Chavez. Was dominant for far longer, fought more guys who belonged at the top and would have been good contenders in any era (Taylor, Rosario, La Porte, Ramirez, Mayweather, Lockridge, etc.) rather than solely in a weak era. (Seriously, in what other era besides possibly the present would the titleholders have been Trevor Berbick, [and even Tyson said Berbick was a can] Bonecrusher Smith and Tony Tucker?)
You know, saying Tyson is controversial enough, PP, but when you add "by far" it makes you sound like you have rabies. And caught it from Tyson.
Me too, huge fan of Tyson...... But this is not close.......Chavez, no doubt...... Rosario is a better fighter than anyone Tyson ever beat.....
It's close but I slightly favor Chavez. Longevity and a better resume do it. Tyson doesn't get a lot of credit for what he did.
Nope, he doesn't. He doesn't get any credit, and I'm dead serious. Tyson was the No. 1 p4p fighter in the world in 1989. He was even better 1986-88.
Sorry to bump this really old thread but that point is just stupid, they weren't the same size so what's your f*****g point? On topic Chavez by far.
I don't think its close. Julio Cesar Chavez had the best winning streak of all time and the greatest number of world title fight wins, along with championships in some three weight classes. Sure there's some padding on that record, but there's also plenty of ranked opponents to compensate for it. Certainly a lot more notables than Tyson beat or even fought for that matter.
You idiot, nobody of his size kills a prime Chavez, he's EASILY one of the top 10 toughest fighters I've ever seen if not top 5.