More dominant - Tiger or Tyson?

The Game Room
1

I think Tiger Woods and Mike Tyson had portions of their careers during which they were more dominant in their sports than any other athlete.

Tyson won his first 37 pro fights, destroying his opponents, generally knocking them out in less than 3 rounds.

Tiger went several years winning approximately 50% of the tournaments he entered.
In 99 he won 8 events, in 00 9. Majors just about every year. At least up through )5 and 06, when he won 6 and 7 tourns including 2 majors each year.

So, pick the portion of the career, and make the argument whether Tyson was a more or less dominant boxer than Tiger was a dominant golfer.

2

Tiger was playing his equals.
Did Tyson get matched up with any “minor league” boxers to pad his record?

I am not a follower of golf or boxing, just what I absorbed through incidental osmosis.

3

Tiger, by a million miles.
Appreciate the thread, because it’s fun to talk about these sort of match ups, but it’s basically nonsense. Tyson was dominant, but his resume is second rate. He didn’t fight a single elite level, hall of fame heavyweight in those 37 fights, barring a 40 yo, past-it Larry Holmes.
His demolition of Michael Spinks does carry weight - Spinks is an all time great Light Heavy, IMHO, so Tyson smashing him out in one round was impressive.

If anyone wants to come back and say well, Tiger was playing out of shape has-beens and never-wheres, just like Tyson, then I don’t really know enough about golf to rebut that. I strongly doubt that was the case, though, and just the structure of the game makes it very hard to win as much as he did without being truly exceptional.

4

The best golfers in the world play in the four majors every year, virtually without exception.

Tyson fought whoever Don King could make the most money out of. And the heavyweight division was pretty weak at that time anyhow.

Tiger’s reign was far more impressive than Tyson’s for me.

5

Every person on the planet thinks Tiger is at worst the second best golfer of all time. How many people think Tyson is anywhere close to that?

6

I’ll hazard a guess that no one thinks Tyson is anywhere near the second best golfer of all time.

7

Perhaps not but if he says that he is I for one will not argue with him about it.

8

I’d probably say Tiger because he was playing against the best of the best in almost every tournament. Definitely true in every major. You could argue the PGA was watered down in the early-mid 2000’s, but you could just as easily say that about heavyweight boxing in Tyson’s time.

9

I don’t know how “watered down” you think boxing was at any time, but even the top 5/10/20 heavyweights are pretty powerful and dangerous opponents. Jim Tillis, Mitch Green, Alonzo Ratliff, Pinklon Thomas, Ernie Holmes, Tony Tucker, Frank Bruno… Sure, these might not have been the equal of Ali, Frazier, Lewis, etc., but they weren’t all worn out pugs. Every boxing champ fights his share of lugs, and can do no more than prove himself against the best of his contemporaries.

(In other golf threads, some posters have downplayed - with considerable merit - the significance of Tiger not having the “rivalries” Jack had. It isn’t Tyson’s fault that he lacked Ali’s Frazier/Norton/Foreman. But who did he duck?)

As someone who was pretty interested in heavyweight boxing from Ali’s time thru Tyson’s, at the time Tyson was an absolute force of nature. The question was not whether someone could beat him, but instead, whether they would last more than 1-3 rounds, and whether they would suffer permanent injury as a result. And when he lost to Buster Douglas, that impressed me as one of the most shocking upsets ever in al of sport.

I honestly don’t know which I would say was more dominant when at their best, but I’m a tad surprised folk don’t seem more impressed with what Tyson accomplished.

10

If Tiger played 18 holes against Tyson, then a week later Tiger boxed 10 rounds against Tyson I’d watch the fight on pay per view, but not the golf.

11

All that is true, Tyson was extremely dominant, never ducked anyone and beat all of his contemporaries in the first phase of his career. But you have to place it in the context of boxing history - which is extremely deep.

Where would you place Iron Mike as as all time heavyweight? Because he seldom cracks the top ten of any list I’ve seen from the cognoscenti. Some guys slide him in at 9 or 10, I think the ring had him 13 or 14th. And that’s just in his weight class - if you were to consider all of the sport of boxing he’s a top fifty guy.

Whereas Tiger is on the Mt Rushmore of golf. Don’t think that’s in any serious dispute. So they’re a level apart, really - a guy in the running for greatest of all time v a guy who was greatest of his (weak) era.

12

You probably know that about the first 20 or so fights of a *boxer’s pro career are mostly training fights. Tyson’s first real test was #18, Jesse Ferguson. Looks like 12 of his next 19 opponents were some of the better competition of the time. Also important to know that Tyson lost four years of his prime due to prison. The competition in the heavyweight division was still pretty thin, but he would still have been a compelling force. Holyfield should have been short work for Tyson–but Holyfield wasn’t scared of him.

But you can’t help when the competition is weak.

13

I don’t think anyone doubts Tyson was an incredibly gifted boxer. He was champion a long time and he deserved to be.

However, in comparison the accomplishments of two athletes, the strength of opposition must be considered. Let’s just consider the answers to some questions:

  1. For how long did they dominate their sport and how does that compare with other dominate athletes in that sport?

Mike Tyson became the WBC champion November 22, 2986 (Trevor Berbick, KO in Round 2.) He added the WBF and IBF titles against Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker shortly thereafter, so let’s count from Berbick. He was heavyweight champion until losing to Buster Douglas for a period of ten fights and just over three years. He was briefly a beltholder again in 1996 before losing to Evander Holyfield the first time.

Nine fights and three years is a long reign, but is matched or exceeded by a number of other boxers. Muhammad Ali held the title for ten fights and three years, had it taken away from him for refusing to go to Vietnam, and later held the title for another run of 3 years and 11 fights, so he equals Tyson twice. Joe Louis, of course, held the title for a ridiculous eleven years, beating Jim Braddock in 1937 and defending it 27 times before losing to Ezzard Charles in 1948. Larry Holmes held the title for six years and 20 defenses (losing it to Michael Spinks, whose career would be knocked out of the ring by, of course, Mike Tyson.) Tyson’s run is relatively high, but not historically awesome.

Tiger Woods was the #1 ranked golfer in the world for six consecutive years and 11 out of 12 years, accomplishments not matched by any other golfer. In this regard Woods is clearly the greatest modern golfer. The only real competition would be either Bobby Jones, who was absurdly dominant for seven years in the amateur era, or Jack Nicklaus, who won many championships but over a longer period of time; his longest period of continued dominance was no more than 4 years.

  1. What was the standard of their competition as opposed to comparable athletes?

There is little doubt Tyson fought less impressive opponents than many comparable super-champions like Louis, Ali, or Frazier. I am not suggesting I’d want to go a few rounds with Trevor Berbick or Frank Bruno, but they are not seriously comparable to the guys Muhammad Ali was boxing in the 1970s or the lineup of pretty tough hombres Joe Louis beat.

Tiger Woods has gone up against incredibly elite golfers his entire career. Golfing keeps getting better.

  1. Were the athletes precocious in their development?

A sign of true greatness is early greatness. In this regard Woods and Tyson are well matched; both became champions at a very young age. No edge here.

  1. Were the athletes innovative? Did they change the sport in terms of how it was played, or force opponents to change their style of play?

I cannot think of any aspect of boxing Tyson changed. Woods of course was allegedly responsible for “Tiger-proofing,” the practice of lengthening holes to prevent him from using his incredibly long drives to make competitions, well, uncompetitive. That said, I am not convinced this phenomenon wouldn’t have happened anyway; driving distances have increased massively for a variety of reasons (technology, but also the use of video and training techniques to perfect swing mechanics) and pretty much everyone crushes the ball.
Tyson was a great boxer but in a historical context it is awfully hard to make any argument that he was the greatest. You can - very easily - make a strong argument Woods was the greatest golfer ever.

14

My point was that while Tyson wasn’t fighting Ali/Frazier/Foreman/Norton Tiger was similarly not competing against Nicklaus/Watson/Player/Palmer. No doubt both dominated their sport at a time when one could argue that each sport was nowhere near its competitive peak.

15

Tyson mostly fought ‘tomato cans’, a boxing term for easy opponents. He did take on a few well matched opponents but mainly his career was a sad one. His loss to Buster Douglas showed that a less than stellar opponent could beat him if he tried, and his losses to Holyfield showed he never had the kind of talent to last with the best. This was not a lack of potential on his part, he was poorly managed in his career, and didn’t manage himself personally. All of the great champions, and lesser champions have been accused of fighting the ‘Bum of the Month Club’, but that’s just the nature of boxing. What makes the great champions is their performances against other top quality boxers, Tyson faced few of those and lost to the one that would have made a difference. But we’ll never know what would have happened if his life and career weren’t out of control.

16

And how many tomato cans did he crush in 85 and 86? TWENTY EIGHT!

I think some of you have missed my point. I’m not suggesting Tyson was the greatest heavyweight ever. A true tragedy is that he allowed himself to be surrounded by so many wrong people (and that boxing was/is such a cesspool) that we never got to see how good he could have been. Sure, Ali’s life was a circus, but he thrived in that atmosphere, and was a happy ringmaster. Tyson always looked lost and manipulated. If Cus had lived longer, who knows what Tyson would have accomplished.

Take a look at the 3-year stretch from 87-89. Tell me those were all tomato cans. And how many of those went the distance - not to mention beyond 3 rounds? Look at the first half of Tyson’s career. He had mad boxing skills in addition to his killer force. By the time he lost to Holyfield in 96-97, Tyson was a shadow of what he had been.

I’m not a Tiger fan, but will readily acknowledge that for a stretch of his career he was the most dominant/best golfer ever - quite possibly the most dominant any athlete has been for any protracted period of more than a season. But my personal preference (I’ve heard all the arguments, don’t bother trying to convince me here) is that Jack put together a better entire career.

So with Tyson - he fucked up, and threw away what could have been a career for the ages. I’m not debating that. But for a stretch - MAN, I would have loved to have seen him with Ali, or Frazier… I certainly would have taken him over Holyfield or Lewis. Next to impossible to compare boxers from earlier than the 60s - Ali changed the game that much. So, similar to my choosing Jack over Tiger in terms of career, I acknowledge Ali had the better career than Tyson, and exceeded him on most of the factors RickJay so well identifies. But man, there was a time back in the late 80s - I had never perceived a boxer who was as DANGEROUS as Tyson.

17

Tyson’s first non-tomato can was James “Quick” Tillis in his 20th fight. 10 or 15 easy victories is common in establishing a boxer’s record, 20 is rare but not unheard of in the 80s. Some believe Tillis won that fight with good boxing, but it still looked like a Tyson victory to me, though closer than the judges scored it to my recollection. Mitch Green was a tough guy that was a little bit of a challenge. After that, Trevor Berbick was his next legitimate challenge in Tyson’s first title fight. Berbick was a big strong tough fighter, but he was easy to hit and Tyson was at his very best at that point. Following that he did face a few legitimate contenders, but they were generally older guys, and even when he won his performances were lackluster. He had several fights where very few punches were thrown as both Tyson and his opponents just clinched and wrestled around the ring. There’s no question several otherwise capable fighters walked into the ring scared and didn’t fight as expected. Following his fight with Berbick Tyson’s life was running downhill the whole time. Then Buster Douglas knocked him cold. He was a thunderous puncher, but he didn’t develop his skills the way other champions did. He often entered the ring out of shape, in any of his fights that went past 3 rounds he was exhausted after those first 3 and didn’t show much again until later in the fight. I told people for years beforehand that Evander Holyfield would give Tyson a boxing lesson if they met in the ring, and that’s just what happened. As strong as he was Tyson would not have been able to tag any of the great heavyweights. He might have developed the skills needed to stand with an Ali, Holmes in his prime, Foreman at any time, Frazier, Holyfield, and the greats that came before and after that era, but he didn’t. Great potential, but in actuality he only has a good looking record against second rate opponents.

18

The thing about heavyweight boxing is that you never know. A boxer can be winning, make a mistake, and he’s on his ass. Tyson certainly was capable of putting anyone on their ass - it nearly saved him against Douglas, after all.

I’d agree Tyson would have been more than he was under better guidance, and it’s a shame he wasn’t. Of course, it’s equally a shame Sandy Koufax had to retire in the middle of his career, that Bo Jackson shredded his hip - you know how it goes. Bill James once quipped “there are more pitchers who would have been in the Hall of Fame if they hadn’t gotten hurt than there are pitchers in the Hall of Fame,” and he was only half kidding. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

The mental game is, after all, a part of sports, and Tyson lacked just enough of the mental makeup needed to be the greatest boxer ever. Obviously he had enough of the determination and discipline to be the champion of the world, and that’s no small feat; a boxer without discipline an determination is one we have never heard of and never will. The difference between Tyson and the GREATEST in a sport - be it Ali, or Woods, or Gretzky, or Jordan, whomever - is very small.

19

I forgot to mention this part. Tyson was an excellent student of boxing, but not that good in execution. He displayed the skills he learned only against the lesser opponents. He couldn’t pull the trigger on Tillis, a guy who had already been knocked out a number of times. He admitted to being afraid of big guys like Tubbs and Tucker and he chose to clinch with them instead of fighting. He didn’t have mad enough skills to serve him against the best. And that could all be due to the problems he faced, he was pushed into the title at a very young age, his early fights were too easy, he lacked the maturity necessary to excel beyond his punching power. If he had been better handled, even by Cus D’amato who was in a hurry to get another champion before he died, if he had followed the more typical path of progressively more challenging fights until he was in his mid-20s then Tyson might have surpassed all others. Sadly though, we know his 20s were a waste, riddled with personal chaos and exploitive management.

20

Short answer: I followed both men fairly closely during their careers, but I don’t think this question can be answered, because the sports differ too much.

Long answer:
Tyson won 100% of his bouts over a period of several years, while Tiger won “only” 50% or less of his tournaments. But Tyson only had to beat one guy at a time, while Tiger had to beat up to 150 guys in each tournament, and he played in all the toughest tournaments.

And he didn’t just win, he won by 8, 10, 12, 15 shots. At his peak, he not only had the best overall game; he was the best driver, the best iron player, the best short game player, and the best putter. I doubt we’ll ever see that again.

On the other hand, Tyson was devastating for many years. He didn’t just win, he destroyed his opponents, usually in a very few rounds.

Sports fans are notoriously inconsistent when it comes to determining the GOAT. They will tell you that majors are all that matter when it comes to comparing Jack with Tiger, but I have yet to meet a Jack fan who rates Walter Hagen, with 11 majors, ahead of Ben Hogan, with 9 majors. Wait, you say Hogan would have won more if he hadn’t been in that accident? Well, I say Hagen would have won more if he hadn’t hit his prime before the PGA or Masters were even founded, and the British Open required a month of round-trip travel time, and even that was cancelled for several years for WWI. You say Jack had tougher competition? The PGA championships he played in the 60’s had only 50 or so touring pros in the field, and 100+ club pros. The British Opens he played in the 60’s all had less than a dozen American touring pros in the field, and sometimes less than half a dozen. Palmer and Player also padded their record playing “majors” that had weaker fields than almost any regular PGA event today. Player’s first major win, the 1959 British Open, had exactly zero US touring pros in the field.

It’s amazing to me how many golf fans contemptuously dismiss the efforts of the PGA Tour to promote the Players Championship as a “fifth major,” in spite of its extremely strong field, and yet uncritically accept the majors of the 60’s that built Palmer’s, Player’s, and Jack’s reputations, when they typically had fields consisting of only half the world’s best at a time — either almost all Americans and only three or four international players, or the opposite.

Similarly, it’s amazing to me how many boxing fans rank Tyson outside the top ten of all time because he didn’t fight Max Schmeling or Billy Conn. FFS, he fought several world champs in a row to unify the heavyweight title for the first time in years. These were guys who were like 6’-5" and 220 pounds of solid muscle. Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey were great in their time, but Louis weighed 190 and Dempsey weighed less than 180. There’s a reason they had to make a new cruiser-weight class, because unlike the old days, when a guy over 220 like Willard was likely to be a big fat oaf, they are solid muscle today. A guy the size of Dempsey is just too small to fight an elite heavyweight today. Tyson outweighed him by 40 pounds, even though he was shorter. And make no mistake, Tyson was fast as lightning.

My definition for GOAT is not the won-loss record, it’s who would win if the contenders competed against each other. I think Tyson in his prime would beat any previous champion (I stopped following boxing about 20 years ago, so I don’t know about more recent fighters. I can’t even tell you who the champ is now).

And I think that Tiger in his prime would beat any other golfer (I do still follow golf).

So IMO they are both the most dominant in their respective sports, but the sports are too different to compare them directly.