Can Tyson Be Ranked Above Holyfield?

[Russell]

The more I think on it the less realistic it seems.

I feel Holyfield accomplished more. His domination and rise in the Cruiser ranks definitely doesn't hurt his ascent in the rankings either.

Even his wins over the still ultra dangerous combination of Foreman and Holmes are up there with some of what Tyson accomplished. Tyson sure as hell wasn't pushing for a Foreman match in the 90's and in my opinion Holyfield met and beat a better version of Holmes then Tyson, as Larry was fresh off his domination of undefeated Ray Mercer.

Tyson was more dominant, with greater physical tools... But I still don't think I could sanely put him above Holyfield.

Doesn't hurt that Holyfield beat him twice either, yes?

[McGrain]

Pound for pound Hollyfield should always be above Hollyfield.

But Tyson's dominat run in his first tilt to the title plus his astonishing skillset, head to head prowess is persuasive. In addition, Hollyfield has prime HW losses against good heavies that Tyson really doesn't. Whilst Hollyfield's wins over Tyson are certainly relevant - and arguably better than anything Tyson has on his ledger - it shouldn't be forgotten that Hollyfield is the right man. Tyson would always have struggled against him desperately because of styles and attributes. But Hollyfield v Old Holmes is a close fight and peak for peak I do not beleive Hollyfield's chances are serious. Tyson would have beaten the peak version of Holmes, in my opinion.

I think Tyson was better, more consistant and formbidable at his absolute HW prime, and dominated a field of serious contenders as much as any fighter ever has.

I have Tyson edgining. I certainly think it's reasonable. I don't have a serious objection to Hollyfield above Tyson, but I want to hear reasoning concerning his losses as well as his wins.

[WhataRock]

Do people think Tyson was beaten in his prime? I do and it certainly hurts his legacy..

Arguably Commander was never in his element at heavy because he was relatively small and he was pushing 30 when he first loss to Bowe.

[SteveO]

At a certain year, it would be a definite yes.

But a lot of it depends on how long Evander decides to be a punching bag.

I will still give Holy the edge though. But it's slight.

[radianttwilight]

P4P basis, Holyfield edges it for me.

In pure heavyweight ATG sense, Tyson is the clear favorite IMO. Holyfield was never dominant in the division like Tyson was.

[Sweet Pea]

I don't think Tyson was beaten in what was his true prime. I think head to head he'd have been a menace to any HW of all time at his absolute peak years (which were few).

[WhataRock]

I don't think Tyson was beaten in what was his true prime. I think head to head he'd have been a menace to any HW of all time at his absolute peak years (which were few).

I dont know...24...only 18 months after he destroyed Spinks which is no indication of him being a prime fighter I know but he did what he supposed to in that fight.

I truly believe he just totally underrated Douglas and was underprepared for the fight because he was fucking around to much outside of the ring. And mentally...well Tyson is Tyson.

Physically I reckon he was good as he was during his early reign. I dont think he should get a pass because he didnt use his talents or wasnt mentally capable of dealing with his lifestyle.

[Sweet Pea]

I dont know...24...only 18 months after he destroyed Spinks which is no indication of him being a prime fighter I know but he did what he supposed to in that fight.

I truly believe he just totally underrated Douglas and was underprepared for the fight because he was fucking around to much outside of the ring. And mentally...well Tyson is Tyson.

Physically I reckon he was good as he was during his early reign. I dont think he should get a pass because he didnt use his talents or wasnt mentally capable of dealing with his lifestyle.Exactly. Tyson's fault, I know, and it must be held against him, but he was never the same after or even just before this fight, so it must be considered the end of his prime IMO, and not at his best for that fight.

When he had his head on straight, Rooney in his corner, gaining experience, and defending his title early on, he was at his formidable best. But he peaked early, like Benitez, so we didn't get to see too much of that.

[WhataRock]

Exactly. Tyson's fault, I know, and it must be held against him, but he was never the same after or even just before this fight, so it must be considered the end of his prime IMO, and not at his best for that fight.

When he had his head on straight, Rooney in his corner, gaining experience, and defending his title early on, he was at his formidable best. But he peaked early, like Benitez, so we didn't get to see too much of that.

Well its a point to discuss.

If a fighter defines his own prime by having a lifestyle that is to the detriment of his career in the ring..should we say "oh well he wasnt in his prime for that fight".

A fighter's dominance in his prime is paramount to ranking him alltime and h2h. So many wins and losses get spun around because people argue said fighter wasn't at his best. But if theoretically a fighter could have had a longer prime period by living right, do losses in that grey area between prime and not-prime have the same gravity?

Really my point is if Tyson got beaten by Douglas at 24, should that effect his legacy and how he goes in alltime h2h matchups...Or does it not factor in.

You get what Im saying...I dont even know if I do.:lol:

[Robbi]

I truly believe he just totally underrated Douglas and was underprepared for the fight because he was fucking around to much outside of the ring. And mentally...well Tyson is Tyson.

Exactly the reason why he's not an elite ATG and arguably not a top 10 heavyweight either. Many fighters overcome such hurdles outside the ring which enhance their greatness somewhat. I think Tyson was a great 'on top' fighter who was brilliant at his best. When people rate Tyson high H2H they forget the mental aspect of such match-ups. I don't like his chances down the stretch in long gruelling affairs with opponents who showed mental toughness that outweighed anything Tyson ever showed. His chin keeps him in there, but his ability to rebound from adversity is weak. Also his non existent recovery powers after hitting the canvas to turn possible defeat into victory. Fouling can't be overlooked as well. Maybe chewing a part of an opponents ear off never happened in his prime, but when matching him against Marciano, Frazier, Holmes, Ali, Foreman, etc, it's highly possible he would have had he felt the heat that he never in his prime, thus resorting to such tactics.

[SuzieQ49]

Russell...the answer is defintley yes. what tyson accomplished in his 1980s title reign far exceeds anything holyfield accomplished. tysons 1980s title reign consisted of dominance, consistenty, that holyfield never came close to showing during his career....

in fact tysons 1980s title reign is arguebably the most consistent dominant title reign ever by a heavyweight champion. lets take a look


tyson- only heavyweight in history to Unify all 3 belts starting from SCRATCH. to make it more amazing.....he accomplished this feat in just one year!!! Tyson essentially cleaned up the huge alpha title mess larry holmes left us, and tyson firmly established a # 1 man out there.....while holmes did not unify one belt in 7 years, tyson unified all 3 in one year!!!

Tysons reign was as dominant as any in history. he fought all top 10 rated contenders/many current/former heavyweight champions and DOMINATED them beating them with no controvery, in fact he knocked out top champions out cold that had never been down/stopped before. larry holmes title reign in comparison was filled with controversial close decisions and he missed out on fighting 2 or 3 top fighters of his era, while tyson fought everyone worthy and dominated them. not to single out holmes here, as many other champions can be accused of this well


holyfields title reign

W 12 42 year old foreman- couldnt put foreman down, foreman staggered him and won around 4 rounds. hardly dominating

W 12 44 year old holmes - Holmes won around 4 rounds and gave him issues especially early on till he tired. hardly dominating win for holy, tyson knocked this guy out cold in 4 years earlier.

TKO 7 Bert Cooper- he was a double substitue journeyman and he put holy down and was seconds away from putting holyfield out. a huge struggle



This to me is a horribly inconsistent and very unspectacular against mediocre opposition compared to mike tysons dominant 1980s title reign.





h2h mike tyson matches up much better vs the rest of the field than holyfield does, Tyson brought a combination of power speed skill that history has never seen before since joe louis. tyson is arguebably the greatest puncher the history of the sport has ever seen. I think h2h at his best he knocks holyfield out in 5. holy cant possibly brawl and expect to beat mike at the peak of his powers....even the late 1980s holy who was young fast and talented boxer on his toes.....that version lacked the defense to espace mikes combinations and at some point would be drawn into action and that would be holyfields demise.

[rekcutnevets]

No, I do not think that you can rate Mike Tyson above Evander Holyfield.

I think both fighters had 2 careers in a way. Tyson before and after prison, Holyfield before and after "heart troubles." I've read numerous stories about Holyfield's heart problem, but I'm not a doctor. I don't know if he truly had a heart problem. I do know that he fought differently before and after the stories about his heart. When I hear the steroid speculation, this is when I think Holyfield's use may have started. I do not let it affect my rating of Holyfield, as I do not know how true the steroid rumors are.

If you look at their first careers, Holyfield edges Tyson because of one fighter. That fighter is Riddick Bowe. I can argue the rest of Tyson's opponents were as good, or better than Holyfield's. Riddick Bowe is arguably a top 20 all time heavyweight, and Tyson never beat a top 20 all time heavy(while that heavy was still in his prime). The only way Tyson could have been more impressive is to have defeated Holyfield before he went to prison.

If you look at their 2nd careers, you'll see that Evander beat Mike. Holyfield also has wins over Mercer and Moorer to compliment that. Tyson defeated Seldon and Bruno. I believe Holyfield edges him here, without the Tyson victories.

[SuzieQ49]

holy went 1-2 vs bowe though, thats not a winning record. if tyson gets 3 chances to beat bowe, he sure as hell well win at least 1

[SuzieQ49]

mike tysons 1980s title reign far exceeds anything holy did in terms of dominance consistently

[Russell]

At a certain year, it would be a definite yes.

But a lot of it depends on how long Evander decides to be a punching bag.

I will still give Holy the edge though. But it's slight.

Do you really hold his exploits after 40 against him?

[rekcutnevets]

Originally posted by SuzieQ49
holy went 1-2 vs bowe though, thats not a winning record. if tyson gets 3 chances to beat bowe, he sure as hell well win at least 1
Tyson never beat Bowe, that is not my fault.

Tyson's 0-2 record against Holyfield is not a winning record either. If I have to give 30 year old Tyson a break against Holyfield for not being in his prime, then I have to give 33 year old Holyfield a break against Bowe in their 3rd fight.

[My2Sense]

The more I think on it the less realistic it seems.


I don't think it's ever been realistic at all.

The only "reason" I see that people put Tyson above Holyfield is because they have pre-conceived notions of both fighters that they can't get out of their head. Either that, or they're just die-hard Tyson fans.

For starters, Holyfield outclassed Tyson at a time when Holy was much farther past his best than Tyson was. On top of that, Tyson at his peak got outclassed by a guy that Holyfield then outclassed.

On top of that, Holy had far more success overall in his career.

If there was ever a fighter who proved he was better than another fighter, it was Holy over Tyson.

[My2Sense]

Russell...the answer is defintley yes. what tyson accomplished in his 1980s title reign far exceeds anything holyfield accomplished. tysons 1980s title reign consisted of dominance, consistenty, that holyfield never came close to showing during his career....

in fact tysons 1980s title reign is arguebably the most consistent dominant title reign ever by a heavyweight champion. lets take a look


tyson- only heavyweight in history to Unify all 3 belts starting from SCRATCH. to make it more amazing.....he accomplished this feat in just one year!!! Tyson essentially cleaned up the huge alpha title mess larry holmes left us, and tyson firmly established a # 1 man out there.....while holmes did not unify one belt in 7 years, tyson unified all 3 in one year!!!

Tysons reign was as dominant as any in history. he fought all top 10 rated contenders/many current/former heavyweight champions and DOMINATED them beating them with no controvery, in fact he knocked out top champions out cold that had never been down/stopped before. larry holmes title reign in comparison was filled with controversial close decisions and he missed out on fighting 2 or 3 top fighters of his era, while tyson fought everyone worthy and dominated them. not to single out holmes here, as many other champions can be accused of this well


holyfields title reign

W 12 42 year old foreman- couldnt put foreman down, foreman staggered him and won around 4 rounds. hardly dominating

W 12 44 year old holmes - Holmes won around 4 rounds and gave him issues especially early on till he tired. hardly dominating win for holy, tyson knocked this guy out cold in 4 years earlier.

TKO 7 Bert Cooper- he was a double substitue journeyman and he put holy down and was seconds away from putting holyfield out. a huge struggle



This to me is a horribly inconsistent and very unspectacular against mediocre opposition compared to mike tysons dominant 1980s title reign.




Tyson's 1980s title reign was embarassingly ended by a fat, glass-chinned, shaky-hearted journeyman. It doesn't measure up to the best title reigns in history.

On top of that, Holy's title reign was jumpstarted by whupping the very guy that outclassed Tyson.

[WhataRock]

For starters, Holyfield outclassed Tyson at a time when Holy was much farther past his best than Tyson was.

In terms of ability or just a measure of time?

As in was Holy more shot or was his best further away in years then Tyson's was?

I tend to think the drastic decline of Tyson from the late 80's till that fight was a sharper fall then Holy had experienced.

[Schmapps]

Hmm I think we can safely say Holy showed alot more heart and determnation throughout his career than Mike. But then, he had to, because his power and skill set were not on prime Tyson's level. So, the question becomes which side of this coin has more weight?

[fists of fury]

In terms of raw ability and athletic prowess I rank Tyson higher.

In terms of heart and determination I rank Holyfield higher.

Tyson was more dominant in his reign than Holyfield was.

Holyfield won fights he was expected to lose, Tyson did not.

Holyfield got off the floor to win, Tyson did not.

Holyfield sometimes struggled with mediocre oppositon, Tyson did not. (Doulgas could not be called mediocre in Tokyo)

Holyfield beat Bowe, a man arguably better than anyone Tyson beat. On the other hand, he also lost to him twice.

Holyfield beat Tyson twice which could be the decisive factor, although neither was at the peak of their powers. (But both were still very good.)

Head to head...I'd favour 80's Tyson to deal with early 90's 208 pound Evander, but the 215 pound Evander that fought Bowe in the second fight would always be a very tough assignment for any version of Tyson.
I think that there was something in Evander that didn't sit well with Tyson at all.

Whichever way you have it, I don't think they're miles apart. I would not argue with anyone who had Holyfield ranked higher or lower than Tyson, as long as they're ranked pretty closely to each other.

[Holmes' Jab]

Tyson was a better and more dominant heavyweight. P4P, though Holyfield is definitely ahead.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yes. He had a dominant reign whilst champ (9 successful defences wasn't it?)

[Ezzard]

I don't think it's ever been realistic at all.

The only "reason" I see that people put Tyson above Holyfield is because they have pre-conceived notions of both fighters that they can't get out of their head. Either that, or they're just die-hard Tyson fans.

For starters, Holyfield outclassed Tyson at a time when Holy was much farther past his best than Tyson was. On top of that, Tyson at his peak got outclassed by a guy that Holyfield then outclassed.

On top of that, Holy had far more success overall in his career.

If there was ever a fighter who proved he was better than another fighter, it was Holy over Tyson.

Totally agreed... IMO this post should close the show...

[Holmes' Jab]

Thing is Holyfield at his best (at HW) was a super fighter, however during his title reign(s) you always felt he was a fair deal more liable to be on the end on an upset than Tyson who proved himself 'the man' beyond question. His career at Cruiser puts him above Tyson overall, though.


Yes, Tyson had 9 defences: from Smith through Williams.

[punchy]

I don't think it's ever been realistic at all.

The only "reason" I see that people put Tyson above Holyfield is because they have pre-conceived notions of both fighters that they can't get out of their head. Either that, or they're just die-hard Tyson fans.

For starters, Holyfield outclassed Tyson at a time when Holy was much farther past his best than Tyson was. On top of that, Tyson at his peak got outclassed by a guy that Holyfield then outclassed.

On top of that, Holy had far more success overall in his career.

If there was ever a fighter who proved he was better than another fighter, it was Holy over Tyson.

The Douglas Tyson faced was a far superior fighter than the Douglas Holyfield faced, Douglas was paid twenty million dollars for the Holyfield fight and one million for the Tyson fight, he took the money and retired.

Tyson in the second Holyfield fight had trained much harder then for the first and was better prepared, he was butted early by Holyfield opening a big gash and as we know retaliated by biting Holyfield's ear and was DQ'd I am not defending him it was a stupid and disgusting thing to do, but what would have happened if the fight had gone on, probably a draw after Tyson would be unable to continue in the third round because of a cut caused by an unintentional headbutt.

It is not right to rate Holyfield a superior fighter based on these arguments.

[Loewe]

Both are definite atgs. I don´t think it´s fair to rank one atg above another since they all proved themselves at the highest level or they wouldn´t be called atgs. Nevertheless I think there must be differentiate between atg and elite hws. Both are not elite hws.

[fists of fury]

Both are not elite hws.

Who do you define as elite?

[fists of fury]

he was butted early by Holyfield opening a big gash and as we know retaliated by biting Holyfield's ear and was DQ'd I am not defending him it was a stupid and disgusting thing to do, but what would have happened if the fight had gone on, probably a draw after Tyson would be unable to continue in the third round because of a cut caused by an unintentional headbutt.



To be honest Punchy, I have never thought of the headbutts as accidental. They played a major role in the first fight too, and several opponents have complained of Holyfield's use of his noggin. One even labeled it his best punch.
Not to say Mike was an angel...hardly. He butted himself, threw low blows, elbows, punched after the bell...he was dirty too. But Evander was just as dirty, but in a more subtle way.

[Mendoza]

The more I think on it the less realistic it seems.

I feel Holyfield accomplished more. His domination and rise in the Cruiser ranks definitely doesn't hurt his ascent in the rankings either.

Even his wins over the still ultra dangerous combination of Foreman and Holmes are up there with some of what Tyson accomplished. Tyson sure as hell wasn't pushing for a Foreman match in the 90's and in my opinion Holyfield met and beat a better version of Holmes then Tyson, as Larry was fresh off his domination of undefeated Ray Mercer.

Tyson was more dominant, with greater physical tools... But I still don't think I could sanely put him above Holyfield.

Doesn't hurt that Holyfield beat him twice either, yes?

I rate Holyfield slightly over Tyson.

I agree. IMO, Holyfield beat better fighters. Holy's best wins are over Bowe, Tyson, and Moorer.

Tyson does not have one win better than that. In addition, Holyfield sparked the Douglas...a heavier Douglas who was fresh off the TKO win over Tyson, did far better vs Lewis than Tyson did.

If the question is, who matches up better vs grade B, C, or D class fighters, I'll pick Tyson ever time because he blows these types. Holyfield will surely win over grade B, C, and D fighters too, just not as spectular.

However if the question is, who matches up the best elite top 10 ranked fighters of the time, I'll pick Holyfield.

[Loewe]

Who do you define as elite?

Jeffries
Johnson
Louis
Marciano
Ali
Holmes
Lewis

[Ezzard]

I rate Holy above Lewis...

Anyone here think Tyson should be above Lennox?

[Holmes' Jab]

Neither should be.

[ChrisPontius]

I rate Holy above Lewis...

Anyone here think Tyson should be above Lennox?

Lewis has:

-More defences/wins of a major alphabet heavyweight title (16) than Holyfield (10) and Tyson (12).

-More defences/wins of the linear title (10) than Holyfield (5) and Tyson (3) combined.

-A better record against ranked contenders (19-2 with all defeats avenged) than Holyfield (11-10-1, 10-5 if you cut his career off after '99), and than Tyson (A record of 14-6, 13-3 if we cut off at '99)


-Beaten Holyfield 2-0 and Mike Tyson once. Tyson was far past his best, but Lewis at 35 was no spring chicken, either, and let's not forget the odds were about even going into the fight.

So i don't see why either Tyson or Holyfield should rank higher than Lewis.




On the topic: as others stated, it can be justified given Tyson's dominant reign and better record.

I will add one thing though: those saying that Tyson never lost in his prime but Holyfield did, must be kidding themselves. Mikey was 24 and on one of the most impressive winning streaks in boxing history when he got beaten from pillar to post by Douglas, who Holyfield by the way thrashed in 3. Holyfield, when he lost for the first time, was 30. How is that better than being 24 and on your career best winning streak, making 42-1 odds against your opponent? Tyson wasn't at his peak and that's his own fault, but he was in the prime of his life and career.

[WhataRock]

I rate Holy above Lewis...

Anyone here think Tyson should be above Lennox?

As a heavy or alltime or both...? Do you rate Holy over Lennox I mean..

[Bokaj]

Lewis has:

-More defences/wins of a major alphabet heavyweight title (16) than Holyfield (10) and Tyson (12).

-More defences/wins of the linear title (10) than Holyfield (5) and Tyson (3) combined.

-A better record against ranked contenders (19-2 with all defeats avenged) than Holyfield (11-10-1, 10-5 if you cut his career off after '99), and than Tyson (A record of 14-6, 13-3 if we cut off at '99)


-Beaten Holyfield 2-0 and Mike Tyson once. Tyson was far past his best, but Lewis at 35 was no spring chicken, either, and let's not forget the odds were about even going into the fight.

So i don't see why either Tyson or Holyfield should rank higher than Lewis.




On the topic: as others stated, it can be justified given Tyson's dominant reign and better record.

I will add one thing though: those saying that Tyson never lost in his prime but Holyfield did, must be kidding themselves. Mikey was 24 and on one of the most impressive winning streaks in boxing history when he got beaten from pillar to post by Douglas, who Holyfield by the way thrashed in 3. Holyfield, when he lost for the first time, was 30. How is that better than being 24 and on your career best winning streak, making 42-1 odds against your opponent? Tyson wasn't at his peak and that's his own fault, but he was in the prime of his life and career.

Very good post.

[WhataRock]

Lewis has:

-More defences/wins of a major alphabet heavyweight title (16) than Holyfield (10) and Tyson (12).

-More defences/wins of the linear title (10) than Holyfield (5) and Tyson (3) combined.

-A better record against ranked contenders (19-2 with all defeats avenged) than Holyfield (11-10-1, 10-5 if you cut his career off after '99), and than Tyson (A record of 14-6, 13-3 if we cut off at '99)


-Beaten Holyfield 2-0 and Mike Tyson once. Tyson was far past his best, but Lewis at 35 was no spring chicken, either, and let's not forget the odds were about even going into the fight.

So i don't see why either Tyson or Holyfield should rank higher than Lewis.




On the topic: as others stated, it can be justified given Tyson's dominant reign and better record.

I will add one thing though: those saying that Tyson never lost in his prime but Holyfield did, must be kidding themselves. Mikey was 24 and on one of the most impressive winning streaks in boxing history when he got beaten from pillar to post by Douglas, who Holyfield by the way thrashed in 3. Holyfield, when he lost for the first time, was 30. How is that better than being 24 and on your career best winning streak, making 42-1 odds against your opponent? Tyson wasn't at his peak and that's his own fault, but he was in the prime of his life and career.

Couldnt agree more...well played sir.

[Ezzard]

As a heavy or alltime or both...? Do you rate Holy over Lennox I mean..

As a HW. I appreciate Chris's post but number of defences etc... but these are a small part of the picture. I believe Holyfield has enough wins over top competition, more than Lewis when everything is factored in. Resurrected his career many times and watching the 2nd fight I believe that Holy would have won a prime for prime match up. i also believe that Holy would win more fights than lennox if both were amcthed against the top 30 all-time HWs.

BUT I would not argue with someone who had Lewis above him. I think its close. IMO Lewis and Holy are much closer to one another than Tyson is to Holy. Tyson was a great fighter but he is overrated because of his style of fighting, his many quick KOs and because he is so popular.

[SuzieQ49]

I believe people are selling tyson far short here. h2h i dont see how holyfield beats mike tyson, his style plays right into tysons hands. there 1996 matchup was worthless, tyson was 4 years rusted out of the ring, and was a shell of the fighter he once been when he came back.


sure tyson lost to douglas, but holyfield lost to MICHAEL MOORER who is nowhere near as good as that version of buster douglas.



People have still yet to name a time where holyfield showed consistency and dominance against TOP opposition that comes close to comparing to tysons 1980s title reign.

[Holmes' Jab]

'96 Tyson was not a 'mere shell' - he was still very good. Not late 80's level of very good, but still.

[Bokaj]

'96 Tyson was not a 'mere shell' - he was still very good. Not late 80's level of very good, but still.

I agree. He looked awesome dispatching Bruno and Seldon, and then Holyfield, who no one gave a chance, beats him, and all of a sudden he's a "shell" of his former self.

[smiffy]

i take tyson above holyfield. in his prime he was a more special fighter, an all time great in my opinion. that he managed to screw it all up does nothing to this fact. holyfield made much ,much more of his more limited talents but if you ask who was the better fighter at their best, its tyson all the way .

[Ezzard]

Tyson became a shell much later. He was still a top fighter before the Holyfield defeats.

Holyfield was a big underdog. I thought it was a bit of a joke fight at the time. Holyfield a lamb to the slaughter to boost Tyson's rep. I could not see how a muscle bound Cruiser was going to have any success whatsoever against Tyson.

Tyson's early career is hugely overrated. A great fighter, no doubt about that but not better than Lewis or Holy...

[Bokaj]

To put the loss against Douglas in perspective:

A 31 year old Ali came in overconfident, a bit undertrained and a bit unfucossed against what turned out to be his possibly toughest opponent and an absolute nightmare for boxers who lacked devastating power. He got his jaw broken early, but still made a fight of it.

Tyson was in a similar state against Douglas, but he was 24, met a guy who really never proved anything either before or after and he didn't get his jaw broken. Still he was outclassed.

[mr. magoo]

Pound for pound Hollyfield should always be above Hollyfield.



Holyfield should always be above Holyfield?

[Loewe]

Holyfield should always be above Holyfield?

For sure and under him too, obviously.

[DINAMITA]

The more I think on it the less realistic it seems.

I feel Holyfield accomplished more. His domination and rise in the Cruiser ranks definitely doesn't hurt his ascent in the rankings either.

Even his wins over the still ultra dangerous combination of Foreman and Holmes are up there with some of what Tyson accomplished. Tyson sure as hell wasn't pushing for a Foreman match in the 90's and in my opinion Holyfield met and beat a better version of Holmes then Tyson, as Larry was fresh off his domination of undefeated Ray Mercer.

Tyson was more dominant, with greater physical tools... But I still don't think I could sanely put him above Holyfield.

Doesn't hurt that Holyfield beat him twice either, yes?

I think he can. It's not as if the question is "can Amir Khan be rated above Roberto Duran?" here. But personally, I rank Holyfield quite a bit above Tyson in the all-time pound-for-pound standings. Holyfield IMO is the greatest fighter to ever compete in the cruiserweight division, and has some excellent wins there. At heavyweight, his win over Bowe beats anything on Tyson's resume. Plus he beat Tyson twice.

I look at Tyson as a great fighter h2h but not really p4p. His resume isn't great and he had some bad losses. He was nothing short of amazing 1986-1990, but he did not have a 'great' career IMO.

[mr. magoo]

They both deserve to be rated fairly close to one another in my honest opinion. Tyson had the legacy of becomming the youngest heavyweight champ ever, along with a very dominant reign consisting of 9 strait defenses, and a first round KO of another all time great in Spinks. For whatever its worth, he also recaptured two thirds of the crown in his comeback, though I think that those title fights with Bruno and Seldon were bullshit set ups by Don King to get him into an easy title position, as neither of those men deserved to really be highly rated. People will say that Bruno at least beat McCall, but I'm not sure that he deserved to get the shot in the first place, and Seldon being rated 4 places above Riddick Bowe by the WBA was laughable. But anyway..........

Holyfield though not as consistant nor having as clean of a record as Tyson, arguably defeated better competition, including two wins over Tyson himself, had the legacy of dominating a whole other division prior to moving up, and was the only 4 time titlist in the heavyweight history... He also fought longer and better on a past prime basis for whatever its worth.. Lastly, depending on how amateur accomplishments are weighed, Evander did manage to win a bronze medal whereas Tyson did not get passed the trials in 1984. Of course, not everyone includes amateur acheivments, but I'll leave that up to the individual..

Personally, I rate Tyson a bit higher than Holyfield, but a fair argument can be made for both.

[thesham01]

I think he can. It's not as if the question is "can Amir Khan be rated above Roberto Duran?" here. But personally, I rank Holyfield quite a bit above Tyson in the all-time pound-for-pound standings. Holyfield IMO is the greatest fighter to ever compete in the cruiserweight division, and has some excellent wins there. At heavyweight, his win over Bowe beats anything on Tyson's resume. Plus he beat Tyson twice.

I look at Tyson as a great fighter h2h but not really p4p. His resume isn't great and he had some bad losses. He was nothing short of amazing 1986-1990, but he did not have a 'great' career IMO.

my thoughts exactly :happy

tyson is one of those fun fighters u create threads on about fighting past or present champions and see how he would fare!

[DINAMITA]

my thoughts exactly :happy

tyson is one of those fun fighters u create threads on about fighting past or present champions and see how he would fare!

As I have just done in the General!

[Haye]

I believe people are selling tyson far short here. h2h i dont see how holyfield beats mike tyson, his style plays right into tysons hands. there 1996 matchup was worthless, tyson was 4 years rusted out of the ring, and was a shell of the fighter he once been when he came back.


sure tyson lost to douglas, but holyfield lost to MICHAEL MOORER who is nowhere near as good as that version of buster douglas.



People have still yet to name a time where holyfield showed consistency and dominance against TOP opposition that comes close to comparing to tysons 1980s title reign.

Agreed Buster Douglas was a great fighter that one night, yet Michael Moorer was a fine HW. Had some pretty damaging traits that held him back, but on his night he was a top, top class HW. And of course Holyfield was probabky his best performance...

[Arka]

To be honest Punchy, I have never thought of the headbutts as accidental. They played a major role in the first fight too, and several opponents have complained of Holyfield's use of his noggin. One even labeled it his best punch. .
Apparently Lennox went to Holyfield's gym.There was a groove in one of the punching bags for Holyfield to practise his headbutts on.


A 31 year old Ali came in overconfident, a bit undertrained and a bit unfucossed against what turned out to be his possibly toughest opponent and an absolute nightmare for boxers who lacked devastating power. He got his jaw broken early, but still made a fight of it.
.
Well Eddie Futch thought that Ali broke his jaw late into the fight,by a single hard punch.He thought it was unlikely that Ali had broken it in the early rounds since Norton was landed on it flush all night long.Angelo Dundee said it had been broken earlier in the fight.Take your pick.

He was nothing short of amazing 1986-1990, but he did not have a 'great' career IMO.

I think the frailties were already there in his 89 fight with Bruno.He was almost taken out with a left hook in the first round and was shipping clean punches-more than he had done in the rest of his career.

[Loewe]

They both deserve to be rated fairly close to one another in my honest opinion. Tyson had the legacy of becomming the youngest heavyweight champ ever, along with a very dominant reign consisting of 9 strait defenses, and a first round KO of another all time great in Spinks. For whatever its worth, he also recaptured two thirds of the crown in his comeback, though I think that those title fights with Bruno and Seldon were bullshit set ups by Don King to get him into an easy title position, as neither of those men deserved to really be highly rated. People will say that Bruno at least beat McCall, but I'm not sure that he deserved to get the shot in the first place, and Seldon being rated 4 places above Riddick Bowe by the WBA was laughable. But anyway..........

Holyfield though not as consistant nor having as clean of a record as Tyson, arguably defeated better competition, including two wins over Tyson himself, had the legacy of dominating a whole other division prior to moving up, and was the only 4 time titlist in the heavyweight history... He also fought longer and better on a past prime basis for whatever its worth.. Lastly, depending on how amateur accomplishments are weighed, Evander did manage to win a bronze medal whereas Tyson did not get passed the trials in 1984. Of course, not everyone includes amateur acheivments, but I'll leave that up to the individual..

Personally, I rate Tyson a bit higher than Holyfield, but a fair argument can be made for both.

Patterson still holds the record for beeing the youngest champ. Tyson was merely the youngest beltholder :deal

[Muchmoore]

Tyson deserves to be ranked above Holyfield. While Tysons loss to Douglas obviously hurts him, it's obvious to anyone watching without being biased that the Tyson that fought Buster wasn't the one that fought Berbick and Spinks.

Just as the first round bell rang, the announcers commentated that rumors were Tyson hadn't trained hard for this fight and lost a huge amount of weight shortly before the fight. When I judge Tyson head to head I choose the Tyson that was possibly the most dominant champion in history and brutally took out Spinks, Holmes, Thomas, Berbick. Good fighters that Tyson dominated like no one had before.

Head to Head Tyson is a MAJOR handful to anyone in history and I'd only pick Ali to beat him. Louis, Liston and the other greats vs. Iron Mike are pick em. The same can't be said for Holyfield.

[rekcutnevets]

Originally posted by Loewe
Patterson still holds the record for beeing the youngest champ. Tyson was merely the youngest beltholder
Patterson won a title in a fight against a light heavyweight that had previously loss to a recognized champion. It is not like Patterson beat the man that beat the man that beat the man. Patterson didn't even win against a former heavyweight champion. Patterson beat the man that was once the man in another weight class.

[mr. magoo]

Patterson still holds the record for beeing the youngest champ. Tyson was merely the youngest beltholder :deal

This topic has been done to death, long before your arrival here, and I still say that Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion in the history of the sport.

Patterson won the heavyweight title by winning it in vacant fashion after it's original holder had retired. Technically he did not beat the man either.

As for Tyson, I will not credit him for being the youngest upon his victory over Berbick, but by the time he had unified all three belts after beating Tucker for the IBF, he had my vote, at which point he was still a tad younger than Patterson was when he defeated Archie Moore.

Some will try and argue that Spinks was THE MAN, and Tyson would not gain full recognition until he dispatched him.. I couldn't disagree more. In 1983, Larry Holmes was stripped of the WBC title for failure to face Greg Page. He was then awarded the IBF's newly manufactured title. Spinks defeated him for this belt, then arguably was gifted a win in the rematch. Over the next 2 years, Spinks would dodge every worthy contender and ultimately was stripped of his belt, which Tucker then won. In the meantime Tyson was cleaning up the division of its best fighters, including Tucker..

By the time time Spinks met Tyson in the summer of 1988, his claim to lineal status had been very far removed in my opinion.

[Bokaj]

Well Eddie Futch thought that Ali broke his jaw late into the fight,by a single hard punch.He thought it was unlikely that Ali had broken it in the early rounds since Norton was landed on it flush all night long.Angelo Dundee said it had been broken earlier in the fight.Take your pick.

I'll have to go with guys who had medical expertise and actually was in the corner with Ali, like dr. Ferdie Pacheko. He said it was broken in the second round. That Ali complained about pain in his jaw and that it made a sound when he opened his mouth that indicated that it was broken.

People seem to go quite religiously by what Futch said about Ali, but the thing is that he wasn't in a better position to judge than anyone else in close proximity to the ring. His opinion weighs pretty light compared to that of an actual physician in Ali's corner IMO.

[Loewe]

This topic has been done to death, long before your arrival here, and I still say that Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion in the history of the sport.

You don´t know how long I´m here :verysad

Patterson won the heavyweight title by winning it in vacant fashion after it's original holder had retired. Technically he did not beat the man either.

As for Tyson, I will not credit him for being the youngest upon his victory over Berbick, but by the time he had unified all three belts after beating Tucker for the IBF, he had my vote, at which point he was still a tad younger than Patterson was when he defeated Archie Moore.

Some will try and argue that Spinks was THE MAN, and Tyson would not gain full recognition until he dispatched him.. I couldn't disagree more. In 1983, Larry Holmes was stripped of the WBC title for failure to face Greg Page. He was then awarded the IBF's newly manufactured title. Spinks defeated him for this belt, then arguably was gifted a win in the rematch. Over the next 2 years, Spinks would dodge every worthy contender and ultimately was stripped of his belt, which Tucker then won. In the meantime Tyson was cleaning up the division of its best fighters, including Tucker..

By the time time Spinks met Tyson in the summer of 1988, his claim to lineal status had been very far removed in my opinion.

I can see your point but they don´t matter at all. Marciano retired and the then time two best contender fought for the title. Patterson won and became champ.
When Tyson won his belts there was still the real champ around. Unifying only means you are the champ if the champ isn´t around. But he was then.

[mr. magoo]

=Loewe]You don´t know how long I´m here :verysad



Uhh, your join date located directly below your avator says July, 2008 does it not? Unless of course you've been posting under a different account.


I can see your point but they don´t matter at all. Marciano retired and the then time two best contender fought for the title. Patterson won and became champ.
When Tyson won his belts there was still the real champ around. Unifying only means you are the champ if the champ isn´t around. But he was then.


Fine, ignore the important facts while focussing on a technicality if it makes you happy.

[Loewe]

Uhh, your join date located directly below your avator says July, 2008 does it not? Unless of course you've been posting under a different account.



Fine, ignore the important facts while focussing on a technicality if it makes you happy.

It does. You can´t be the champ as long there is another one around.

[Bokaj]

Tyson deserves to be ranked above Holyfield. While Tysons loss to Douglas obviously hurts him, it's obvious to anyone watching without being biased that the Tyson that fought Buster wasn't the one that fought Berbick and Spinks.

Just as the first round bell rang, the announcers commentated that rumors were Tyson hadn't trained hard for this fight and lost a huge amount of weight shortly before the fight.

No one has said that Tyson was perfectly prepared for that fight. But it's nothing really unusual for a dominating champion to take a journeyman contender lightly. What is unusual is that the champion takes a beating from said journeyman and receives a boxing lesson in the process. There is no way around this.

[Sweet Pea]

Tyson's 1980s title reign was embarassingly ended by a fat, glass-chinned, shaky-hearted journeyman. It doesn't measure up to the best title reigns in history.

On top of that, Holy's title reign was jumpstarted by whupping the very guy that outclassed Tyson.This is a very flawed and biased way of looking at it.

[mr. magoo]

It does. You can´t be the champ as long there is another one around.

Only problem is, that guy wasn't champ...

[Loewe]

Only problem is, that guy wasn't champ...

Sure he was and he even had the title which is worth more than any Alphabet crap.

[Ezzard]

This topic has been done to death, long before your arrival here, and I still say that Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion in the history of the sport.

Patterson won the heavyweight title by winning it in vacant fashion after it's original holder had retired. Technically he did not beat the man either.

As for Tyson, I will not credit him for being the youngest upon his victory over Berbick, but by the time he had unified all three belts after beating Tucker for the IBF, he had my vote, at which point he was still a tad younger than Patterson was when he defeated Archie Moore.

Some will try and argue that Spinks was THE MAN, and Tyson would not gain full recognition until he dispatched him.. I couldn't disagree more. In 1983, Larry Holmes was stripped of the WBC title for failure to face Greg Page. He was then awarded the IBF's newly manufactured title. Spinks defeated him for this belt, then arguably was gifted a win in the rematch. Over the next 2 years, Spinks would dodge every worthy contender and ultimately was stripped of his belt, which Tucker then won. In the meantime Tyson was cleaning up the division of its best fighters, including Tucker..

By the time time Spinks met Tyson in the summer of 1988, his claim to lineal status had been very far removed in my opinion.

Points are valid and worthy of mention but the argument still doesn't stand up.

You either think the titles mean something or they don't... Holmes remaining champ after losing the WBC belt proves they didn't mean anything to boxing people. The IBF was manufactured but so were the other two...

Then Spinks may have won a contentious decision but that was the decision. You may not agree with it but you can't take a guy's title away on the basis of that.

How paterson won it is immaterial. the fact that Tyson was cleaning up the division whilst Spinks waited his payday is unfair in many, many ways, but that's the history of the sport. You can't just make up a new rule and apply it to one man.

Tyson, like Johnson, Liston, Louis, Dempsey was obviously the best fighter in the world before becoming linear champion. They didn't have alphabet belts to contend for though and that's the only difference.

[Ezzard]

No one has said that Tyson was perfectly prepared for that fight. But it's nothing really unusual for a dominating champion to take a journeyman contender lightly. What is unusual is that the champion takes a beating from said journeyman and receives a boxing lesson in the process. There is no way around this.

Agreed... Tyson came back (eventually), looked indestructible again and then lost again.

[mr. magoo]

=Loewe]Sure he was and he even had the title

No he didn't.


Which is worth more than any alpha crap
\

Ahem, and what exactly did Spinks have?
The recently fabricated IBF piece of alpha crap, which was awarded to Holmes after he ducked a mandatory.............
A piece of alpha crap which Spinks should have lost in their rematch...............
A piece of alpha crap that was taken away becuase he wouldn't fight a #1 challenger who Tyson then defeated..............
A piece of alpha crap that Tyson unifed with two other peices of alpha crap that Spinks never held...........

[mr. magoo]

=Ezzard]You either think the titles mean something or they don't... Holmes remaining champ after losing the WBC belt proves they didn't mean anything to boxing people. The IBF was manufactured but so were the other two...


And being stripped of a title for failure to defend it, while another fighter comes along and beats that titlist has no meaning?


Then Spinks may have won a contentious decision but that was the decision. You may not agree with it but you can't take a guy's title away on the basis of that.


No but if we look at everything collectively such as Holmes being stripped, Spinks winning the rematch controversially, Spinks being stripped, and Tyson cleaning out the division of its top talent, it significantly weakens Spink's entitlement as a lineal claimant. you have to put it all together, and not just focus on one technicality.



You can't just make up a new rule and apply it to one man



Precisely where the double standard lies here. Patterson never beat the man, and Tyson did not beat the so called man until a bit later, but Marciano retiring and Spinks dodging contenders were both to no fault of Tyson's or Patterson's, therfore they should be awarded the same courtesy of being called champ...


Tyson, like Johnson, Liston, Louis, Dempsey was obviously the best fighter in the world before becoming linear champion. They didn't have alphabet belts to contend for though and that's the only difference


No its not the only difference. They also didn't have to beat 3 champions in order to become THE MAN... It works both ways..

[Muchmoore]

This topic has been done to death, long before your arrival here, and I still say that Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion in the history of the sport.

Patterson won the heavyweight title by winning it in vacant fashion after it's original holder had retired. Technically he did not beat the man either.

As for Tyson, I will not credit him for being the youngest upon his victory over Berbick, but by the time he had unified all three belts after beating Tucker for the IBF, he had my vote, at which point he was still a tad younger than Patterson was when he defeated Archie Moore.

Some will try and argue that Spinks was THE MAN, and Tyson would not gain full recognition until he dispatched him.. I couldn't disagree more. In 1983, Larry Holmes was stripped of the WBC title for failure to face Greg Page. He was then awarded the IBF's newly manufactured title. Spinks defeated him for this belt, then arguably was gifted a win in the rematch. Over the next 2 years, Spinks would dodge every worthy contender and ultimately was stripped of his belt, which Tucker then won. In the meantime Tyson was cleaning up the division of its best fighters, including Tucker..

By the time time Spinks met Tyson in the summer of 1988, his claim to lineal status had been very far removed in my opinion.

Exactly how I see it too. Spinks was no longer the lineal champion when he fought Tyson and people try to say beating Berbick simply meant he won a meaningless ABC belt. They conveniently overlook the fact that Tyson unified every belt at a younger age than Patterson was when he beat moore

[Loewe]

No he didn't.

\

Ahem, and what exactly did Spinks have?
The recently fabricated IBF piece of alpha crap, which was awarded to Holmes after he ducked a mandatory.............
A piece of alpha crap which Spinks should have lost in their rematch...............
A piece of alpha crap that was taken away becuase he wouldn't fight a #1 challenger who Tyson then defeated..............
A piece of alpha crap that Tyson unifed with two other peices of alpha crap that Spinks never held...........

Spinks beat the man in Holmes. Yeah he should have lost the ramatch but he has not. Therefore he was the man to beat. We could go on like that forever. Does not make any sense, does it?

[Loewe]

And being stripped of a title for failure to defend it, while another fighter comes along and beats that titlist has no meaning?

No it has not because we all know how corrupt the governing bodies are. Or would you rather see Pavlik fight Rubio instead of Abraham who is his real number one challenger?


No its not the only difference. They also didn't have to beat 3 champions in order to become THE MAN... It works both ways..
Beltholders are not champs but top contenders. Those guys also beat the top contenders of their era just like Tyson and it still did not mean that they were the champ.

[Muchmoore]

No one has said that Tyson was perfectly prepared for that fight. But it's nothing really unusual for a dominating champion to take a journeyman contender lightly. What is unusual is that the champion takes a beating from said journeyman and receives a boxing lesson in the process. There is no way around this.

Tyson was even dropped in sparring by Greg Page, he simply wasn't anywhere near the wrecking ball he was a few years prior. The Tyson that fought Holyfield was perhaps even better than the Tokyo version.

And Douglas wasn't an ordinary journeymen, either. He displayed all the attributes of an ATG against Tyson, speed, killer instinct, heart to get up after being dropped. That Douglas perhaps could of dethroned ANY Heavweight Chamions had they not prepared for it enough.

[mr. magoo]

Spinks beat the man in Holmes. Yeah he should have lost the ramatch but he has not. Therefore he was the man to beat. We could go on like that forever. Does not make any sense, does it?

Here's the double standard that you're applying mate:

Patterson won the title in vacant fashion

Tyson won the title(s) from men who were ACTUALLY HOLDING THEM..

Marciano retired, without a single loss, but was still the man

Spinks was STRIPPED of his belt, which means HE IS NO LONGER CHAMP..

How the fuck can someone be stripped of their title and still be the champ? Its like a CEO being fired from his job, then still showing up for work to give people orders.....Doesn't work that way....

[Muchmoore]

Beltholders are not champs but top contenders. Those guys also beat the top contenders of their era just like Tyson and it still did not mean that they were the champ.

You overlook Spinks ditching his belt to avoid real contenders and fighting absolute shells or journeymen for years after beating Holmes.

Had he dropped the belt in order to have a fight with significant meaning because his mandatory was a joke, that's one thing and I'd commend him for it. But he ducked his number one contender, unbeaten Tony Tucker to fight a very, very faded Gerry Cooney and Steffan Tangsted. Not exactly legacy fights and doing that takes away his claim to being champion.

[Bokaj]

Tyson was even dropped in sparring by Greg Page, he simply wasn't anywhere near the wrecking ball he was a few years prior. The Tyson that fought Holyfield was perhaps even better than the Tokyo version.

And Douglas wasn't an ordinary journeymen, either. He displayed all the attributes of an ATG against Tyson, speed, killer instinct, heart to get up after being dropped. That Douglas perhaps could of dethroned ANY Heavweight Chamions had they not prepared for it enough.

Perhaps being the operative word here. The thing is no other ATG has suffered such a embarrasing and one sided loss while still so close to his peak. That's just facts. I'm so tired of people trying to get around this. The loss to Douglas is BAD, saying anything else is just biased BS.

Compare that perfomance to Ali's when he lost to Norton, six years past his prime. Such a comparison really puts Tyson on the map, as does his two losses to Holyfield.

Thing is, more than 10 years after his loss to Douglas he continued to look awesome against decent competition (Golota for example), but when he stepped up he got his ass handed to him.

[Loewe]

You overlook Spinks ditching his belt to avoid real contenders and fighting absolute shells or journeymen for years after beating Holmes.

Had he dropped the belt in order to have a fight with significant meaning because his mandatory was an a, that's one thing and I'd commend him for it. But he ducked his number one contender, unbeaten Tony Tucker to fight a very, very faded Gerry Cooney and Steffan Tangsted. Not exactly legacy fights and doing that takes away his claim to being champion.

I know this but you can´t take the belt away from the man any other way than beating that man inside a ring.

[Loewe]

Here's the double standard that you're applying mate:

Patterson won the title in vacant fashion

Tyson won the title(s) from men who were ACTUALLY HOLDING THEM..

Marciano retired, without a single loss, but was still the man

Spinks was STRIPPED of his belt, which means HE IS NO LONGER CHAMP..

How the fuck can someone be stripped of their title and still be the champ? Its like a CEO being fired from his job, then still showing up for work to give people orders.....Doesn't work that way....

This is not a double standard. It is common since over hundred years that the two top contenders fight for the belt when the champ retires undefeated. The winner is the new champ.
Spinks was stripped of the Alphabet title but you can´t strip the man of the linear one.

[mr. magoo]

Spinks was stripped of the Alphabet title but you can´t strip the man of the linear one.

I seem to remember that a lot of folks did...

[Muchmoore]

Perhaps being the operative word here. The thing is no other ATG has suffered such a embarrasing and one sided loss while still so close to his peak. That's just facts. I'm so tired of people trying to get around this. The loss to Douglas is BAD, saying anything else is just biased BS.

Compare that perfomance to Ali's when he lost to Norton, six years past his prime. Such a comparison really puts Tyson on the map, as does his two losses to Holyfield.

Thing is, more than 10 years after his loss to Douglas he continued to look awesome against decent competition (Golota for example), but when he stepped up he got his ass handed to him.

Tyson dropped and nearly took out Douglas in the 8th round. Had that uppercut landed in the beginning or middle of the round rather than shortly before the bell, he would of won. The fight wasn't as onesided as you say.

Longevity wise, i'm not arguing Tyson belongs above Holyfield or even near the ATGs. But what he accomplished in his short 4 year prime and the way he systematically took apart everyone put in front of him is incredible. There's no denying Douglas was great that night, either, and I can think of several more embarrassing and onesided losses ATGS suffered than Tyson against Douglas. Frazier being dominated and taken out in 2 rounds by Foreman, Patterson getting iced in a single round by Liston, TWICE are examples of ATGs fairly near their prime getting starched in a more onsided manner than Tyson vs. Douglas in which he nearly won.

[Muchmoore]

I know this but you can´t take the belt away from the man any other way than beating that man inside a ring.

You can if he drops his only belt, and avoids anything close to a challenge for years.

[mr. magoo]

You overlook Spinks ditching his belt to avoid real contenders and fighting absolute shells or journeymen for years after beating Holmes.

Had he dropped the belt in order to have a fight with significant meaning because his mandatory was an a, that's one thing and I'd commend him for it. But he ducked his number one contender, unbeaten Tony Tucker to fight a very, very faded Gerry Cooney and Steffan Tangsted. Not exactly legacy fights and doing that takes away his claim to being champion.

Exactly, Spinks passed up Tucker because the Cooney fight was a bigger payday. So are we now to assume that a champion reserves the right to duck his mandatories where it conveiniences him while still enjoying the privelage of being called " The champ " ? The answer is no. You either fight the top challengers, or give up your status as champion to go after different opponents, but you can't have it both ways....

[Loewe]

I seem to remember that a lot of folks did...

Who?

[Bokaj]

Tyson dropped and nearly took out Douglas in the 8th round. Had that uppercut landed in the beginning or middle of the round rather than shortly before the bell, he would of won. The fight wasn't as onesided as you say.

Longevity wise, i'm not arguing Tyson belongs above Holyfield or even near the ATGs. But what he accomplished in his short 4 year prime and the way he systematically took apart everyone put in front of him is incredible. There's no denying Douglas was great that night, either, and I can think of several more embarrassing and onesided losses ATGS suffered than Tyson against Douglas. Frazier being dominated and taken out in 2 rounds by Foreman, Patterson getting iced in a single round by Liston, TWICE are examples of ATGs fairly near their prime getting starched in a more onsided manner than Tyson vs. Douglas in which he nearly won.

I don't consider Patterson an ATG, not on that level at least. As with Frazier... it was a bad loss, but he was further removed from his peak than Tyson and met Foreman, not Douglas.

I'm not saying that Tyson didn't have some very great wins in his prime, I just don't like the way people wants to sweep the loss to Douglas under the carpet with weak excuses just because it takes away from the image of unstoppable Tyson.

Thing is Tyson wasn't at all in bad shape. Just the fact that he could floor Douglas after taking a beating for 8 rounds testifies to this. Sure he wasn't in peak shape, but he wasn't overweight and didn't look slow and didn't tire quickly. He looked a lot less effective getting off than usual, but this had probably more to with Douglas having the measure of him than him being out of shape.

[mr. magoo]

=SuzieQ49]I believe people are selling tyson far short here. h2h i dont see how holyfield beats mike tyson, his style plays right into tysons hands.


How so? Holyfield typically struggled with fighters who were generally much bigger in size, and could incoporate a lengthy jab, as opposed to ones that he had height advantages over. Additionally, he would have always had the upper body strength combined with the inside technique to tie Tyson up and neutralize his attacks as he was coming. Not to mention having the chin, heart and endurance, which by the way would have been even more prevalant in 1989.




there 1996 matchup was worthless, tyson was 4 years rusted out of the ring, and was a shell of the fighter he once been when he came back.



Let's review some facts here:

1. Holyfield was 34 years old, while Tyson was 30.

2. Tyson had fought and won 4 matches in the 15 months leading up to that fight, whereas Holyfield had fought 4 times in the previous 3 years, which included two losses, and wins over a shot Bobby Cyz and Ray Mercer..

3. Tyson was a heavy hitter, which ordinarily outlasts the virtues of endurance and workrate as old age sets in.

4. Holyfield had multiple health issues that came and went during the mid 90's, some of which ultimately led to him taking over a year off from the sport..

You can make what you will of Tyson's 4 year layoff, but frankly I think you're blowing it up into something that it isn't while ignoring the other half of the truth, which I just provided. And by the way , those matches were not "worthless". They were very good performances by the real deal, and ones that he derserves full credit for..


sure tyson lost to douglas, but holyfield lost to MICHAEL MOORER who is nowhere near as good as that version of buster douglas.



Holyfield was fighting with a bum shoulder and managed to put up a better fight against a 34-0 professional in his prime, while Tyson got beaten to a pulp by a fighter who he was a 42-1 favorite to beat. And sorry, but I think its debatable as to weather or not Moorer was " nowhere near as good as the Douglas who fought Tyson"


People have still yet to name a time where holyfield showed consistency and dominance against TOP opposition that comes close to comparing to tysons 1980s title reign.


Can you name a time when Tyson showed consistency in taking on Challengers of Riddick Bowe's, Michael Moorer's, or even Goerge Foreman's calibur? Hell, even the version of Holmes whom Holy beat was better than the one Tyson fought, given that he was launching an honest to god comeback and fighting decent opponents, rather than winging a half ass effort to come out of retirement. Sorry but having a list full of named opponents, many of whom were either not very active, out of shape, on drugs, past prime, or not very good to begin with doesn't cut it..

[mr. magoo]

Who?

Practically 90% of the fans that I knew or heard over the radio who felt that Tyson was going to absolutely cream the shit out of Spinks...

Of course, the Ring magazine still considered Spinks the champion, but frankly a publication does not have the final say in anything. It's the people who decide who's king, and most fans nor even experts did not consider Spinks as the lineal champ..

[ChrisPontius]

How so? Holyfield typically struggled with fighters who were generally much bigger in size, and could incoporate a lengthy jab, as opposed to ones that he had height advantages over. Additionally, he would have always had the upper body strength combined with the inside technique to tie Tyson up and neutralize his attacks as he was coming. Not to mention having the chin, heart and endurance, which by the way would have been even more prevalant in 1989.






Let's review some facts here:

1. Holyfield was 34 years old, while Tyson was 30.

2. Tyson had fought and won 4 matches in the 15 months leading up to that fight, whereas Holyfield had fought 4 times in the previous 3 years, which included two losses, and wins over a shot Bobby Cyz and Ray Mercer..

3. Tyson was a heavy hitter, which ordinarily outlasts the virtues of endurance and workrate as old age sets in.

4. Holyfield had multiple health issues that came and went during the mid 90's, some of which ultimately led to him taking over a year off from the sport..

You can make what you will of Tyson's 4 year layoff, but frankly I think you're blowing it up into something that it isn't while ignoring the other half of the truth, which I just provided. And by the way , those matches were not "worthless". They were very good performances by the real deal, and ones that he derserves full credit for..



Holyfield was fighting with a bum shoulder and managed to put up a better fight against a 34-0 professional in his prime, while Tyson got beaten to a pulp by a fighter who he was a 42-1 favorite to beat. And sorry, but I think its debatable as to weather or not Moorer was " nowhere near as good as the Douglas who fought Tyson"



Can you name a time when Tyson showed consistency in taking on Challengers of Riddick Bowe's, Michael Moorer's, or even Goerge Foreman's calibur? Hell, even the version of Holmes whom Holy beat was better than the one Tyson fought, given that he was launching an honest to god comeback and fighting decent opponents, rather than winging a half ass effort to come out of retirement. Sorry but having a list full of named opponents, many of whom were either not very active, out of shape, on drugs, past prime, or not very good to begin with doesn't cut it..

I second this. Holyfield was considered old and washed up, not Tyson. I thought the three round destruction of Bruno in '96 was one of Tyson's best performances, ever. Obviously Mike had lost a step, but he was still a huge puncher with enormous speed and athletic ability. And the truth is, after the 5th round, his head movement always declined, also during his prime against Tucker and Smith for instance.

[Arka]

Tyson was a great finisher. His opponents, outside of Bruno and Spinks and an old Holmes, were nobodies by and large. Average heavyweights at best, when comparing them to former/future contenders in other eras. I mean who the hell of the other heavyweight champions outside of Tyson couldnt beat someone like Bonecrusher Smith or Tyrell Biggs or fat ass Tony Tubbs?
You do realise that Bonecrusher Smith KO'd Bruno? Bruno ,at any stage in his career,was not that much better than the fighters you chose to consider his inferior.You also failed to mention Tony Tucker.He was pretty solid heavyweight,in his time.


Hell, even the version of Holmes whom Holy beat was better than the one Tyson fought, given that he was launching an honest to god comeback and fighting decent opponents, rather than winging a half ass effort to come out of retirement.
Apart from that , in what way was the 38 year old Holmes BETTER than the 42 year old Holmes ? What are you seeing here?
It's not like he went down easily.It took an unbelievable one-two by Tyson,to take Holmes off his feet and set up the beginning of the end.The first left knocked away the left hand of Larry,protecting his jawline,and the overhand right followed immediately on the exposed target.



Anyway,I think that Tyson would have to get in and get out with his combinations with infighters like Marciano,Frazier and Holyfield.His peekaboo square-on style meant that he would get less leverage and torque into his punches.The compactness of the punching and defensive skills of the above mentioned fighters would have him in trouble,if he chose to linger on the inside.

[mr. magoo]

=Arka]You do realise that Bonecrusher Smith KO'd Bruno? Bruno ,at any stage in his career,was not that much better than the fighters you chose to consider his inferior.You also failed to mention Tony Tucker.He was pretty solid heavyweight,in his time.



Tucker and Smith were decent heavyweights, but let's not get carried away here. Between 1984 -1987, Smith had recently lost to most of the better top raters, and hadn't done much to compensate for it. The Bruno victory came 3 years prior to the Tyson fight, when both men were still green, and Smith was getting his ass handed to him before stopping him late. The Witherspoon fight was a fix. Tucker was a good fighter who I respected, but his record was way too padded to give much merit to his being 35-0, plus he fought Tyson with an injured hand besides..



Apart from that , in what way was the 38 year old Holmes BETTER than the 42 year old Holmes ? What are you seeing here?
It's not like he went down easily.It took an unbelievable one-two by Tyson,to take Holmes off his feet and set up the beginning of the end.The first left knocked away the left hand of Larry,protecting his jawline,and the overhand right followed immediately on the exposed target.



"Apart from that?" Holmes came out of retirement after 2 years without a single match, and coming off of two losses, albeit he arguably won his rematch with Spinks.. Nevertheless, he was visibly deconditioned, tired quickley and had dull reflexes... Upon his return in 1991, he began by fighting Journeyman in Doc Anderson, Mike Greer, and Gonzales..THEN he fought a top rater in Mercer and beat him..THEN he challenged Holy for the title.. Holmes was considerably better at 42 than he was at 38.. The regular activity along with the ernest and diligent effort at launching an ORGANIZED comeback made all the difference in the world as it would for just about any fighter.

Anyway,I think that Tyson would have to get in and get out with his combinations with infighters like Marciano,Frazier and Holyfield.His peekaboo square-on style meant that he would get less leverage and torque into his punches.The compactness of the punching and defensive skills of the above mentioned fighters would have him in trouble,if he chose to linger on the inside.[/quote]

[mr. magoo]

I second this. Holyfield was considered old and washed up, not Tyson. I thought the three round destruction of Bruno in '96 was one of Tyson's best performances, ever. Obviously Mike had lost a step, but he was still a huge puncher with enormous speed and athletic ability. And the truth is, after the 5th round, his head movement always declined, also during his prime against Tucker and Smith for instance.

I really don't see the rationale in the assumption that a peak Tyson would necessarily beat a peak Holyfield. Evander was an extremely well conditioned fighter with good infighting skills, a solid chin, a huge heart and wasn't intimidated by anybody. This is the wrong type of fighter for any version of Tyson to be facing. As already mentioned, Holyfield was arguably FURTHER past his prime than Tyson was when they actually met, and he thoroughly dominated that fight.. I mean, how many rounds did you give Tyson in the first match? How many rounds did you see Tyson winning in the second fight, prior to the desperate ear biting incident??

Now I have Tyson rated a bit higher than Holyfield from a legacy standpoint, but head to head, Evander will always be Tyson's kryptonite.

[Arka]

[quote=mr. magoo]

"Apart from that?" Holmes came out of retirement after 2 years without a single match, and coming off of two losses, albeit he arguably won his rematch with Spinks.. Nevertheless, he was visibly deconditioned, tired quickley and had dull reflexes... Upon his return in 1991, he began by fighting Journeyman in Doc Anderson, Mike Greer, and Gonzales..THEN he fought a top rater in Mercer and beat him..THEN he challenged Holy for the title.. Holmes was considerably better at 42 than he was at 38.. The regular activity along with the ernest and diligent effort at launching an ORGANIZED comeback made all the difference in the world as it would for just about any fighter.
I just checked out Holyfield-Holmes on youtube.Larry looks slower and more lethargic than against Tyson.He's not on his toes but lying on the ropes,conserving enegry,trying to set traps for Holyfield.Holyfield was catching Homles with overhand rights,but lacked the power in that punch to truly hurt him.I think he could come in in better condition against Tyson given a few tune up fights,but as to whether he was better against Holyfield,let us agree to disagree

[rekcutnevets]

Originally posted by Arka
I just checked out Holyfield-Holmes on youtube.Larry looks slower and more lethargic than against Tyson.He's not on his toes but lying on the ropes,conserving enegry,trying to set traps for Holyfield.Holyfield was catching Homles with overhand rights,but lacked the power in that punch to truly hurt him.I think he could come in in better condition against Tyson given a few tune up fights,but as to whether he was better against Holyfield,let us agree to disagree
I agree totally. This is a point that I've tried to make in the past. At 37, Holmes was better than he was at 42. Holmes did not look like a bad fighter when he lost to Tyson. Holmes looked like a really good fighter getting blasted.

I am not trying to say Holmes was in his prime versus Tyson. I will say that Evander Holyfield is lucky that Holmes was 42 when they met. I think I scored their fight 7 rounds to 5 in favor of Evander. I think that Holyfield would have had much more trouble with the Holmes Tyson faced.

[punchy]

To be honest Punchy, I have never thought of the headbutts as accidental. They played a major role in the first fight too, and several opponents have complained of Holyfield's use of his noggin. One even labeled it his best punch.
Not to say Mike was an angel...hardly. He butted himself, threw low blows, elbows, punched after the bell...he was dirty too. But Evander was just as dirty, but in a more subtle way.

I agree I doubt the butts were accidental and Holyfield is known for this and as a dirty fighter as is Tyson.

[Muchmoore]

I really don't see the rationale in the assumption that a peak Tyson would necessarily beat a peak Holyfield. Evander was an extremely well conditioned fighter with good infighting skills, a solid chin, a huge heart and wasn't intimidated by anybody. This is the wrong type of fighter for any version of Tyson to be facing. As already mentioned, Holyfield was arguably FURTHER past his prime than Tyson was when they actually met, and he thoroughly dominated that fight.. I mean, how many rounds did you give Tyson in the first match? How many rounds did you see Tyson winning in the second fight, prior to the desperate ear biting incident??

Now I have Tyson rated a bit higher than Holyfield from a legacy standpoint, but head to head, Evander will always be Tyson's kryptonite.

You make good points, we share the same opinion that Holyfield is all wrong for Tyson. I do, however think a peak Tyson edges prime Evander, due to the fact that Tyson wouldn't tire as bad as the one in the mid 90s and he'd be mentally tougher, capable of a sustained attack. I personally felt Tyson was slightly ahead after about 5 in Holyfield 1, before he fizzled out. Prime Tyson, while not possessing Marciano like stamina had capable stamina for a puncher.

But I don't have majorquarrels with people such as yourself in picking Evander, he did after all beat him and stylewise his toughness, heart, chin would always present a giant obstacle to climb. But another thing to factor in is how would they perform against other ATGs. Foreman battered Smokin Joe but many people rank Frazier above him, due to it being a stylistic mismatch and the fact Frazier would do better against other greats, such as Ali. Just throwing that out there.

[punchy]

Perhaps being the operative word here. The thing is no other ATG has suffered such a embarrasing and one sided loss while still so close to his peak. That's just facts. I'm so tired of people trying to get around this. The loss to Douglas is BAD, saying anything else is just biased BS.

Compare that perfomance to Ali's when he lost to Norton, six years past his prime. Such a comparison really puts Tyson on the map, as does his two losses to Holyfield.

Thing is, more than 10 years after his loss to Douglas he continued to look awesome against decent competition (Golota for example), but when he stepped up he got his ass handed to him.

Louis's loss to Schmelling I think was as bad if not worse than Tyson's loss, then Frazier's loss to Foreman, Foreman's loss to Ali, Wlad's loss to Sanders, Lewis's two losses, the list goes on a loss never looks good and they can happen to the best of fighters.

[Muchmoore]

I agree totally. This is a point that I've tried to make in the past. At 37, Holmes was better than he was at 42. Holmes did not look like a bad fighter when he lost to Tyson. Holmes looked like a really good fighter getting blasted.

I am not trying to say Holmes was in his prime versus Tyson. I will say that Evander Holyfield is lucky that Holmes was 42 when they met. I think I scored their fight 7 rounds to 5 in favor of Evander. I think that Holyfield would have had much more trouble with the Holmes Tyson faced.

I agree. Tune up fights are obviously important but it's not the be all end all of being successful. Being 4 years older plays just as much a role in a fighters decline and possibly more.

[punchy]

I seem to remember that a lot of folks did...

In my book if Spinks didn't put his hand up to fight Tyson then he didn't deserve the lineal title, to keep such a title the man had to fight not duck.

[mr. magoo]

You make good points, we share the same opinion that Holyfield is all wrong for Tyson. I do, however think a peak Tyson edges prime Evander, due to the fact that Tyson wouldn't tire as bad as the one in the mid 90s and he'd be mentally tougher, capable of a sustained attack. I personally felt Tyson was slightly ahead after about 5 in Holyfield 1, before he fizzled out. Prime Tyson, while not possessing Marciano like stamina had capable stamina for a puncher.

But I don't have majorquarrels with people such as yourself in picking Evander, he did after all beat him and stylewise his toughness, heart, chin would always present a giant obstacle to climb. But another thing to factor in is how would they perform against other ATGs. Foreman battered Smokin Joe but many people rank Frazier above him, due to it being a stylistic mismatch and the fact Frazier would do better against other greats, such as Ali. Just throwing that out there.

A very reasonable position on your part..

As for how Holyfield and Tyson would size up to other all time greats, Well its difficult to say. Frankly, I think a 1970's George Foreman would have a better chance at beating Tyson than he would beating Holyfield. I realize that a 43 year old Foreman took Holy the distance, but he had a greatly improved defense along with the ability to pace himself. A 1973 Foreman had the tendency to attack fast and furious early. I don't see him outpointing Evander, nor even stopping him late. The only way he wins that fight is to take him out early, and that just ain't going to happen. I don't see any all time great stopping a peak Holy before the latter half of a fight. As for Tyson however, George had the style that made him a destroyer of swarmers. Cus D'Amato himself once said that no swarmer would ever beat Foreman, and I think he knew that included his protege......

[mr. magoo]

Not even close, Tyson was nothing he lost to almost every good fighter he faced. Tyson is not even top 25, Holy is top15.

Ouch!!!

[mr. magoo]

In my book if Spinks didn't put his hand up to fight Tyson then he didn't deserve the lineal title, to keep such a title the man had to fight not duck.

Agreed..

If a champion passes up mandatories to take bigger paying fights, such as in the case of Spinks denying Tucker a shot, then fighting Cooney for more $$$, then he deserves to be stripped of BOTH his belt and the lineal status that goes with it... You can't just deny mandatory contenders their right at a title shot when it conveiniences you, then retain the bragging rights of being the best in the world...It's a hollow concept and a gross double standard..

[ironchamp]

Perhaps being the operative word here. The thing is no other ATG has suffered such a embarrasing and one sided loss while still so close to his peak. That's just facts. I'm so tired of people trying to get around this. The loss to Douglas is BAD, saying anything else is just biased BS.

Compare that perfomance to Ali's when he lost to Norton, six years past his prime. Such a comparison really puts Tyson on the map, as does his two losses to Holyfield.

Thing is, more than 10 years after his loss to Douglas he continued to look awesome against decent competition (Golota for example), but when he stepped up he got his ass handed to him.

Patterson lost twice to Liston in an embarrasing 1 sided loss.
So did Frazier against Foreman.
Lewis against McCall/Rahman
Trinidad against Hopkins
Mosely against Forrest



But Tyson can be rated above Holyfield using objective criteria.

If you value dominance, quality of opposition and ability as a fighter then Mike gets the edge.

Holyfield has the feel good come from behind type of wins. His single victories are better than Tyson's single victories but Tyson's overall body of work is more impressive - if we are talking about Holy's tenure at HW.

p4p you could argue it for Evander.

[ironchamp]

Not even close, Tyson was nothing he lost to almost every good fighter he faced. Tyson is not even top 25, Holy is top15.

Thats a bit outta line...

Even if you don't like Mike Tyson, top 25 is way off the mark.

You simply cannot list 25 names that rank above Tyson in the HW division. You can't even list 20 without aggrandizing fighters. Even 15 would get difficult.

Come up with an objective criteria- not one that changes to suit your argument but an objective criteria and you'll have hard time putting Tyson that low on the list.

[fists of fury]

I'm just having a laugh at people trying to deny Tyson's right to be called the youngest heavyweight champion in history. What a load of rubbish.

[JohnThomas1]

Louis's loss to Schmelling I think was as bad if not worse than Tyson's loss, then Frazier's loss to Foreman, Foreman's loss to Ali, Wlad's loss to Sanders, Lewis's two losses, the list goes on a loss never looks good and they can happen to the best of fighters.

Louis' loss to Max was not as bad as Tyson's, Louis was still an improving fighter and the loss actually helped him with some technical shortcomings among other things. He got a whole lot better, and extracted one of the most brutal revenges one will ever see. Tyson in retrospect was peak, or more fairly already dropping. Needless to say critics have room to really go at him on this one. The Louis loss IMO is no big mark against him whatsoever. Frazier and Foreman's losses were to fighters that were or were to be ATG's. Douglas never did a thing thereafter and not much at all prior either. Lewis set the record straight on his two losses thankfully for himself and his legend. Wlad has a couple of shockers, but has done a lot since.

I'm a Tyson fan Punchy, and have been seen to argue heatedly in favour of him already being on the mental downslide and FAR from his best vs Buster, but this loss is still worse than almost all those above.

[Arka]

I love Mike, he was a blast to watch. But he never beat any great fighters, he fought soft easy fights to get the tiitle is a very soft era and then when the comp started to get good he folded. Top 25 is a gift IIMO.

Haha.Fair enough.Though when you say you love Mike, I take it as being more in the way of a metaphorical pat on the head,rather than a genuine expression of warmth towards the man. :D

[fists of fury]

I love Mike, he was a blast to watch. But he never beat any great fighters, he fought soft easy fights to get the tiitle is a very soft era and then when the comp started to get good he folded. Top 25 is a gift IIMO.

Name 25 more deserving fighters.

[Ezzard]

And being stripped of a title for failure to defend it, while another fighter comes along and beats that titlist has no meaning?

Not if you believe that the titles are manufactured as we already established. Everyone wanted to beat Larry Holmes. All the paper titlists would have crawled over hot coals to fight Holmes for a belt or no belt. That tells you everything you need to know.




No but if we look at everything collectively such as Holmes being stripped, Spinks winning the rematch controversially, Spinks being stripped, and Tyson cleaning out the division of its top talent, it significantly weakens Spink's entitlement as a lineal claimant. you have to put it all together, and not just focus on one technicality.

No it doesn't. You either accept that he was the man who beat Holmes or you accept that the alphabet families actuallt mean something. If you put it altogether then what you are essentially saying is that at some point the man who seems to be the best is the best. Great until he doesn't do so well in his next fight then do we go back to Spinks or Holmes or Witherspoon. It's hardly a perfect system but it's better that what ammounts to a popularity contest.


Precisely where the double standard lies here. Patterson never beat the man, and Tyson did not beat the so called man until a bit later, but Marciano retiring and Spinks dodging contenders were both to no fault of Tyson's or Patterson's, therfore they should be awarded the same courtesy of being called champ...

But Spinks didn't retire? And paterson when on to dodge many contenders. So when was Liston champ? Because beating Williams was a lot more impressive than Paterson's reign. Wills was the best HW in the world for a time when did his reign begin and end? What about Peter Jackson. For a while in the 1990s there were 3 or 4 guys who might have been the best in the world, were they all champs?

The only double standard is contained within yoru argument.

When the HW champ retires the sport goes down. So it's best that a new champ is found quickly. the best thing to do is establish someone quickly and get them fighting the best out there.



No its not the only difference. They also didn't have to beat 3 champions in order to become THE MAN... It works both ways..

But we've already seen that the belts were not making anyone champion. These guys held belts but nobody seriously thought of Dokes, Tate, Weaver, Thomas, Page, Tubbs etc as the world champion. Tyson didn't have to beat 3 paper champs to be the man he ahd to beat Spinks. And that was just the same for Jim Corbett as it was for Tyson.

At the crux of your argument is the idea that somehow it's unfair. I agree with you, it is... But that's a totally different thread.

[fists of fury]

Louis' loss to Max was not as bad as Tyson's, Louis was still an improving fighter and the loss actually helped him with some technical shortcomings among other things. He got a whole lot better, and extracted one of the most brutal revenges one will ever see. Tyson in retrospect was peak, or more fairly already dropping. Needless to say critics have room to really go at him on this one. The Louis loss IMO is no big mark against him whatsoever. Frazier and Foreman's losses were to fighters that were or were to be ATG's. Douglas never did a thing thereafter and not much at all prior either. Lewis set the record straight on his two losses thankfully for himself and his legend. Wlad has a couple of shockers, but has done a lot since.

I'm a Tyson fan Punchy, and have been seen to argue heatedly in favour of him already being on the mental downslide and FAR from his best vs Buster, but this loss is still worse than almost all those above.

I agree with the general sentiment of your post John, but there's a few things I want to point out:

1) When Louis lost to Schmeling, he was already being talked about as the future champion. Harlemites and the Black Bottom section of Detroit were very confident of victory for Joe, and when he lost full-scale riots broke out. The loss came as a complete shock to pretty much everyone.
The fight itself was not very competitive, Louis did well for about three rounds but then Max took over. Louis himself admitted he was fighting on pure instinct from the 6th round onwards, remembering nothing of the fight. I don't know what the official scoring was up to the time of the knockout, but I'd imagine Max to be well ahead at that point.

2) In the rematch Joe proved his superiority, but I've always found it strange how few have ever pointed out the harsh conditions Max fought under in that fight.
For one, the crowd was incredibly hostile and belted him with debris all the way to the ring and even in the ring itself. There were anti-Nazi demonstrations going on outside the stadium and elsewhere in the country.
Moreover, Max was the whipping boy for the Nazis. Imagine the pressure they put him under to win the rematch. Also, his wife was virtually kept hostage for the fight back in Germany to ensure Max's return.
How in the hell can anyone fight well with that sort of rubbish going on? It would be impossible. Imagine the roles were reversed and Louis found himself in Nazi Gemrany in the rematch.
I'm not taking anything away from Louis, don't misunderstand me. He was a machine that night, but Max I believe lost the fight long before setting foot in the ring.

3) True, Douglas didn't do anything of note prior or subsequent to Tokyo, but for that one night he was fantastic. It was literally one of those 'lightning in a bottle' moments. I wonder if he had turned up for the Holyfield match in the same shape and mindset he was in for Tokyo, whether Evander would have beaten him.
Despite the hammering he took, Tyson did almost still win the fight. Meyran did blunder the count, although Buster had every right to listen to the ref's count, not the timekeeper's.

4) We may accept the Frazier blowout by Foreman with little thought today, but at the time it was still a huge shock. Some say Joe was sliding badly...maybe he was, I don't know. In any event, this was still the undefeated champion of the world, conqueror of Muhammad Ali. To be absolutely annihiltated like that with such contemptuous ease is nothing short of shocking, regardless of the quality of the opponent.

Let's be frank. It is as one-sided a fight as we'll ever see, as one-sided as Louis' win over Schmeling, or Dempsey's mauling of Willard. Perhaps evem more so. Should Joe have done at least a little better? Yes, I think so.

5) Wlad has come back since the losses, but it doesn't really excuse the fact that they happened either. Since his last loss, the only punchers he's faced has been Peter and Brewster and the quality of his championship opponents has been dire, Calvin Brock being an exception.
I can't say he's exactly been pushed hard.

I'm not excusing the Tokyo loss by the way. Tyson suffered a humiliating defeat (made all the worse by Doulgas doing zilch subsequantly) when physically at least he was still the same guy that beat Spinks. There really is no excuse.
He should have at least given Douglas a life and death fight before capitulating, but didn't.

[Bokaj]

Patterson lost twice to Liston in an embarrasing 1 sided loss.
So did Frazier against Foreman.
Lewis against McCall/Rahman
Trinidad against Hopkins
Mosely against Forrest

Lewis was ko'd, but he wasn't outclassed. He also avenged those losses emphatically. Frazier's loss to Foreman is definitely comparable, though. But that loss makes everyone hesitate to pick Frazier against punchers, if we draw the same conclusions from the loss to Douglas...

As for Trinidad and Hopkins - I was talking about HWs, since it's HW-rankings we're discussing after all.


But Tyson can be rated above Holyfield using objective criteria.

If you value dominance, quality of opposition and ability as a fighter then Mike gets the edge.

Holyfield has the feel good come from behind type of wins. His single victories are better than Tyson's single victories but Tyson's overall body of work is more impressive - if we are talking about Holy's tenure at HW.

p4p you could argue it for Evander.

This I can agree with. To answer the thread, I think it's entirely plausible to have Tyson ahead of Holy at HW. The strongest argument for Holyfield is that he beat Tyson convincingly two times. But Holyfield never annihilated fighters of the quality of Spinks or Holmes. He almost always gave good, game perfomances, but there were few master classes, at least at HW.

[Bokaj]

I agree with the general sentiment of your post John, but there's a few things I want to point out:

1) When Louis lost to Schmeling, he was already being talked about as the future champion. Harlemites and the Black Bottom section of Detroit were very confident of victory for Joe, and when he lost full-scale riots broke out. The loss came as a complete shock to pretty much everyone.
The fight itself was not very competitive, Louis did well for about three rounds but then Max took over. Louis himself admitted he was fighting on pure instinct from the 6th round onwards, remembering nothing of the fight. I don't know what the official scoring was up to the time of the knockout, but I'd imagine Max to be well ahead at that point.

2) In the rematch Joe proved his superiority, but I've always found it strange how few have ever pointed out the harsh conditions Max fought under in that fight.
For one, the crowd was incredibly hostile and belted him with debris all the way to the ring and even in the ring itself. There were anti-Nazi demonstrations going on outside the stadium and elsewhere in the country.
Moreover, Max was the whipping boy for the Nazis. Imagine the pressure they put him under to win the rematch. Also, his wife was virtually kept hostage for the fight back in Germany to ensure Max's return.
How in the hell can anyone fight well with that sort of rubbish going on? It would be impossible. Imagine the roles were reversed and Louis found himself in Nazi Gemrany in the rematch.
I'm not taking anything away from Louis, don't misunderstand me. He was a machine that night, but Max I believe lost the fight long before setting foot in the ring.

3) True, Douglas didn't do anything of note prior or subsequent to Tokyo, but for that one night he was fantastic. It was literally one of those 'lightning in a bottle' moments. I wonder if he had turned up for the Holyfield match in the same shape and mindset he was in for Tokyo, whether Evander would have beaten him.
Despite the hammering he took, Tyson did almost still win the fight. Meyran did blunder the count, although Buster had every right to listen to the ref's count, not the timekeeper's.

4) We may accept the Frazier blowout by Foreman with little thought today, but at the time it was still a huge shock. Some say Joe was sliding badly...maybe he was, I don't know. In any event, this was still the undefeated champion of the world, conqueror of Muhammad Ali. To be absolutely annihiltated like that with such contemptuous ease is nothing short of shocking, regardless of the quality of the opponent.

Let's be frank. It is as one-sided a fight as we'll ever see, as one-sided as Louis' win over Schmeling, or Dempsey's mauling of Willard. Perhaps evem more so. Should Joe have done at least a little better? Yes, I think so.

5) Wlad has come back since the losses, but it doesn't really excuse the fact that they happened either. Since his last loss, the only punchers he's faced has been Peter and Brewster and the quality of his championship opponents has been dire, Calvin Brock being an exception.
I can't say he's exactly been pushed hard.

I'm not excusing the Tokyo loss by the way. Tyson suffered a humiliating defeat (made all the worse by Doulgas doing zilch subsequantly) when physically at least he was still the same guy that beat Spinks. There really is no excuse.
He should have at least given Douglas a life and death fight before capitulating, but didn't.

Very good post.

[Mendoza]

I believe people are selling tyson far short here. h2h i dont see how holyfield beats mike tyson, his style plays right into tysons hands. there 1996 matchup was worthless, tyson was 4 years rusted out of the ring, and was a shell of the fighter he once been when he came back.

sure tyson lost to douglas, but holyfield lost to MICHAEL MOORER who is nowhere near as good as that version of buster douglas.

People have still yet to name a time where holyfield showed consistency and dominance against TOP opposition that comes close to comparing to tysons 1980s title reign.

Hold on. Tyson was 30 years old for the match, and had 4 warm up fights. He looked very good in the 4 matches before. No one saw any signs of him being shot.

In truth, Holyfield had the right stuff to beat Tyson. The fight result was no fluke. Holy was not intimidated, had superior out fighting skills, and could counter punch. Tyson was not the type to fight past adversity; he was always a front-runner.

Maybe Tyson could have done better in the scheduled 1991 fight, but he pulled out with a cracked rib.

[Loewe]

Louis's loss to Schmelling I think was as bad if not worse than Tyson's loss, then Frazier's loss to Foreman, Foreman's loss to Ali, Wlad's loss to Sanders, Lewis's two losses, the list goes on a loss never looks good and they can happen to the best of fighters.
The highlighted ones weren´t against mere fringe contender/gate keepers but to atgs and with the exception of Sanders those guys were ranked and top contenders.

[Ezzard]

How you deal with the loss is the difference. If losing makes you a better fighter then all the better. I think an unbeaten record can mask a fragile ego.

Other than Marciano all of the other top tier greats got their careers back on the rails. And to be fair so did Tyson eventually after Douglas. But Douglas, no matter what is said, was never a great fighter.

[ChrisPontius]

Maybe Tyson could have done better in the scheduled 1991 fight, but he pulled out with a cracked rib.

I actually think Tyson looked no better against Ruddock than he did in 96. For most part, he was already looking to land single bombs by then.

Holyfield however, seemed to have some less power (he needed tons to put away Thomas and Dokes, couldn't dent Foreman and Holmes), though his workrate was much higher. Plus he still had that minority complex where he felt he had to slug it out to prove he was a real heavyweight back then. In '96, he had great self control and stuck to his gameplan at all time, even when he was rocked by the very first right hand Tyson threw.

That said, Holyfield would give Tyson hell, and then some, at any stage of their careers. I'll tell you one thing, though. Douglas was a stay-busy fight until Holyfield right after, and if he'd KO'd Douglas like he was supposed to or had not taken that fight, his legacy would've been a lot better.

[JohnThomas1]

1) When Louis lost to Schmeling, he was already being talked about as the future champion. Harlemites and the Black Bottom section of Detroit were very confident of victory for Joe, and when he lost full-scale riots broke out. The loss came as a complete shock to pretty much everyone.
The fight itself was not very competitive, Louis did well for about three rounds but then Max took over. Louis himself admitted he was fighting on pure instinct from the 6th round onwards, remembering nothing of the fight. I don't know what the official scoring was up to the time of the knockout, but I'd imagine Max to be well ahead at that point.


Excellent insights and additions for sure. Even so the loss is a lot less telling than Tyson's as Louis really did improve substancially. Tyson by contrast was also dominated excepting one very short period, but was thought to be at or even a teeny bit shy of his supposed peak.

Personally, again, i give more latitude to Tyson for this loss than many others as i really do believe he was running at a very reduced capacity. Of course this was the fault of his own makeup and weakness.

2) In the rematch Joe proved his superiority, but I've always found it strange how few have ever pointed out the harsh conditions Max fought under in that fight.
For one, the crowd was incredibly hostile and belted him with debris all the way to the ring and even in the ring itself. There were anti-Nazi demonstrations going on outside the stadium and elsewhere in the country.
Moreover, Max was the whipping boy for the Nazis. Imagine the pressure they put him under to win the rematch. Also, his wife was virtually kept hostage for the fight back in Germany to ensure Max's return.
How in the hell can anyone fight well with that sort of rubbish going on? It would be impossible. Imagine the roles were reversed and Louis found himself in Nazi Gemrany in the rematch.
I'm not taking anything away from Louis, don't misunderstand me. He was a machine that night, but Max I believe lost the fight long before setting foot in the ring.


Good points, this fight was of incredible magnitude and Max sure had it against him. I don't think you're so much debating against my view as expanding things to tell a fuller story, of course.

You know what - there would be enough guts in this event to make a very effective movie out of it. It would be fascinating IMO, especially if they stayed true to exact events.

3) True, Douglas didn't do anything of note prior or subsequent to Tokyo, but for that one night he was fantastic. It was literally one of those 'lightning in a bottle' moments. I wonder if he had turned up for the Holyfield match in the same shape and mindset he was in for Tokyo, whether Evander would have beaten him.
Despite the hammering he took, Tyson did almost still win the fight. Meyran did blunder the count, although Buster had every right to listen to the ref's count, not the timekeeper's.


Many detractors however will strenuously argue Douglas wasn't THAT good, Tyson was just exposed as overhyped and lacking true greatness against someone that refused to be bullied and gave as good or better than he got.

I totally disagree with that notion and have argued the point many times. I believe Douglas did have his best night ever, whilst Tyson put forth as bad an effort as he ever could have. He was quite lost and one dimensional and he and his corner lacked any idea really of how to turn the tide over the duration excepting one flash KD against the run of events.

4) We may accept the Frazier blowout by Foreman with little thought today, but at the time it was still a huge shock. Some say Joe was sliding badly...maybe he was, I don't know. In any event, this was still the undefeated champion of the world, conqueror of Muhammad Ali. To be absolutely annihiltated like that with such contemptuous ease is nothing short of shocking, regardless of the quality of the opponent.

Fair points, but Tyson was about 42-1 fave over Buster while Joe was what, 4-1 or similar? Don't get me wrong, shock waves went right thru the world of boxing when Foreman completely annilated Joe, but he was given a much much better chance than Buster. Apart from one brief flutter Douglas was in total command of Tyson, even if not using him as a human yo-yo as Big George did with Frazier.

5) Wlad has come back since the losses, but it doesn't really excuse the fact that they happened either. Since his last loss, the only punchers he's faced has been Peter and Brewster and the quality of his championship opponents has been dire, Calvin Brock being an exception.
I can't say he's exactly been pushed hard.


Yeah, no argument from me. His real comp now just happens to be his brother, unfortunately for the world of boxing.

I'm not excusing the Tokyo loss by the way. Tyson suffered a humiliating defeat (made all the worse by Doulgas doing zilch subsequantly) when physically at least he was still the same guy that beat Spinks. There really is no excuse.
He should have at least given Douglas a life and death fight before capitulating, but didn't.

As i said, i give him some latitude. I reckon he was running on about 65% if that.

[mr. magoo]

I'm just having a laugh at people trying to deny Tyson's right to be called the youngest heavyweight champion in history. What a load of rubbish.

Thank you. A man holds a title, and everyone including every boxing commentator in the sport calls him the youngest champ, and some of these guys ( particularly on a chat forum 20 years later ), are digging some nonsense about lineal crap...Patterson winning the title in vacant fashion, made him no more lineal than when Tyson unfied the three sanctioning bodies, one of which had been vacated by a fighter who refused to defend his belt........Done deal........

[bigtime-skills]

I believe people are selling tyson far short here. h2h i dont see how holyfield beats mike tyson, his style plays right into tysons hands. there 1996 matchup was worthless, tyson was 4 years rusted out of the ring, and was a shell of the fighter he once been when he came back.


sure tyson lost to douglas, but holyfield lost to MICHAEL MOORER who is nowhere near as good as that version of buster douglas.



People have still yet to name a time where holyfield showed consistency and dominance against TOP opposition that comes close to comparing to tysons 1980s title reign.

Well I sure saw it TWICE and paid good money to see it also:yep
Tyson gets more excuses:patsch
If you're a self-profeessed "fuck up" that's no one's fault but his...
Holyfield was FAR more past it than Tyson going into their first encounter...Don't forget the TERRIBLE performance against Bobby Chayz (spelling) and people were really concerned for Holyfield's health, now the 1996 matchup was worthless:bart :nut

[Ezzard]

Thank you. A man holds a title, and everyone including every boxing commentator in the sport calls him the youngest champ, and some of these guys ( particularly on a chat forum 20 years later ), are digging some nonsense about lineal crap...Patterson winning the title in vacant fashion, made him no more lineal than when Tyson unfied the three sanctioning bodies, one of which had been vacated by a fighter who refused to defend his belt........Done deal........

Except that there was already a precedent for picking who you defended against from Sullivan through to today. That nobody believed the sanctioning bodies meant a thing when Holmes left the WBC belt and picked up another made up three letter belt. Difference was that the championship was vacant when Floyd won it. It was not vacant when Tyson won his three alphabet pasta shapes. I lived through the era and Tyson was the saviour of the sport, recognised as the best fighter out there and yet everyone wanted Spinks to be beaten so he could be what was considered at the time to be the champion.

When it comes down to it Tyson being the youngest or not makes no difference to me in terms of how I rank him.

But the logic of him being the champion is so flawed that if you apply it then the whole history of the sport unravels. At least you've given up on the idea that Spinks wasn't champ because he won a disputed decision.

The implications of Tyson being champ before beating Spinks boggle the mind... But it's quite a pedantic point, I suppose, and yet, at the same time, goes to the very heart of what boxing is, or is supposed to be.

[fists of fury]

I don't think you're so much debating against my view as expanding things to tell a fuller story, of course.



Well, like I said earlier I agree with the general sentiment of your original post, so yes I'm not really disagreeing with anything you say...just sort of expanding on it and adding a few of my own thoughts.

[PowerPuncher]

Tyson was innactive between 1991-1995 - thats 4years of his prime. Thats the age when you lose your stamina and can't operate with the same engine. Not to mention Tyson hadn't been past the 3rd round in 5 years, if you've boxed 10-12 rounders after not being past the 3rd before you know how damn hard that is.

A Tyson with the same engine/stamina he had back in 1988 beats Holyfield for me. In Tyson-Holyfield 1 I had Tyson winning most of the first 5 rounds and he had Holyfield reeling at 1 stage. He may well stop Holyfield

I think theres a good case for Tyson being above Holyfield based on Tyson's prime years are better, he didn't lose against Bowe's or Moorer types and had a much easier time with a younger Holmes.

[fists of fury]

It was not vacant when Tyson won his three alphabet pasta shapes. I lived through the era and Tyson was the saviour of the sport, recognised as the best fighter out there and yet everyone wanted Spinks to be beaten so he could be what was considered at the time to be the champion.


Spinks surrendered any claim to being champion when he ducked out of the tournament to find the real heavyweight champion as far as I'm concerned. He didn't exactly seem eager to face Tyson, did he?

Tyson had the belts...to me that makes him champion. And officially he was, so that's enough for me.

[Ezzard]

Spinks surrendered any claim to being champion when he ducked out of the tournament to find the real heavyweight champion as far as I'm concerned. He didn't exactly seem eager to face Tyson, did he?

Tyson had the belts...to me that makes him champion. And officially he was, so that's enough for me.

Did Holmes lose it when he refused to fight challengers and took on a new made up title? Did Paterson lose it when he wouldn't fight Liston, but then get it reinstated when he signed the contract? Did Bowe lose it when he wouldn't fight Lewis? When exactly did Peter Jackson get the title? Johnson? Wills?

Spinks ducked out of the tournament for the following reasons. (1) he was already the champion and Butch gave him a belt so it must be true. (2) He knew he could lose to an average HW and miss out on a mega bucks pay day against Tyson. He wanted that fight and found a way to get it with minimum risk. So that's what he did. Spinks did nothing that had not been done a 100 times or more in the past.

If who people think is the best was the criteria then Tyson would have remained champion until he got blasted out by Danny Williams.

Put it like this Tyson was the greatest young HW ever. 100% agree but you can't award him the title with an argument that has no internal logic.

[mr. magoo]

Did Holmes lose it when he refused to fight challengers and took on a new made up title?


Did Greg Page clean out the division and unify the titles? No, in fact he lost to fighters who Holmes had either beaten or would soon beat. In his first try at Holmes vacant title, he lost to Witherspoon. The circumstances are different..

[mr. magoo]

Spinks surrendered any claim to being champion when he ducked out of the tournament to find the real heavyweight champion as far as I'm concerned. He didn't exactly seem eager to face Tyson, did he?

Tyson had the belts...to me that makes him champion. And officially he was, so that's enough for me.

It's enough for me as well.. If the president of a major corporation loses his title for failure to meet his obligations to the company, the next guy doesn't get told by his subordinates that he isn't president just because he didn't DIRECTLY out perform the previous guy... The previous president lost the right to be president because he didn't meet his obligations.

[mr. magoo]

=Ezzard]Except that there was already a precedent for picking who you defended against from Sullivan through to today. That nobody believed the sanctioning bodies meant a thing when Holmes left the WBC belt and picked up another made up three letter belt.
Difference was that the championship was vacant when Floyd won it. It was not vacant when Tyson won his three alphabet pasta shapes. I lived through the era and Tyson was the saviour of the sport, recognised as the best fighter out there and yet everyone wanted Spinks to be beaten so he could be what was considered at the time to be the champion.

When it comes down to it Tyson being the youngest or not makes no difference to me in terms of how I rank him.

But the logic of him being the champion is so flawed that if you apply it then the whole history of the sport unravels. At least you've given up on the idea that Spinks wasn't champ because he won a disputed decision.

The implications of Tyson being champ before beating Spinks boggle the mind... But it's quite a pedantic point, I suppose, and yet, at the same time, goes to the very heart of what boxing is, or is supposed to be.

I have read your post and find that it has some good points, but I'll bow out of here with these final thoughts.

The concept of being called a champion, cannot be compared to that of being a monarch during the middle ages. A world title is not something that a person necessarily acquires via association to a previous owner, or even for directly dethroning that owner. The right to become and remain a champion, comes from fullfilling various requirements and living up to the obligations of that responsibility. In this case, a champion has a responsibility to defend against the best. You make a candid point that fighters like Dempsey and Patterson were never held accountable nor stripped of their titles for failure to defend, but like everything else, even boxing changes. Spinks was rightfully relieved of his role as a titlist, due to blatantly chosing to fight another challenger for more money, while refusing to face the IBF's concenus worthy contender.

By losing his belt, did this leave Spinks with some superficial and invisible authority over the institution that is the heavyweight championship of the world? My and answer ( and many other's ) is absolutely not. We ask ourselves, what is the primary difference between Patterson not beating the man, and Tyson not beating the man? Your answer is that Patterson's predecesor retired, while Tyson's continued to stay active in the sport. My problem with these two men receiving different treatment, is that Just because a previous title holder chooses to hang in limbo, while selctively and safely lining his pocket's does not disclude the man who DOES fight the best and who IS labeled the best from BEING the best........

By the way, Upon beating Tucker for that last and final fragment of the heavyweight title, most considered him the TRUE champ... Spinks was a worthy challenger, and the most derserving to get a crack at Tyson. But it was HIM who was the challenger by this point, not Tyson......

[JohnThomas1]

Well, like I said earlier I agree with the general sentiment of your original post, so yes I'm not really disagreeing with anything you say...just sort of expanding on it and adding a few of my own thoughts.

And cheers for that FOF, appreciated. Same if you disagreed of course, always enjoy your posts and respect your opinion plenty.

[My2Sense]

I believe people are selling tyson far short here. h2h i dont see how holyfield beats mike tyson, his style plays right into tysons hands. there 1996 matchup was worthless, tyson was 4 years rusted out of the ring, and was a shell of the fighter he once been when he came back.

This isn't accurate at all. The clear consensus from everyone was that the fight was occuring too late from Holyfield's perspective, not Tyson's. Holy was just about washed up, while Tyson still had quite a bit of his old life left, as he showed in one of his best performances ever against Bruno. How else did Holy open as a 25-1 underdog in a fight that many people considered winnable for him several years earlier?


sure tyson lost to douglas, but holyfield lost to MICHAEL MOORER who is nowhere near as good as that version of buster douglas.

Based on what? That same "version" of Douglas you speak of had already been beaten by Tony Tucker (among others) just a few fights earlier, and entered the ring against Tyson grieving for the recent death of his mother and coming off a bout with bronchitis (which nearly cancelled the fight).

On top of that, a 30-year old Holyfield lost only by a disputed split decsion to Moorer, whereas a prime Tyson was basically outclassed by a 30-year old Douglas and brutally KTFO. And Holyfield went on to prove his loss was a fluke by whupping Moorer in a rematch regardless. The same can't be said for a single one of Tyson's losses.

This isn't an argument in Tyson's favor at all. If anything, it just proves Holyfield was better at responding to adversity.


People have still yet to name a time where holyfield showed consistency and dominance against TOP opposition that comes close to comparing to tysons 1980s title reign.

Actually, Holyfield almost always showed consistency/dominance in his successful title defenses. He just wasn't as flashy/explosive as Tyson, but when he won, he won his fights decisively all the same.

A better question is, when was one of Holyfield's reigns abruptly ended by a 42-1 underdog? Or by a guy that was significantly older and much more faded than he was?

[RockyJim]

No! Holyfield had a ton of heart...

[RealIzm]

No.

[Bummy Davis]

I think it would be fair to say yes...the pre Douglas...Cus/Rooney/Jacob version of Mike was on the positive Side a better overall fighter than the King/Holiday version....Mike may have been able to overcome his weakness to get off the floor to win and lack of late round stamina in a gruiling fight...Tyson would have dominated Bowe and other fighters that EVANDER struggled with....When Tyson was on a roll first time around he was a better fighter just needed to get over the mountain like Evander did vs HIM

[JohnThomas1]

I think it would be fair to say yes...the pre Douglas...Cus/Rooney/Jacob version of Mike was on the positive Side a better overall fighter than the King/Holiday version....Mike may have been able to overcome his weakness to get off the floor to win and lack of late round stamina in a gruiling fight...Tyson would have dominated Bowe and other fighters that EVANDER struggled with....When Tyson was on a roll first time around he was a better fighter just needed to get over the mountain like Evander did vs HIM

That's a fascinating and very refreshing view. Seldom do i read such a unique take on something so done to death.

:good

[My2Sense]

Tyson would have dominated Bowe and other fighters that EVANDER struggled with....When Tyson was on a roll first time around he was a better fighter just needed to get over the mountain like Evander did vs HIM

Actually, Holyfield beat common opponents like Tillis and Thomas easier and more impressively than even a pre-Douglas Tyson did.

And of course, that's if you disregard their common fights with Douglas, which there really is no justifiable reason whatsover to do.

[Ezzard]

I have read your post and find that it has some good points, but I'll bow out of here with these final thoughts.

The concept of being called a champion, cannot be compared to that of being a monarch during the middle ages. A world title is not something that a person necessarily acquires via association to a previous owner, or even for directly dethroning that owner. The right to become and remain a champion, comes from fullfilling various requirements and living up to the obligations of that responsibility. In this case, a champion has a responsibility to defend against the best. You make a candid point that fighters like Dempsey and Patterson were never held accountable nor stripped of their titles for failure to defend, but like everything else, even boxing changes. Spinks was rightfully relieved of his role as a titlist, due to blatantly chosing to fight another challenger for more money, while refusing to face the IBF's concenus worthy contender.

By losing his belt, did this leave Spinks with some superficial and invisible authority over the institution that is the heavyweight championship of the world? My and answer ( and many other's ) is absolutely not. We ask ourselves, what is the primary difference between Patterson not beating the man, and Tyson not beating the man? Your answer is that Patterson's predecesor retired, while Tyson's continued to stay active in the sport. My problem with these two men receiving different treatment, is that Just because a previous title holder chooses to hang in limbo, while selctively and safely lining his pocket's does not disclude the man who DOES fight the best and who IS labeled the best from BEING the best........

By the way, Upon beating Tucker for that last and final fragment of the heavyweight title, most considered him the TRUE champ... Spinks was a worthy challenger, and the most derserving to get a crack at Tyson. But it was HIM who was the challenger by this point, not Tyson......

We both hold very different ideas on this. Thanks for arguing with me with much decorum - It's easy for folks to get carried away in online discussions. Much appreciated...

Morally you have a point but I'll stick to my opinion. Spinks cannot be stripped of his championship by the IBF when Holmes was not stripped of his by the WBC. You either believe that the alphabet soup boys should be respected or you don't.

Many people IMO respected him as champ on winning the IBF because boxing was booming again due to Tyson and because he was so popular BUT there were many, many people who did not subscribe to that view. I actually suspect that Tyson (as an avid historian) might well agree with me.

Thanks again, Ezzard

[Unforgiven]

For those few of us here who are prepared to address reality, the answer to the question "Can Tyson Be Ranked Above Holyfield?" is obviously NO.

For those of you (and I fear you constitute a majority) who have convinced yourselves by some sort of mass psychology that (among other delusions) Tyson getting beaten up badly for 7 or 8 rounds of 9 and then brutally KO'd by Buster Douglas either doesn't count or is mostly meaningless, then I guess there are ways to make the answer YES.

With Mike Tyson the usual laws of measurement seem to be ignored or turned on their head. Coming into a fight 42-1 favourite and off a 1st round TKO over the leading contender is a sure sign of having slipped "past prime". Being "DOMINANT" over "top fighters" means relegating those occasions when top fighters DOMINATED Tyson to results that may as well have happened to someone else !

[AlFrancis]

No it has not because we all know how corrupt the governing bodies are. Or would you rather see Pavlik fight Rubio instead of Abraham who is his real number one challenger?


Beltholders are not champs but top contenders. Those guys also beat the top contenders of their era just like Tyson and it still did not mean that they were the champ.

Is right. How can 3 people be "the champ".