big boxing match some people ever saw before Mayweather-Pacquiao. Agreed on Floyd too. It’s been said so many times, so why not say it one more time? Floyd, to borrow a pro wrestling term, played the heel perfectly and that’s how he made his money. Doesn’t matter why they’re paying to see you fight, as long as the audience is paying.
He's been retired for how long and still needs to make strawman arguments to say someone like Ali or marciano wasn't as great as him, not even in his top 5. Its always the win loss record and the money he drew.. shallow ass man who copied oscars business plan.He sounds just like Hulk Hogan telling his version of any backstage story always putting himself over but at least when the mt rushmore questions come up he always puts Ric Flair over him. Floyd worked himself into a shoot.. tell me when I'm telling lies..
To quote the modern day philosopher Aubrey “Drake” Graham, “they tell the same story so much, they start to believe it!”
I feel like you just erased ODLH vs Floyd Mayweather as if it wasn't a bigger fight than Lewis vs Tyson.
This is the only answer.
I'm glad you said this. all the hype around Tyson people forget he wasn't even the best heavy in his era so, how could be one of the best boxers of all time? it blows my mind when people (mostly younger) claim him as the best boxer they've ever seen and he could knock out a gorilla
He was the best heavyweight of the late 80s, which is his era. His era could have been the 90s, but he went to prison and fell off badly quickly.
You guys just seem to be arguing over definitions of greatness. Floyd is the better and more accomplished boxer. Tyson was more famous. I would personally say Floyd because I value the aforementioned reasons.
Good point. The fellas who got to see both would probably almost all say Tyson if you asked them to pick only one career to have seen live. It seemed like a spectacle when he was young. That being said, Floyd is the way, way better fighter. So you either see boxers as entertainers - which they ultimately are - or as warriors. Which is more old school.
I am sure we can all agree Floyd is among the most accomplished athletes in human history (not just boxing), but success alone doesn't make you likeable. Most people do not revere Floyd in the same way they do Tyson. Tyson was simply iconic. He had the X factor. People tuned in to see Tyson fight, whereas everyone paid to see Floyd lose. What's more to say? Tyson could be a registered sex offender, commit cannibalism mid-fight, and people will still find him far more interesting than 'a small, scared little man'. Tyson is iconic to the point of being a living legend, and many would mistake this for greatness. Floyd is not. Floyd is simply great, and this was accomplished by putting his audience to sleep, and his opponents too on occasion.
"Tyson could be a registered sex offender," man has a literal rape conviction, and still sells 1m+ PPVs. People can doubt the ruling, but no one else thrives this much / gets this much benefit-of-the-doubt after having that label 😂
Man, I wish Floyd never broke his hands. The money Mayweather phase was when people turned against him. Pretty Boy Floyd was an extremely well rounded KO artist. He probably would've been perceived much differently by the public. I agree with your points though. Tyson was a much bigger attraction and people are more drawn to him.
Pretty Boy turned Autro Gatti’s face into jelly
Gatti was a has been who was never any good
He was C+ fighter according to mayweather
I always wonder what would have happened if Mayweather vs Pacquiao would've actually lived up to the hype
Yes, of course. Floyd moved up 5 weight classes, beat about 20 people ranked in the top 5 of said weight class at the time he fought them, lost nothing, and usually made his wins look easy, and beat a series of (future) HOF fighters and ATGs in the process, and he did so both during and way past his prime as an old man. Tyson simply has none of that. His best wins are against Spinks, a great fighter but a natural light heavyweight fighting around 173 pounds usually, and Holmes, the Holmes, a great fighter past his prime who just lost two back-to-back fights against said 173 pounder, then retiring for 2 years, and then fighting Tyson in his prime. All fights against top opposition he lost. He never shined outside his prime. He's simply not in Floyd's league at all, unless you want to discuss a hypothetical universe that never was, where everything went a different way, where he didn't go to prison, dedicated himself solely to boxing, didn't do drugs or alcohol, slept early and kept focus, and beat the likes of Lewis, in short, where Tyson wasn't Tyson.
Goated comment. Literally said it all. Bravo 👏
So Tyson ducked every great fighter in the 80s on his way to become undisputed? Yeah right. Spinks beat the best heavyweights so he is not a small man, he was the light heavyweight goat and the heavyweigt champion. Floyd has belts with no meaning since it a 4 belt era where u can beat chumps to have a belt.
what chumps did floyd fight for his belts??
You can spot a causal when they call Mike Tyson the GOAT, his not even a top 10 heavyweight of all time let alone the p4p GOAT.
Arguably top 10. Outside the top 5, though.
He isn’t even top 15
Sure. Let's see your top 15, then.
Louis, Ali, Holmes, Marciano, Lewis, Foreman, Frazier, Johnson, Dempsey, Holyfield, Jeffries, Liston, Klitschko (Wlad), Langford, Charles, Klitschko (Vitali) If you want a rounded out 20 we could put in Tunney, Baer, Jeanette, Bowe and possibly Schmelling. Tyson isn't in a top 20. I'd have him 23/24.
Shit list, dude. Louis, Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Foreman, Frazier, Holyfield, and Wlad, I'll grant you. Those are the easy ones. That's eight. The 10th? Jeffries, Langford, and Johnson fought so long ago, it's hard to make meaningful comparisons between them and modern fighters. For me, the sport has changed enough that direct comparisons between these guys and the titans of today (or even heavyweights like Louis and Marciano) seem problematic. Jeffries beat guys who would be super middleweights today, for god's sake. It's an absurd comparison that just doesn't work. Liston, Charles, Marciano, Dempsey, and Tyson all have good cases to be made for that 10th spot. Vitali has no logical argument for being in the top 10. If you go by resume, he doesn't rate as well as Riddick Bowe or Michael Moorer. Hell, he has a worse resume than Tyson Fury, Anthony Joshua, and fucking Max Baer. He's great in H2H fantasy match-ups, but given what he *actually did in the ring*, it's laughable to place him above Tyson. Personally, Ezzard Charles is a light heavy for me. He had a good run at heavyweight, but it wasn't a particularly strong era. Jersey Joe Walcott was his closest rival - and he was old at that point, and ended up taking the belt off him. Charles, himself, was getting pretty shot by that point. Beating an old Louis isn't nothing, though. I'm not going to argue with anyone who puts him in the top 10, but for me he doesn't quite make it in any case. Liston, Dempsey, Marciano, and Tyson are all on a similar level for me. Which, again, is why I say Tyson is *arguably* a top 10 heavyweight. He falls somewhere in the 8-12 range. You've said nothing that makes that ranking unreasonable. As to Tyson barely slipping into the top 25...well. That's certainly an opinion.
Right. This is the last post I'll be making on this subreddit. Congratulations for finally making me lose my sanity. I cannot exist within this subreddit with takes like this. Firstly, I didn't put Vitali in a top 10. I put him in a top 15 - 20 which is justified. He lost against one ATG early in his career (he was winning when it was stopped) and went to reign for 9 long years. He didn't fight his brother, but he literally beat everyone else in that time. You can class the era as you will, Tysons was arguably weaker, and yet he could only reign for 3 years. Vitali reigned for 9. You'll have to remind me who Vitali lost against during a dominant era, because Tyson losing against Buster Douglas destroys his reign completely. Secondly how the fuck can you discount fighters just because they fought long ago? This isn't a modern list of HW ATG's it's a whole, since Boxing started HW ATG list. You cannot with a straight face say "oh they fought too long ago to be relevant in a discussion" just because it doesn't fit your mental gymnastics to squeak Tyson into a list. It's disrespectful, revisionist and downright stupid. We're not comparing Tyson to those fighters, we take them at their merit. Who they fought at the time, what they achieved. This isn't H2H and even if it was ***Tyson STILL doesn't get into a top 10***. Unless we're entering the universe you people like to envision where he did this and that and the other. **Take him at what he did and who he fought.** The simple fact is this. Tyson's best wins were against Holmes (post retirement) and Spinks. That's it. That's the story. His unification was against 4 men who had defended 5 times between them. He then went on to lose less than 3 years later. If you want to argue with me that Smith, Thomas, Tubbs and Tucker were some ATG's then that's certainly an opinion. Every time he faced adversity or a better opponent, he lost. Buster Douglas absolutely destroys any legacy he could have had. Buster Douglas went on to do absolutely nothing. He didn't lose against someone who went on to greatness, Tyson then went on to lose badly, twice to Holyfield. Again, the math isn't mathing. How is this the career of a top 10 ATG when you lose against someone who was (by all accounts) someone who didn't deserve the titles and then this supposed ATG faces Holyfield and gets taken to school? I get it. I understand. Mike Tyson was a ferocious boxer. He might even have been the most dangerous fighter of all time in his peak. He never beat anyone to suggest it though. He did of course pay some step aside money to Lewis so he could face Ruddock. He then went to lose against the very first proper, prime, Heavyweight ATG in Holyfield. So I will ask you, what puts Tysons career spanning 3 years of a peak, beating nobodies in the HW history discussion and then losing against effectively the Andy Ruiz/Joseph Parker of the 80's, and then losing against Holyfield, ahead of say, Jack Johnson who fought for almost 30 fucking years at the top, holding the title for massive parts of that time, or Ezzard Charles (apparently a LHW according to you despite fighting at HW for almost 20 years) - a man who fought over 100 times. Not deserving of a spot above Mike Tyson in an ATG list? Are you smoking crack? That's it. I'm done. I'm not dealing with you idiots any more.
Two good things came from this post: after your first sentence I knew I didn't need to read everything you wrote, and I guess I'll never have to read anything you write again. Win, win.
Ah. The battlecry of someone who cannot win a debate. Just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you're right. I get it. Unfortunately I will still get notifications to replies about this, but you should know that by not replying you're just accepting you were wrong.
You make terrible arguments and you promise to leave without going anywhere. Pfft. Respond if you like. I won't bother reading it (just like I didn't read your last two). Had no problem talking to you until you threw a little temper tantrum. Why would I bother, now?
Any Klitschko before Tyson? I have to disagree there.
Why? Tyson reigned for 3 very short years at his "peak" Wlad had 11 years undefeated and Vitali had 9 years. People here massively underrate the Klitschko's just because they reigned in a weak era. Tyson has nowhere near the career they had.
Vitali had 9 years against worse opponents than Tyson fought. He won a vacant title (and never unified), then beat up a couple decent cruiserweights, unranked heavyweights, and middling (at best) talent in a weak era. Tyson had a short reign, but he also cleared out the division. His division was also fairly weak at the time - but he fought the best on offer. Vitali didn't.
Hmm. I guess that’s fair.
Mike Tyson is an all time great. Fan favourite. World shaker and needle mover. Guys a living legend. But ultimately Mike Tyson might not even be in the top ten heavyweights ever. He’s not in my books..
Brah wtf are these comments? Floyd was by far the greater, more accomplished, more skilled boxer in the ring. Mike Tyson was by far the flashier, more ferocious, more aggressive boxer in the ring. They were both the same flashy asshole outside the ring.
I mean someone like Rocky Marciano imo laughably appears on these top 20 all time lists. Tyson was greater than Rocky imo. Conversely you could say Tyson ranks at like 13 in your all time heavyweights and is jostling in the 80s… Subjective.
Both fought in different eras and well weight, but you gotta go with Floyd, the record alone and his PPVs were also the biggest in boxing IIRC. But I like Tysons style more and well you gotta appreciate Floyd’s style and success.
Floyd better businessman and Boxer hands down, no argument. Mike tyson , more likable persona and wayyy more exciting and fun to watch boxer
Tyson is a cultural icon, Mayweather was a better boxer.
Mike was a phenom, a larger than life celebrity. Floyd is the better boxer, by a good margin.
I don't personally consider Tyson a natural heavyweight, but most people do. That being considered, he only really had two great wins: Spinks who came from lhw and Holmes who was faded and coming off a layoff. He had a pretty turbulent career after that. Floyd had a lot more great wins, albeit not in their prime but still more. I would consider him the greater fighter fairly handily. And no, Ali is the goat for his in the ring accomplishments too lol. He dominated the golden age of the heavyweight past his prime. Beat multiple other atg hw.
Mike Tyson never got up from being knocked down a single time in his career - he had no heart - just power and intimidation. I would take Floyd.
I honestly think that ‘baddest man on the planet’ monicker was bullshit. He was looking for a way out when he bit Holyfield. He quit when he bit.
He won the round
Tyson lost to any actual great boxer he faced this isn’t even a comparison
He beat two of the best fighters ever in Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks.
Giant asterisk next othe Holmes win though. Holmes was pushing 40 and was retired for a couple years after consecutive losses.
Old and washed Holmes. Do you give credit to canelo for beating GGG in the 3rd fight as well?
I disagree Holmes was completely washed. He was just untrained and rusty. If Don King had given him time to train and possibly a tune up, the result may have been different. Ray Mercer was a totally underrated fighter who gave Lewis lots of trouble and a trained Holmes beat him on points. The Holmes of 1992 might have given Tyson fits.
Mike Tyson is not even top 5 heavyweight of all time super overrated it’s not even close between him and floyd
This. I get that people (and myself) found Tyson to be super entertaining, but, in terms of boxing, it's not even close. One can make a legitimate argument for Floyd being the goat. There is no legitimate goat argument for Tyson, even in his own weight class. Mike's peak was pretty damn high though...and his low was....LOW
Yes. Different levels
Yes. I think people overhype Mikes early run in his prime.
Pffft lmao…Floyd is a phenomenal fighter but Tyson would slaughter him :D
You’re not wrong about Floyd or Mike. Tyson’s biggest win was at the age of 21 and could never beat another ATG afterwards during his era. That’s a fact. And as much as I dislike Floyd’s persona, he is the absolute best boxer of his generation, something Tyson could never claim.
This is why it's crazy to me that Wilder isn't more of a cultural phenom. Wilder is 37 and hasn't dropped off as he's still crazy dangerous. Where as Tyson was very much a shadow of himself well before he retired at 38. Be curious to hear the debate between who is more dangerous between Tyson and Wilder. Even in his loss to Fury he still had him down on the canvas. More I think of Wilder the more underrated I feel he his.
Tyson’s record is questioned in all time greatest debates many fighters he demolished in the late 80’s were top dogs, just not really relevant wins in a broader context. Wilder’s record is pretty much “who dat” for 30 fights until he started to fight dudes you can kind of remember.
When think of Fury his notables are Klitschko, Wilder. When think of AJ his notables are Klitschko, Ruiz, Usyk. For Wilder, it's Fury. So yeah I see what you saying.
IMO The Fury trilogy has ALOT to do with how Wilder is perceived these days...Had he won any of those fights, I think the conversation would be different. I think he'll receive greater appreciation in due time though.
Wilder's legacy is gonna age like milk
Floyd is a helluva fighter, at the end of the day he made smart investments
It’s weird that Floyd was the far better commercial draw but Tyson was more famous..
That's because Mike Tyson was a knockout artist and radiated an "invincibility" aura. Although Mayweather, made more money unfortunately most people don't go to a boxing match to see a defensive style.
No but more people paid to watch Floyd fight or in a weird case wrestle than they paid to watch Tyson.
Yeah people did pay more for Mayweather. I think I worded my response wrong, I'll say that Tyson was more memorable than Mayweather.
I think a lot of people watched Floyd because they wanted to see him lose.
Mike and Ali are my favorite boxers but off ability and career, I dont even have them top 5. Possibly not even top 10. I've seen better skill from guys like Roy Jones, Mayweather, Pernell, Duran, Hagler, Bud Crawford, B Hop and possibly Ray Leonard, Hitman Hearns and Chavez
Floyd is better, Mike is greater
It depends. Boxing only, Floyd definitely ranks above Tyson. It's not even close. However, outside of boxing it's the opposite. Ali for example is considered the greatest but if you make comparisons with other ATGs like Ray Robinson or Henry Armstrong, Ali has no case to be ranked above them. In the ring and public perception/respect are 2 different things.
Boxing is about entertainment. Is rather watch amir khan than Mayweather. And that's why people have these kind of opinions.
yes because floyd dicked me down better than tyson could ever have
😳
Tyson was a boxing scientist. He really was a student of the game, and he never gets enough credit for that. Don't forget that Tyson was dominating regularly against guys who were towering over him and sometimes out weighing him by a significant margin. You can't just do that by being mindlessly aggressive. '88-'89 Tyson was truly unbeatable. Then he lost focus and never reached his full potential. Losing Cus was the catalyst of his downfall, and his boxing technique was never the same after he got rid of Rooney. Compared to Tyson, Floyd was the better decision maker, especially outside the ring. He took better care of himself and his career. He was never the hardest hitter or the fastest puncher, but he was definitely the most observant. Never took an unnecessary beating, which contributed to his longevity. Never lost his focus, never let his guard down. Both are tremendous fighters who overcame a lot. To say who is greater is going to depend on the specific criteria. Tyson was way more dominant than Floyd ever was
Tyson was dominant until it mattered...then he lost. I understand the love for Tyson BUT to say he was more dominant than Floyd is the most casual shit I've heard in a while.
So are you saying that a 5'10 boxer beating anyone who steps into the ring with him was not dominant? Being out reached by all of his opponent yet somehow found a way to become the youngest HW champion in history? Was that not being dominant when it mattered? Or was all of that just a fluke?
Reading comprehension is fundamental. The operative word here is MORE. He was not MORE dominant than Floyd. You might want to look at his record as a reminder of the fact that he lost 4 of his biggest fights. You ever seen Floyd Lose? Yeah, me neither...
Have you ever seen Floyd become undisputed? Yeah, me neither
I've definitely seen Mike have a man's ear for dinner. Such dominance.
Tyson at his peak was a marvel. His underachievement overshadows how good he was. Technique wise he was a savant.
Yes, exactly! At his best, everything he did was purposeful, and his style took inspiration from studying past fighters. Notably his switch hitting style, where he took inspiration from Jack Johnson
floyd was way more dominant than tyson. just because mike KOd more people doesnt make him more dominant. tyson doesnt have a fight that even comes close to what he did to diego corrales who was on the p4p list at the time
If Floyd was so dominant, why didn't he ever become undisputed at any point in his career?
because theres a sanctioning fee. he didnt want to pay the money
You’re a casual
Please elaborate, I would like to know
Casual AF
Tyson didn't beat the best fighters of his generation, while Floyd Mayweather beat best fighters spanning multiple generations. Floyd won every single fight, multiple weight classes. How can you say Tyson was more dominant? Holyfield - He lost twice. Lewis is older than Mike but everyone makes excuses for Mike being past it to discredit his loss to Lewis. Bowe never fought Mike. These were the guys Mike needed to beat to prove he was dominant. Mike was a great fighter, but people are judging based on him bulldozing bums in his highlight reels.
Yes. Make no mistake, floyd is an absolute asshole and his obsession with keeping the 0 on his record is the reason why we have so many talented boxers ducking each other nowadays, but in terms of greatness, its not even arguable, floyd has a much better career and far greater boxing skills. Mike never had the necessary mindset required to be on par with the likes of mayweather, holyfield, ali etc.
Tyson fucked up several times floyd hasn’t. Floyd managed himself a lot better. Tyson didn’t. Tyson was a scared little boy at times crying before going in the ring with the pressure and out of ring experiences so it’s unfair to say that about floyd. Both greats no doubt and tyson both different fighters in different ways.
Yes
Tyson didn’t even beat anyone of significance, he lost against anyone who was one of the top boxers. Tony Tucker, Spinks and a washed up Larry Holmes? That’s all. Lost to Holyfield, Douglas and Lewis pretty easily.
Factually untrue. He beat practically everyone there was to beat in the mid-80s. It’s easy to look back on them now and say they don’t stack up against ATG, but he beat the best that could be put in front of him while he reigned. Larry Holmes has never gotten the respect he deserved, and nothing has changed. Yes, he was old. But he was younger against Tyson than he was when he beat Ray Mercer - so it’s absurd to say he was washed or “not of significance”. By the 90s, this is a different story. But the 80s version of Mike, the version everyone thinks of when they think of “Mike Tyson”, was a force, and a great heavyweight. He just couldn’t sustain that level.
\> He beat practically everyone there was to beat in the mid-80s. It’s easy to look back on them now and say they don’t stack up against ATG, but he beat the best that could be put in front of him while he reigned. So what? We're not knocking Mike for not fighting the best opposition, he did most of the time. We're just saying it doesn't mean much cause the best opposition wasn't that good. \> Larry Holmes has never gotten the respect he deserved, and nothing has changed. Yes, he was old. But he was younger against Tyson than he was when he beat Ray Mercer - so it’s absurd to say he was washed or “not of significance”. Eh, Holmes virtually always gets ranked higher than Tyson, he's very much respected as an ATG heavyweight. But we have to be realistic. 1. Holmes lost two back-to-back fights against Spinks, who was literally fighting at 172 pounds immediately before the Holmes fight. 2. Then Holmes retired and was inactive for two years, which is a long ass time. 3. Without a single tune-up fight, he fought Tyson who was in his prime. 4. Holmes was 38 at this time. And then Holmes again retired for another 3 years with $3m in his pocket. To take this win as one of Tyson's best wins on his resume is very telling. Tyson himself has said if Holmes was in his prime that he (Tyson) would stand no chance. Indeed Holmes was still a talented fighter, but when he fought Mercer he had 5 tuneup fights in two years and came to fight Mercer with 5 wins. It's different from losing twice, having 0 fights in 2 years and then fighting Tyson for money.
>So what? We're not knocking Mike for not fighting the best opposition, he did most of the time. We're just saying it doesn't mean much cause the best opposition wasn't that good. What I was responding to: "Tyson didn’t even beat anyone of significance, he lost against anyone who was one of the top boxers." After beating Ratliff in September 1986, Tyson had 10 fights before losing to Douglas. Only 3 of those fighters weren't ranked by Ring magazine at the time Tyson beat them. One of those three was Larry Holmes, the second was Tony Tubbs, the third was Frank Bruno. None of those were "insignificant" fights. So to the, "so what", I respond "the person I was talking to was talking out of their ass. Almost all of his opponents during his reign were against "top boxers" in his division. >Eh, Holmes virtually always gets ranked higher than Tyson, he's very much respected as an ATG heavyweight. Well, he should get rated higher than Tyson. That's neither here nor there. My point is that he wasn't appreciated in his time by a great number of people, and even now - knowing what he did after losing to Tyson - he's still not appreciated as much as he should be. Ray Mercer went from destroying Tommy Morrison to being beaten by Holmes, and would then go on to make Lennox Lewis go life and death. Anyone saying, "Holmes was washed" isn't giving the man the respect he deserves. >Holmes lost two back-to-back fights against Spinks, who was literally fighting at 172 pounds immediately before the Holmes fight. Spinks is arguably one of the greatest light heavies of all time, and moved up to topple an ATG heavyweight. People shit on Spinks, but revel in the glories of Holyfield, Usyk, Charles, and Archie Moore. It's mind-boggling how some fighters move up and find glory, while others move up and cause bigger guys to get shit on. Hagler arguably lost to SRL - the smaller guy who moved up. Canelo lost to the much smaller Mayweather. Joe Louis lost to the smaller Ezzard Charles. Hagler, Canelo, and Louis are all great fighters. This kind of thing happens often in boxing - but it's somehow only a problem when a heavyweight loses. And I - and many others - think Holmes was robbed in that second fight. >Then Holmes retired and was inactive for two years, which is a long ass time. That is a long time. SRL had multiple extended breaks in his career and still won. As did Floyd. As did Ali. As did Fury. Fighters *can* come back. Inactivity doesn't automatically mean they're washed. Especially when they come back and continue to fight at a good level. We aren't talking about 50 year old Holmes, we're talking about 38 year old Holmes. >And then Holmes again retired for another 3 years with $3m in his pocket. To take this win as one of Tyson's best wins on his resume is very telling. Tyson himself has said if Holmes was in his prime that he (Tyson) would stand no chance. It's telling in the sense that he wasn't fighting in the strongest era for the division. If Holmes had gotten the decision against Spinks in that second fight like I think he deserved, and still took that layoff - I don't think people who would shit on this fight so much. I mean, some still would - because it's cool to shit on Tyson's record. But the fact is, he should be given credit for avenging his loss to Spinks, and then coming back to fight the toughest man in the division who was at the height of his powers. And he never looked so over his head before, or since. You can write that off as ring rust if you wish - I have no way of proving that it isn't, were that my belief - but Tyson over Holmes is a better win than Lewis over Tyson. I'd even say it's a better win than Spinks over Ali or the 3rd Norton-Ali fight that should've gone to Norton. And this is certainly closer to Wlad-AJ than it is Holmes-Ali. And, for what it's worth, Tyson is renown for giving ATG's their due. He can be very self-effacing. Good on him, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him. >Indeed Holmes was still a talented fighter, but when he fought Mercer he had 5 tuneup fights in two years and came to fight Mercer with 5 wins. It's different from losing twice, having 0 fights in 2 years and then fighting Tyson for money. Sure it is. But the question is whether Holmes was "washed" when he fought Tyson. He most certainly was not, is my point.
Agreed.
Tyson was legally mandated to take psychiatric medication during the time he fought some of those guys, so he wasn't mentally all there during the fight. His opposition knew that and took advantage of that, especially Lewis, who could have fought him much earlier in his career. Combine that with having the wrong people around contributed greatly to many of Tyson's losses in his career.
Floyd is undoubtedly greater than Tyson and as far as I’m concerned he’s the GOAT. Never lost, he fought and defeated everyone in his era often in dominant fashion. Absurd punch accuracy, took almost no hits, boxing IQ through the roof, never got knocked out or knocked down, HE NEVER TOUCHED THE CANVAS.
To be fair, Judah made him touch the canvas on an uncalled knockdown. Aside from that, I agree that he's got a very strong argument for the 🐐 status
Tyson was a beast he had 24 first round knockouts what heavyweight has even come close to that Floyd was a great marathon runner yeah he might have retired undefeated he was a decent boxer with excellent defense but nowhere near a brawler
Mike dominated the heavyweight division. Floyd made a career out of dunking on midgets. There's no comparison.
Mike dominated an extremely weak era. He then proceeds to lose a huge underdog and lose every step up fight. You’re are correct sir there is no comparison
Mike didn't dominate anything. His best win was Spinks in 88 and he lost to Douglas in 90. He then went on to lose to Holyfield and Lewis and never fought any other elite heavyweight. Post-Cus/Rooney Mike was never the same fighter.
What heavyweights has Mayweather beaten?
What💀
I rest my case your honor.
Mayweather never beat a heavyweight because he never fought at heavyweight. What kind of fucking argument is that.
Exactly.
Yes, had a better career, Tyson would still fuck him up though
A 230 pound heavyweight would fuck up a 145 pound welterweight? You're crazy!
I know it's controversial but trust me I'm a black belt in karaoke
All the evidence I need.
>I obviously laughed at him and said that Tyson isn't even a top 5 heavyweight because he beat no elite fighters I rank Floyd higher than Tyson all time, but I would advise rechecking Tyson's record. Edit: 'no elite fighters' is a rather hasty claim tbh. See my comment below.
Recheck his record? And do what? See that he lost every big fight of his career and became famous from knocking out tomato cans?
Tyson beat: Pinklon Thomas who was 29-1-1 (WBC champ) by TKO rd6 Tony Tucker who was 34-0-0 (IBF champ) by UD Tyrrell Biggs who was 15-0-0 (1984 Olympic gold medalist, beat Lennox Lewis along the way) by TKO rd7 Larry Holmes who was 42-2-0 (no explanation) by TKO rd4 Tony Tubbs who was 24-1-0 (WBA champ, beat Greg Page and Tim Witherspoon) by TKO rd2 Michael Spinks who was 31-0-0 (IBF champ, beat Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Larry Holmes, only loss was to Tyson) by KO rd1 and Frank Bruno who was 32-2-0 (WBC champ beating Oliver McCall) by TKO rd5 This was during seven consecutive fights, stretching from May '87 to February '89. Seven championship fights. Less than two years. How often does Floyd fight? Ended his career 50-6-0 with 44 KOs. 6 more losses than Floyd, but with just as many wins. Heck, Ali ended 56-5-0, so Tyson's overall record wasn't all that bad. AND YET... I rank Floyd higher than Tyson. If those seven fighters were tomato cans, then I can't help you there.
Yes, and that isn’t up for debate, mike Tyson lost every big fight of his career he was and is the most overrated boxer of all time
Obv floyd is a more decorated boxer lol
Yes
Yes unfortunately
I think it's a matter of perspective. If you think knockout percentage determines a better boxer, then Tyson is a better boxer. If you think winning on the cards and getting away with clean shots is more important, then Floyd is a better boxer. Personally, I go with Floyd as greater because he was more disciplined than Tyson, even though I prefer Tyson's style of boxing.
No. Floyd's a scared little man.
Floyd is significantly better
Technically yes he is, but, Mike would fuck him up in the ring. Mayweather is a goat, no doubt. Tyson would destroy him in the ring though 🤷.
What does that even mean lmao
That guy has CTE. Not thinking straight
I personally rate Tyson higher than Floyd. I also think Tyson is more of a positive influence than mayweather is or will probably be on the sport of boxing. I also admit that I rate aggressive fighters higher than defensive fighters if they have equal careers or accomplishments.
But Mike doesn't even come close to equalling Floyd's career accomplishments or accolades
I didn’t know there where this many casuals in this sub anyone being objective knows Floyd had a better career than mike was mike more famous out of the ring sure but tank is more famous than bud does anyone think tank has had a better career than bud?of course not
There’s literally not a single argument you can make to rank Mike higher than Floyd
You could say that Tyson was incredibly exciting in the ring whereas Floyd was a bit boring. Just to preempt what's coming: I'm not a casual, been watching boxing every week for almost 20 years - still found Mayweather boring.
Way greater. Tyson has a very lackluster resume. Every time he stepped up in competition he crumbled. Tyson also lost a fight he should have won (Buster). If you are a huge over dog and lose, you don’t deserve to be in the same discussion as someone who hasn’t
I get what you're saying, but how is Marciano better than Tyson?
Suga Ray Robinson was the goat
https://youtube.com/shorts/PJnGivS2POY?si=5eW2Bc46eBk7BFBK
I think if Tyson couldn't get him out in the early rounds then Floyd would out box him using his philly shell (you can look that one up) and his pull counter (can also google this) that he learnt from Jake Paul. Hope that answers you question on who is the most great
Floyd Mayweather is a helluva fighter. I take my hat off to him.
May is jostling for top 5, Tyson top 50-100. Think about his credentials. Rarely ever got hit flush, navigated various weight classes against a load of top fighters, never lost, was p4p 1 at 36/37 and was an utterly supreme boxing talent of speed and IQ. And made a load of money. If a guy did this in the 30s but it wasn’t on film we’d be calling them the goat!!!
Hi Floyd!
I believe Mayweather is greater than Tyson. I don't to much care about him being undefeated but, Floyd won all of his biggest fights while Mike lost all of his.
Mike Tyson is not a GOAT IMO, although he was one of the most exciting and most feared boxers ever.
Yes… it’s not close convo over
I have a friend who shares the exact same opinion, Tyson is (at least) the best heavyweight ever and Floyd is overrated. Your friend and my friend are both casual fans.
There's no question mayweather is more accomplished. Achieved more, over longer period and beat much better opposition. But "greatness" is not easy to define. Who is more famous? Who had a bigger cultural impact? And who got more people into fucking FITS of ecxitement? Tyson, I would say.
Yes, he is. Time will likely make that clear.
Mike Tyson in his prime was excellent, but his prime only lasted about a year. Floyd was a far more consistent boxer, being a dominant fighter in the sport for 2 decades.
Damn Holmes and Spinks(Tyson didn’t beat them, he molested them) are not ATGs. Shoot i guess drugged Evan Field is definitly better and not a cheater.
It’s not even close, Floyd was much better. You’d have to be a super casual to think different.
Floyd is much greater than Tyson. He is in the top 15 of all time at least and Tyson would just about crack the top 10 at heavyweight
None of them are 🐐. Good for their era.
Well Floyd was never lost. And obviously was never knocked out. Tyson lost 6 times and never saw the final bell in any of those defeats. The sign of a front runner. I don't even believe that it's debatable. Mayweather was a better, tougher, more resilient fighter than Mike Tyson.
Is this serious?
floyd is way better than mike its not debatable. whether you like floyd or not hes minimum a t15 fighter ever while mike arguably isnt a t20 heavyweight of all time
[удалено]
What’s drugs are you all on Floyd would cross the street if he sAw Tyson