Tyson's rating in the 90's

[mr. magoo]

A lot of authors commonly rate Mike Tyson as being one of the top heavyweights of the 90's, but I simply must profess that he can't be rated as such.

Here are my reasons:

1. He was abscent for 4 years of the decade.

2. He defeated all but 8 opponents in the 90's ( 9 if you count Ruddock Twice. ) Also, keep in mind that 3 of those opponents were Henry Tillman, Peter Mcneeley, and Buster Mathis.

3. He had 3 unavenged losses ( two by knockout ) to Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield.

4. He never faced most of the other top heavyweights of the period such as Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis ( later ), Michael Moorer, Tommy Morrison, Ray Mercer or George Foreman.

That being said, my unofficial top five heavyweight rating for the 1990's goes as follows :

1. Evander Holyfield

2. Lennox Lewis

3. Riddick Bowe

4. George Foreman

5. Michael Moorer

Some will no doubt differ as to the arrangement of these names, and perhaps validly, but nevertheless, the top five list should include these men, in one order or another.

[ironchamp]

Well He couldnt fight Morrison because by the time a fight could have came off Morrison was diagnosed with HIV. Otherwise the fight was set in stone.

Foreman was irrelevant. The fight would have been nothing more than a novelty.

Bowe didnt want the fight.

Moorer and Mercer - not sure about those, they would have been pretty good fights.

Tyson losing to Holyfield halted what could have been Tyson Lewis.

I disagree with your rankings. While Mike was in prison, I have no idea what Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, "Foreman", Morrison, Mercer and Moorer were doing because when Tyson came out he fought 2 quickies and then he fought two Champions; Bruno and Seldon. Tyson can't control:

Lewis getting Ko'd by his former sparring partner and therefore losing the belt that would have all but gauranteed a fight
Moorer losing the belt to a middle aged man in the retirement redzone.
Bowe not have a belt around his waist.
Morrison having HIV.


The rankings can be for the 90s only accomplishments:

1. Lewis
2. Holyfield
3. Bowe
4. Tyson
5. Moorer
6. Foreman

[ironchamp]

Tyson avoided Lewis in the 90s like Bowe did, first paying step-aside money and then vacating a belt so that he has not to face Lewis is ducking.

Lets make it clear these decisions are made by Don King.

After McNeeley and Mathis he fought

-Bruno WBC strap around his waist.
-Seldon WBA strap around his waist.
-Holyfield. And judging by the PPV numbers its clear the public wanted the fight.

Lewis didnt have much leverage in a sense that he was still not as popular in America and Tyson's chosen route was more marketable than squeezing in a Tyson Lewis bout. Its not Tyson's fault that Lewis couldnt mangage to keep the WBC title around his waist for more than few minutes.

Step aside money is what Maskaev offered Peter to clear the way for a Maskaev Klitschko fight. From what I recall everyone seemed to be happy with that arrangement except for the Peter and his management. Some critisized Peter for not taking the money and letting the more profitable fight take place.

Don King knowing he would not be able to get options on Lewis preferred Holyfield over Lewis and the titlist (Seldon) over the non titlist (Lewis).

It was all business. Plus a Tyson Lewis fight would have been a better sell with titles on the line.


BTW, Tyson Lewis only became that popular in 2002 when Lewis was in the American Public eye more and more, after he beat Holyfield that is when his stock moved up big time, Not to mention the Golota, Grant and Briggs fights.

[DamonD]

Its not Tyson's fault that Lewis couldnt mangage to keep the WBC title around his waist for more than few minutes.
Not only is this alarmingly exaggerated, but essentially you're saying that Tyson vs Bruno II was seen as a better, bigger fight than Tyson vs Lewis...?

You can most certainly point the finger of blame at King over why Tyson didn't fight Lewis in '96, I know I do, but why then turn around and back up King's stance by rubbishing Lewis's claims to a title fight?

[mr. magoo]

The rankings can be for the 90s only accomplishments:

1. Lewis
2. Holyfield
3. Bowe
4. Tyson
5. Moorer
6. Foreman
[/QUOTE]

Tyson can't be rated above Moorer or Foreman. Foreman's win over Moorer was better than anything Tyson did in the 90's, what's more, Foreman went the distance with a prime 1991 version of Holyfield whereas, Tyson was dusted badly by a decling 1996 rendering of Holyfiels. What's more, Foreman's record in the 90's was 12-3, and Tyson's was 9-3. Sure you can say that Foreman fought a few fringes, journey's and tomato's, but Tyosn's wins over Tillman, Mcneeley and Mathis weren't much better if even at all.

Moorer defeated Holyfield who beat Tyson twice, and was undefeated 35-0 up until 1994.

[Sonny's jab]

If we're talking about the whole 90s decade, it is clear that Holyfield and Lewis were the top 2 fighters in the period 1990-1999.

Beneath them the pecking order is not at all clear cut.

Tyson's a MAJOR candidate.

[ironchamp]

Not only is this alarmingly exaggerated, but essentially you're saying that Tyson vs Bruno II was seen as a better, bigger fight than Tyson vs Lewis...?

You can most certainly point the finger of blame at King over why Tyson didn't fight Lewis in '96, I know I do, but why then turn around and back up King's stance by rubbishing Lewis's claims to a title fight?

Not trying to back it up but just showing perspective.

[mr. magoo]

After McNeeley and Mathis he fought

-Bruno WBC strap around his waist.
-Seldon WBA strap around his waist.



Yes these men held titles in the 90's, but prior to meeting Tyson, Seldon had lost in a single round to Riddick Bowe, was Ko'd by Oliver Mccall and completely outboxed and even floored by an aging TOny Tubbs. What's more some have even argued that fight reaked of dive, as Seldon fell without even being hit flushly. Frank Bruno was definately a better fighter than Seldon and still very dangerous, but he as past his prime, and a man whom Tyson had the comfort of already beating once before.

I won't debribe Tyson of the notion that these were in fact, decent wins, but at the same time, they were hardly legacy fights, nor the division's highlights of the decade.

[Sonny's jab]

Tyson can't be rated above Moorer or Foreman. Foreman's win over Moorer was better than anything Tyson did in the 90's, what's more, Foreman went the distance with a prime 1991 version of Holyfield whereas, Tyson was dusted badly by a decling 1996 rendering of Holyfiels. What's more, Foreman's record in the 90's was 12-3, and Tyson's was 9-3. Sure you can say that Foreman fought a few fringes, journey's and tomato's, but Tyosn's wins over Tillman, Mcneeley and Mathis weren't much better if even at all.

Moorer defeated Holyfield who beat Tyson twice, and was undefeated 35-0 up until 1994


On the other hand, Tyson beat Razor Ruddock twice and dispatched Alex Stewart in ridiculously easy fashion. This was before Alex Stewart made Foreman look like an advert for boxing abolition.

[Stewbear]

Moorer?
Simply for beating holyfield he is not top ten of the 90's

[mr. magoo]

Beneath them the pecking order is not at all clear cut.

Tyson's a MAJOR candidate.
[/QUOTE]

After thinking and rethinking this issue time and time again, I simply don't see why he was a major candidate. You listed Holy and Lewis as the clear cut #1 and #2, but why are lines so blurred between say Bowe and someone like Tyson? Bowe beat Holyfield twice, and lost a close decision in the other fight. Tyson fought a declining version of Holyfield and beaten convincingly on both occasions. In additon, Bowe's record in the 90's was 27-1. Tyson's record during the decade was 9-3 ( including 2 knockout losses, one of whom against a man who bowe beat twice.)

No way in hell does Tyson rank above Bowe in the 90's.

[ironchamp]

Tyson can't be rated above Moorer or Foreman. Foreman's win over Moorer was better than anything Tyson did in the 90's, what's more, Foreman went the distance with a prime 1991 version of Holyfield whereas, Tyson was dusted badly by a decling 1996 rendering of Holyfiels. What's more, Foreman's record in the 90's was 12-3, and Tyson's was 9-3. Sure you can say that Foreman fought a few fringes, journey's and tomato's, but Tyosn's wins over Tillman, Mcneeley and Mathis weren't much better if even at all.

Moorer defeated Holyfield who beat Tyson twice, and was undefeated 35-0 up until 1994.[/quote]

Tyson beat

-Bruno at the time WBC Champ
-Seldon at the time WBA Champ
-Botha former IBF Champ
-Ruddock - 2X division's biggest puncher after Mike and ranked #2 after Tyson.
-Stewart who gave Foreman a new face and gave Holyfield a test.

Tyson's layoff is what prevented a fight with:

Holyfield in 1991
Bowe in 1992/3
Lewis in 1993
Moorer in 1994
Morrison in 1992
Mercer in 1993

Foreman stopped a chinny Michael Moorer who was making a highlight reel for the first 9 rounds. Going the distance with Holyfield means nothing if you are getting beat up in the process. Moorer is the only quality opponent that Foreman beat.

[mr. magoo]

Moorer?
Simply for beating holyfield he is not top ten of the 90's

moorer's record in the 90's was 17-2 as a heavyweight, and simply beating Holyfield is a better feat than you're making it out to be. Holy was the lineal champion and coming off his best win over Riddick Bowe. He may have had some health issues, but it's unclear as to how they actually effected his performance. Moorer also had some decent wins over Stewart, Cooper, Botha, Bean, and Scultz. All of whom were ranked fighters, and a few of which, even undefeated to that point.

[Sonny's jab]

Yes these men held titles in the 90's, but prior to meeting Tyson, Seldon had lost in a single round to Riddick Bowe, was Ko'd by Oliver Mccall and completely outboxed and even floored by an aging TOny Tubbs. What's more some have even argued that fight reaked of dive, as Seldon fell without even being hit flushly. Frank Bruno was definately a better fighter than Seldon and still very dangerous, but he as past his prime, and a man whom Tyson had the comfort of already beating once before.

I won't debribe Tyson of the notion that these were in fact, decent wins, but at the same time, they were hardly legacy fights, nor the division's highlights of the decade.

That's a polite and generous response. Far too diplomatic, IMO.

I'd say Bruce Seldon was a bum, the ultimate paper champion courtesy of Don King and rigged ratings, and Frank Bruno let himself down badly, he wasn't past his prime, he just punked out, overcome with fear.

Peter McNeeley actually put up a better fight than those two "champs" and it was his corner - not himself - who pulled him out of there. McNeeley, a talentless clubfighter, actually had a go.

It's fair to say beating up Frank "very scared of Tyson" Bruno was the best win there for Tyson, the other two were completely meaningless.
Bruce Seldon might as well have showed up to award the WBA belt to Tyson, because he sure didn't even look like a fighter defending himself let alone a "championship".

[mr. magoo]

Tyson beat

-Bruno at the time WBC Champ Past his prime
-Seldon at the time WBA Champ Lost to Tubbs, Bowe and Mccall
-Botha former IBF Champ Moorer beat Botha when Francois was undefeated
-Ruddock - 2X division's biggest puncher after Mike and ranked #2 after Tyson. Good win, but not as impressive as Foreman's win over Moorer. Besides George beat Micahel in a clear cut knockout win, leaving no questions to be asked. Tyson's wins over Ruddock consisted of a controversial stoppage, and a decision.
-Stewart who gave Foreman a new face and gave Holyfield a test.

Quite possibly the best performance of Alex Stewart's career and showed up in much better condition than any of his previous fights.


Tyson's layoff is what prevented a fight with:

Holyfield in 1991
Bowe in 1992/3
Lewis in 1993
Moorer in 1994
Morrison in 1992
Mercer in 1993


While this may be true, the fact still remains that he didn't fight these men when he needed to, and therefore can't be issued a higher rating based on what could have, should have or would have happened.
Foreman stopped a chinny Michael Moorer who was making a highlight reel for the first 9 rounds.

A chiny Moorer, who was a champion at both lightheavyweight and heavyweight, undefeated in 35 pro fights, and coming off a win over Holyfield, something Tyson couldn't do.


Going the distance with Holyfield means nothing if you are getting beat up in the process. Moorer is the only quality opponent that Foreman beat.


Foreman at age 42 went the distance with a prime 28 year old Holyfield, and even rocked him on a few occasions. Tyson at age 30 fought a 34 year old Holyfield and got his ass handed to him.

[Sonny's jab]

After thinking and rethinking this issue time and time again, I simply don't see why he was a major candidate. You listed Holy and Lewis as the clear cut #1 and #2, but why are lines so blurred between say Bowe and someone like Tyson? Bowe beat Holyfield twice, and lost a close decision in the other fight. Tyson fought a declining version of Holyfield and beaten convincingly on both occasions. In additon, Bowe's record in the 90's was 27-1. Tyson's record during the decade was 9-3 ( including 2 knockout losses, one of whom against a man who bowe beat twice.)

No way in hell does Tyson rank above Bowe in the 90's.


I'd put Bowe above Tyson too.

But Tyson's is the running. His two wins over Razor Ruddock were VERY SIGNIFICANT in the division in that decade.
His losses were to two men - Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield - and none of his 9 wins were particularly close or disputed.

The substance of his resume in 1990-1999 isn't much, I grant you that. But look at the other major candidates.

Foreman, Mercer, Moorer, Morrison ....... can I say Axel Schulz, Jesse Ferguson and Michael Bentt ?
Even Bowe had unflatterring episodes against Tubbs and Golota.

[ironchamp]

Seldon was a poor choice because even then Lewis was way better but you are missing the point entirely.

The Blueprint was to collect the belts.

-First WBC (Bruno)
-Then WBA (Seldon)
-Then Holyfield for the blockbuster PPV numbers.
Notice that Botha and Moorer were fighting for the IBF strap on the undercard right? Well showcase Botha and Moorer and then then the winner would have fought the winner. The idea was for Tyson, after Evander, to fight Michael Moorer assuming he won and have all three belts as the unfied champ. Then fight Lewis in 1997.

[ironchamp]

That´s why Tyson dropped the WBC belt to not face Lewis because he wanted to unify the belts :good

He was stripped shortly after the fight with Seldon. He didnt drop the belt.

[mr. magoo]

I'd put Bowe above Tyson too.

But Tyson's is the running. His two wins over Razor Ruddock were VERY SIGNIFICANT in the division in that decade.
His losses were to two men - Buster Douglas and Evander Holyfield - and none of his 9 wins were particularly close or disputed.

The substance of his resume in 1990-1999 isn't much, I grant you that. But look at the other major candidates.

Foreman, Mercer, Moorer, Morrison ....... can I say Axel Schulz, Jesse Ferguson and Michael Bentt ?
Even Bowe had unflatterring episodes against Tubbs and Golota.

I would have to rank Foreman and probably Moorer above Tyson as well.

Not to sound like a broken record here, but if Foreman's best win in the 90's was a gainst Moorer, and Tyson's against Ruddock, than that alone sets Goerge a bit higher. Michael Moorer's best win was against the reigning champ Holyfield. Ruddock's best win was against a declining Dokes. Moorer was a world champ in two divisions. Ruddock never won a world title. Moorer's record was 35-0-0-30. Ruddock's record was 24-1-1-17. What's more, is that Foreman's victory over Moorer was a clear cut knockout leaving no questions to be asked. Tyson's win(s) over Ruddock consisted of a contoversial stoppage and a decision.

Foreman also took a prime 1991 Holyfield the distance, whereas Tyson was beaten far more convincingly by a 1996 Holyfield who was deteriorating.

Asside from the Moorer and Ruddock fights, Mike and George's secondary wins in the 90's weren't much different in quality. Foreman won a close decsion over 36-0 Lou savarese, along with Coetzer, Stewart, Rodriguez, Ellis, Grimsley, and schultz. Okay the Schultz fight was arguably a robbery, but then again, it could be said that George was robbed in the last fight of his career at age 48 against Shannon Briggs. Cotzer, Cooney, Rodriguez, and Grimsley weren't that great, especially considering that some of those guys were declining, but how good was Tillman, Mcneeley, and Mathis? Not to mention you clearly said once yourself that Tyson's fight with Seldon reaked of a dive, and Bruce was a guy who lost in one round to Riddick Bowe, was knocked out by Mccall, and outboxed by an aging Tubbs. Bruno was also past his prime, and a man whom Tyson had the reassurance of beating fairly easily once before. Tyson destroyed Alex Stewart in one round, while Stewart made Foreman's face look like a trauma statistic. But, Stewart was arguably in the best shape of his career, when he fought George, and at least had previously been in the ring with Holyfield, Tyson, Moorer and unbeaten Paul Poirier. When Tyson fought Stewart the only memorbale outings that he had, was a fight with Evander and a win over Arthel Lawehorn. If the Alex Stewart comparision is the only example that Tyson fans will cling to when trying to rate him over Foreman, then I'd say it's a pretty weak argument.

Foreman's record in the 90's- 12-3

Tyson's record in the 90's- 9-3

Knockout Losses- Tyson 2, Foreman 0

Losses to past prime fighters or lesser comp- Tyson 3, Foreman 0

Best win- Foreman Ko Moorer. ( world title fight ) Tyson Tko/decision Ruddock.

[ironchamp]

I would have to rank Foreman and probably Moorer above Tyson as well.

Not to sound like a broken record here, but if Foreman's best win in the 90's was a gainst Moorer, and Tyson's against Ruddock, than that alone sets Goerge a bit higher. Michael Moorer's best win was against the reigning champ Holyfield. Ruddock's best win was against a declining Dokes. Moorer was a world champ in two divisions. Ruddock never won a world title. Moorer's record was 35-0-0-30. Ruddock's record was 24-1-1-17. What's more, is that Foreman's victory over Moorer was a clear cut knockout leaving no questions to be asked. Tyson's win(s) over Ruddock consisted of a contoversial stoppage and a decision.

Foreman also took a prime 1991 Holyfield the distance, whereas Tyson was beaten far more convincingly by a 1996 Holyfield who was deteriorating.

Asside from the Moorer and Ruddock fights, Mike and George's secondary wins in the 90's weren't much different in quality. Foreman won a close decsion over 36-0 Lou savarese, along with Coetzer, Stewart, Rodriguez, Ellis, Grimsley, and schultz. Okay the Schultz fight was arguably a robbery, but then again, it could be said that George was robbed in the last fight of his career at age 48 against Shannon Briggs. Cotzer, Cooney, Rodriguez, and Grimsley weren't that great, especially considering that some of those guys were declining, but how good was Tillman, Mcneeley, and Mathis? Not to mention you clearly said once yourself that Tyson's fight with Seldon reaked of a dive, and Bruce was a guy who lost in one round to Riddick Bowe, was knocked out by Mccall, and outboxed by an aging Tubbs. Bruno was also past his prime, and a man whom Tyson had the reassurance of beating fairly easily once before. Tyson destroyed Alex Stewart in one round, while Stewart made Foreman's face look like a trauma statistic. But, Stewart was arguably in the best shape of his career, when he fought George, and at least had previously been in the ring with Holyfield, Tyson, Moorer and unbeaten Paul Poirier. When Tyson fought Stewart the only memorbale outings that he had, was a fight with Evander and a win over Arthel Lawehorn. If the Alex Stewart comparision is the only example that Tyson fans will cling to when trying to rate him over Foreman, then I'd say it's a pretty weak argument.

Foreman's record in the 90's- 12-3

Tyson's record in the 90's- 9-3

Knockout Losses- Tyson 2, Foreman 0

Losses to past prime fighters or lesser comp- Tyson 3, Foreman 0

Best win- Foreman Ko Moorer. ( world title fight ) Tyson Tko/decision Ruddock.

How many disputed wins does Big George Have?

Foreman's body of work in the 90s is not better than Tyson's despite the layoff. Foreman was fortunate to have Michael Moorer as champion in 1994 because if it were Bowe, Lewis or Holyfield he would have never regained the belt.

[mr. magoo]

Foreman's body of work in the 90s is not better than Tyson's despite the layoff. Foreman was fortunate to have Michael Moorer as champion in 1994 because if it were Bowe, Lewis or Holyfield he would have never regained the belt.

There you go with the if's and's and but's shit again. The fact is, Bowe wasn't champion. Lewis wasn't champion. Holyfield wasn't champion. And you have no way of knowing what would or wouldn't happen if they were. The fact, however is that Moorer was champion, and he was a great fighter with stellar credentials. Foreman's win over Moorer was better than any win Tyson had in the 90's.....Period........

[torchkit]

I'd put Bowe above Tyson too.

But Tyson's is the running. His two wins over Razor Ruddock were VERY SIGNIFICANT in the division in that decade.
His losses were to two men As opposed to women? :lol:

[JohnThomas1]

As opposed to women? :lol:

Well we know he beat Givens, he said so

:lol:

[My dinner with Conteh]

3rd behind Lewis and Holy. Bowe only really beat one top notch guy all his career.

[JohnThomas1]

3rd behind Lewis and Holy. Bowe only really beat one top notch guy all his career.

Total agreeance here.

[mr. magoo]

3rd behind Lewis and Holy. Bowe only really beat one top notch guy all his career.

If you're only talking about his accomplishments in the 90's then I strongly disagree. Bowes record in the 90's was 27-1, Tyson's was 9-3. Bowe defeated Holyfield Twice whom Tyson lost two on both occasions, and the Holyfield wins were better than any of Tyson's victories during that decade. Bowe also had better secondary wins as well over Gonzalez, Donald, Hide, Seldon and Coetzer. Tyson's second tier oponents next to Ruddock in the 90's were Seldon, Stewart, Botha, Mathis, Bruno, Mcneely and Tillman. Not a great slew if you ask me. Plus Tyson lost to Douglas as well.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Tyson regained the crown (or a couple of versions) when past his best, Bowe couldn't. Bowe lost to Tubbs too. A woeful verdict and purely based on a "fighter who was less fat" basis. Bowe was wonderful for one night- in the first Holy fight...but then again Douglas was vs Tyson. Tyson was still a contender in the late 1990s, Bowe had long disappeared into his fridge.

[mr. magoo]

Tyson regained the crown (or a couple of versions) when past his best, Bowe couldn't.

Tyson regained fragments of the crown by beating a past prime Bruno, and Seldon whom Bowe bested in single round. Big deal. Bowe's primary and secondary wins in the 90's are better than anything Tyson did between 1990 and 1999.


Bowe lost to Tubbs too. A woeful verdict and purely based on a "fighter who was less fat" basis.

A close and difficult fight to judge. Nevertheless, being in the prosect phase of one's career and winning a questionable decision against a former champion, is not as detrimental to one's legacy as being undisputed champion of the world and getting completely owned and KO'd by a man who many considered as an average contender.



Bowe was wonderful for one night- in the first Holy fight...but then again Douglas was vs Tyson. Tyson was still a contender in the late 1990s, Bowe had long disappeared into his fridge.


Bowe's choice to retire at an early age, doesn't change the outcome of what each man actually accomplished in the 90's.

Bowe's record between 1990 and 1997, was 27-1. Tyson's record between 1990 and 1999 was 9-3. Huge desparetey there, in and of itself. Bowe's best win(s) were over Evander Holyfield were better than any Tyson had ever accomplished in his entire career, let alone anyone he beat in the 90's. Bowe was never knocked out, and in fact who's only loss was a close decision to Holyfield whom he beat Twice. Tyson was knocked out by both Douglas and Holyfield, two losses that both went unavenged.

I'll agree that Tyson's overall career accomplishments were better than Bowe's if you factor into the equation what he did in the 80's. The comparison, however is what both men did in the 90's, In which case the facts and statistics are overwhelmingly in Bowe's favor.

[ironchamp]

If you're only talking about his accomplishments in the 90's then I strongly disagree. Bowes record in the 90's was 27-1, Tyson's was 9-3. Bowe defeated Holyfield Twice whom Tyson lost two on both occasions, and the Holyfield wins were better than any of Tyson's victories during that decade. Bowe also had better secondary wins as well over Gonzalez, Donald, Hide, Seldon and Coetzer. Tyson's second tier oponents next to Ruddock in the 90's were Seldon, Stewart, Botha, Mathis, Bruno, Mcneely and Tillman. Not a great slew if you ask me. Plus Tyson lost to Douglas as well.

Being 9-3 in the 90s is no big deal considering he was absent for just about 4 years.

Ruddock was considered one of the top fighters in early 90s and was ranked #2 behind Tyson. When Tyson went to prison he was considered heir to the throne, even though Holyfield and Bowe present.

Other wins:
Botha who was at one point an IBF Champ
Bruno at the time Tyson beat him was the WBC Champ
Seldon despite a talent laden division was the WBA Champ
Alex Stewart gave Holyfield a quite a test as well as George Foreman.

Bowe's career is really based in the 90s and by the time 1996 came around he was a footnote in the division. The fact that he lost relevance so quickly shows that he wasnt as big a factor as Tyson was.

Foreman's best win in the 90s is Michael Moorer. After that its probably Alex Stewart, Lou Saverese and Axel Shulz all of which he got bogus decisions on. (BTW Bruno, Botha and Seldon are better).

[mr. magoo]

]Being 9-3 in the 90s is no big deal considering he was absent for just about 4 years.


On the contrary, I think it shows great significance, given that we can only rate fighters based on what they ACTUALLY did, as opposed to what they MIGHT have done, had the circumstances of their careers been different. Tyson's abscence in the 90's greatly detracts from his legacy during the decade.


Ruddock was considered one of the top fighters in early 90s and was ranked #2 behind Tyson. When Tyson went to prison he was considered heir to the throne, even though Holyfield and Bowe present

Was Ruddock considered the best heavyweight in the division post 1992? I think not. The accomplishments of both Holyfield and Bowe vastly outweigh that of Ruddock's when looking at the whole decade. Therefore, Bowe's wins over Holyfield greatly surpass the significance of Tyson's wins over Ruddock.


Other wins:
Botha who was at one point an IBF Champ
Bruno at the time Tyson beat him was the WBC Champ
Seldon despite a talent laden division was the WBA Champ
Alex Stewart gave Holyfield a quite a test as well as George Foreman.


The Botha and stewart wins were good victories, but Bruno was past it, and Seldon had been beaten by Bowe, Tubbs and Mccall, and what's worse, some have argued that Seldon took a dive in the fight.


Bowe's career is really based in the 90s


Precisely my argument!! Tyson's accomplishements in the 80's can't be used when giving him a rating in the 90's. This is what I've been telling you for two days now. :patsch

and by the time 1996 came around he was a footnote in the division.

And what was Tyson doing around 1996? Getting his ass kicked by a past prime Holyfield whom Bowe had beaten a better version of twice? What's your point?


The fact that he lost relevance so quickly shows that he wasnt as big a factor as Tyson was.


He didn't lose relevance. He retired. Big difference.

Foreman's best win in the 90s is Michael Moorer.

And a better win than any Tyson had throughout the entire decade.



After that its probably Alex Stewart, Lou Saverese and Axel Shulz all of which he got bogus decisions on.



The Lou Savarese fight was close, but Foreman clearly won it. Alex Stewart sustained two unanswered knockdowns against Foreman, therefore the fight was not a robbery. The only possible gift decision that Foreman received was against Axel Shultz, however when you consider that he was robbed of a decision against Shannon Briggs, his record would still even out to 12-3 as opposed to Tyson's 9-3, regardless.