First we have to figure out what makes a fighter great, especially if we are to consider a fighter as being one of the all-time greats. If we look at the records of other great fighters, we see a ledger full of other great fighters. Granted, some very talented fighters end up in divisions that are sparse in talent and are thus robbed of potential greatness, or forced to move to another division. Its not just fighting other great fighters, its beating other great fighters. Of course there are accomplishments like becoming the youngest heavyweight champion ever that would also weigh in on ones decision. Also, there are fighters like Arturo Gatti who was loved when he lost and when he won, a blood and guts warrior. In that case Gatti became great in the sense that he was a warrior, a crowd pleasing brawler, but still not among the all time greatest fighters. This is my basic criteria for establishing greatness.
Tyson became the youngest heavyweight champion in history by defeating Trevor Berbick via second round TKO, he then defended his title 9 times before shockingly being knocked out by James "Buster" Douglas in the 10th round. Many would consider Tyson prior to the Douglas fight as being in his prime, so his opponents during this time should give us some insight.
His first defense was against James Smith, a boring 12 round UD. Smith was a big hard punching heavyweight who held the WBA title, Tyson held the WBC. Smith did little of anything and mainly tried to stay away from Tyson the whole fight. After that there was Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, and then Larry Holmes. This should establish Tyson as a great by destroying Larry Holmes, an all time great, within 4 rounds. However, Holmes came out of a two year retirement and was well out of his prime before he retired. How Holmes got this fight after being in retirement is beyond me but if beating an old Larry Holmes makes you great, then beating an old Ali should immediately make Holmes great. Holmes did not get the same reception for beating up an old Ali, who was also coming out of a two year retirement, that Tyson got for beating up Holmes, so if one doesn't count, why should the other?
After Holmes Tyson fought Tony Tubbs and then the super fight with Michael Spinks. Spinks is no doubt one of the greatest light heavyweights, but at heavyweight he beat an aging Holmes and a spent Gerry Cooney before taking on Tyson and being obliterated. That proved to be a great light heavyweight versus a young and prime Mike Tyson. Tyson then went on to fight the limited Frank Bruno and Carl Williams before being dethroned by Buster Douglas.
I suppose the argument could be made that Tyson fought who was there and perhaps I am being too hard on him. However I disagree. Tyson admittedly paid Lennox Lewis $5 million in step aside money, of course the argument is then made that Tyson "would have destroyed Lewis back then", well, why didn't he? It would have saved him some hassle and a severe beating years later. Early on, prior to Tyson winning a title, he was offered a fight with Earnie Shavers, which would have been a great test for a young Mike Tyson. The same redundant argument is made once again by Tyson fanatics, "He would have destroyed Shavers", again, if that is true, why didn't he? What if's don't count in boxing, although it is great to ponder what could have been, this is not a logical argument to make. Tyson also had opportunities to face the like of Bowe, Tua, Moorer, and a few other fighters but never did. The other great fighters that Tyson fought, he lost to, both Lewis and Holyfield, and neither fight was really competitive, aside from the first Holyfield fight maybe.
This is the problem that I have with ranking Tyson as an all time great, who did he fight? What makes him an all time great? The fact that he would have beaten all these guys had they fought him in his prime? The fact is, Tyson beat an old Larry Holmes that was retired for two year prior and a great light heavyweight in Michael Spinks. He did not fight other fighters that fought during his era that were more than willing, and lost when he stepped up in competition.
So what is it that makes Tyson so great? Would haves and what ifs? No offense to Mike Tyson, but it is disrespectful to the all time greats like Ray Robinson or Henry Armstrong to push them aside for Tyson. Armstrong ruled three divisions at a time when there were a total of eight, mind you, he ruled them at the same time! So, while Tyson certainly has his place in boxing history, nobody can deny that, he has not earned a place among the all time greats.
No comments:
Post a Comment