Peak for peak, Tyson was better. Trinidad had a longer reign. But Mike’s sheer impact on boxing CULTURE also puts him ahead.
Mike both greater and better, though the gap in greatness probably isn't wide. The gap in "better" is pretty wide - Trinidad's 90s peak doesn't come close to Mike's late 80s peak. Trinidad had the advantage over Tyson in two important intangibles (will, and stamina), but it's not enough to overcome the fact that Tyson was better in just about every other area. Tito was a special talent, but Mike was a once in a lifetime talent.
Mike was more skilled, probably had more power pound-for-pound, was definitely quicker pound-for-pound, and had a better chin. He was also stronger and had a better defence. Tito's advantages are stamina and heart. I think Tyson was a better fighter, but I can't see any case for greatness. Tito never had losses as embarrassing as Mike's, beat better fighters, remained undefeated for longer and was just as dominant. The only things which Mike has in his favour are "he was the man" or the impact he had on people growing up then. None of that really matters in terms of greatness IMO.
You make a valid point about Trinidad not losing to 2nd rate opponents, but does he really have bigger wins? Michael Spinks, though not his best division, was still recognized as the lineal champion and at the end of the day, was an all time great - something DLH and Vargas were not. Tyson annihilated him. Blew him off the face of the Earth. He didn't need a contentious 12 round decision win, or a 12th round KO - all he needed he was 91 seconds. Add to that the fact that Trinidad's victims through most of the 90s were mediocre. Tyson was going through a deeper crop of guys in the late 80s. Add to that the fact that he unified the belts, and holds the record as the youngest heavyweight champ ever, then yes, he's greater than Tito.
I don't consider Spinks a better win than De La Hoya or Vargas, simply because Spinks' best weight was 40lbs lighter than Tyson's, and that was by no means a prime Spinks. If we generalise and say at heavyweight, size difference isn't as big a factor - let's say it's half as impeding as it is at lower weights - it's still akin to Tito knocking out a one legged Olivares near the end of his career. I don't find that impressive. I'd agree the average level of Tyson's defences was a little higher, but I think it's easy to overrate those guys - and all HWs in comparison. I'd 100% take Vargas, De La Hoya, Blocker, Joppy, Reid, Campas, and Carr over Berbick, Tucker, Tubbs, Thomas, Bruno, Rudduck and Smith. I'd probably rate the win over Holmes about as highly as I do Tito's win over Whitaker. Obviously Tyson destroyed Holmes, whereas Tito didn't 'destroy' Whitaker. But I've already said, Mike was clearly a better fighter. Unifying the belts means a helluva lot less than beating better fighters IMO, and if we go by lineal titles, Tyson never broke Patterson's record. He was extremely close, but didn't break it. And even still, I don't think it really means much. Especially not when he was burnt out by the age of 23. Tito was greater, pound for pound. Mike doesn't belong on pound for pound lists. Tito does.
Well, Ring Magazine disagrees with you - because Tyson was the consensus P4P #1 before the Douglas loss. It was only after the loss that they gave that title to Chavez, especially after Chavez beat Taylor just a month later.
2 great offensive juggernauts that were terrors in their division. Mike Tyson has HOF wins over Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks while Trinidad has HOF wins over Sweet Pea, Camacho, ODLH, Vargas. I think they're both close and have a case over the other. Personally I rank Trinidad as the greater fighter while I think Tyson is the more skilled fighter and better H2H.
God Tito is so overrated in this Forum. Never heard anyone ask the question Tyson or Trinidad before. Tyson and it's not even debatable. Unfortunately Tyson had some bad losses like Douglas and the Holyfield fiasco. But if we look past that Tyson is arguably a top 10 hw of all time.
But greatness is also apart from being the better fighter as far as ability. Mike going to prison in the early 90s is what really killed his long term potential. I agree that ability wise he was better than Trinidad, but in terms of achievement and overall greatness, the gap is not wide.
I respect your honest opinion. We both agree Tyson is better. The gap in greatness is something we don't agree on but you have a good point. Trinidad is a great fighter and arguably the most exciting fighter of his generation.
Mike defined the 1980s. He was the epitome of that period. That's very rare, for one guy to DEFINE that entire scene and period.
I meant the Zeitgeist of the 80s. Trump, Air Jordan, Tyson, Star Wars, MJ, Live Aid etc. Rays problem is he is a child of Montreal,he's got that 70s feel... then he's there in the early 80s but suddenly breaks off. By the time he comes back it's late late late in the day. For me, no visual pop-art depiction of how life was in the West inthe 1980s would be complete without Tyson.
Of course people like Trump and Tyson are still going. Still breaking the headlines everyday... I think those times produced bigger more substantial people.... Ray is known currently for what, that reality show with Sly and having his pecker fondled
Anyways Tito is a great fighter but there have been greater moves through the divisions, such as Pac, or Henry Armstrong. Mike IS STILL the youngest HW champ of all time.
Leonard is still famous. Tyson and Trump are among the biggest celebrities on Earth, so it's not fair to compare Ray. But Leonard still appears on ESPN, and various shows and podcasts, so his name remains recognizable. Tyson and Jordan are easily the two most famous American athletes the 80s produced. From a global perspective, given futbol's worldwide reach, maybe Maradona was more famous than both. But strictly in the U.S., Tyson, Jordan, and Joe Montana are like the big 3 of athletes who define the 80s. Matter of fact, you might even replace Jordan with Magic. The peak of Jordan's fame (and performance) was 90-93.
Without checking, I think Trinidad is the second youngest welterweight champion in history. I believe he was 20 when he destroyed Blocker. I think the youngest welterweight champ in history is Cuevas, whom I believe won the title at 19.
Yeah, he'd only just turned 20. I think Hearns and Curry were both 21 but I can't be arsed checking. Cuevas was actually 18 btw.
Ohh shit. Cuevas was even younger than I thought. I know Harada won the flyweight title at 18, but I felt like Pipino was one year older.
