Am I Wrong To Rank Tyson Higher Than Holmes?

Not quite sure if you're disagreeing with me saying that Tyson's post prison stint is damaging to his legacy or if he retired after Spinks that he would be top 3 all time!?!? In any case, check out the link below...

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89849

 

Holmes might have been better for a longer period but Tyson was more dominant in his 3 years at the top. Dude was considered unstoppable and the greatest heavyweight ever.

 

Both. He wouldn´t have some losses but his resume, achievements and longevity would be worse. I wouldn´t rank him Top10, perhaps not even Top15 in that case. His post Spinks career enhanced his legacy IMO.

I rank Tyson as high as I can. Can´t see him above the six fighters I have above him.

 

But his career post Spinks also damages his legacy too, wouldn't you think so?

I have him at 7 also.

 

Well, yes in a way. It destroyed or heavily damaged the Tyson-myth. In that way it damaged his legacy. But when you look at it objectivly it enhanced his standing. We know much more about him now and can assess him more fairly.

 

What do you see that enhances his standing? For me he proved he has a top tier chin, has the 2 wins over second rated Ruddock and regained 2 titles. Yet everything after Spinks is considered past prime.

 

Different careers, but if you rank Tyson over Holmes I don't think anyone can argue it. Mike's wins and dominance are comparable to Larry. Larry seemed overall more complete against every type of fighter, that is why he seems to be ranked over Mike. But to be honest, he is not ranked much higher than Mike. Not by me anyway.

 

I think he still was in his prime when he went into prison. Not at his best but in his prime.

He beat decent to good contenders in Bruno 2x, Ruddock 2x, Seldon, Botha, Golota - yeah, I see this as a win, Mary Jane isn´t really a performance enhancer. So, his resume gained more depth and I think the two Ruddock wins are amongst his five best wins - Holmes, Spinks and Berbick make up the rest, although I could see Thomas edging one Ruddock win - so his top wins improved too. His longevity improved, he proved he could hang in fo nearly 20 years despite having a style that is considered to burn a fighter out quite fast. His achievements improved he won two belts and unified them even.

Yeah, he lost to Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis. I rank Holyfield between 8 and 9 at hw, losing to him isn´t something to be ashamed of, especially when you are past prime - the way he lost in the second fight is something to be ashamed of though. I don´t think the loss to Lewis should hurt him at all. His legacy was secured fo me after unified the titles and the Holyfield fights. Everything afterwards could add to his legacy but not really hurt it. The Douglas loss hurts him, yeah, but this is more than made up by the aforementioned IMO.

And then we learned something about his intangibles. We learned that he indeed had a very good chin and heart, second that he was a bit of a frontunner and cannot comeback from knockdowns and third that he can get frustrated when things don´t go his way. But while these things allow us to assess him better h2h they don´t hurt his standing as a fighter - at least for me, since I don´t rank fighter h2h.

 

This is how I see it too.

 

except Larry came back years later, took holyfield the distance, beat ray mercer, very close fight against mccall, and was very very competitive up to his retirement.....

dont you think this makes tyson's KO over him a little more importantatsch

 

All the while being a mere shell of his former self.

 

well holmes never unified, granted but by beating holmes, shavers and cooney he did beat 3 of the best heavyweights out there. he was the wbc champ and the ibf belt was given to him, but he never contested the wba belt (signed to fight coatzee tho, this should not be overlooked).

holmes beat spinks in the rematch and after retiring his only losses were to tyson and holyfield by my cards. he became a top contender in the 90's and was it not for politics he could have gotten a big fight against lewis or a tyson rematch to demonstrate how good his comeback could have been.


Tyson was terrific in his prime, his douglas loss will always count against him since he never avenged it and douglas is far from a great fighter.

post prison tyson ceratinly improved his legacy, without doubt. one of the few people in history to usurp the lineage (when the lineal champ is clearly not the best in the division). yes he lost to holyfield and lewis, but these are great fighters, both ranked higher than him in atg lists, there is absolutely no shame in losing to a superior fighter.

All things considered I have Holmes at number 5 and Tyson at number 11. I think H2H tyson might have a slight edge over larry because I think he would catch him and wouldn't let him recover, plus his anhilation spinks counts for him. however legacy wise Holmes ruled the division for 5 years and even though his level of defences dropped he was still the main man. resume wise I don't think Tyson has any victories that compare with a prime norton and a prime shavers. I think the holmes that tyson beat was better than the ali that larry beat but still i put tyson slightly under.

 

Golota didnt beat Bowe

 

I think Tyson fought better opponents, didn't avoid anyone and was more dominant in his prime so I rate him higher. Tyson gets a backlash on this forum for everyone loving him for the past 25years and his opponents get underrated because he was so dominant against them. Tyson beat 3 beat holders, the lineal champion and the ex champ who many thought beat the lineal champion in their rematch and ex belt holders, rarely has a division been cleaned out so thoroughly