Why Tyson Isnt An ATG

He wasn't far wrong

 

Apologies

 

definitely wasn't referring to you :good

 

:good

 

This is a good post and the benchmark we need to go by when assessing a win over an ATG in their prime. Schmeling over Louis can be added to this list. Maybe Bowe over Holyfield in '92?

 

Fair enough...!
I might start a "Tyrell Biggs was the greatest heavyweight that ever lived thread ( with excuses for all his loses ) if i get bored....

 

Only one other heavyweight ever cleaned out the division so thoroughly and emphatically as Tyson did over 3 years.

If that does not earn greatness in the eyes of some then our real discussion should be what exactly constitutes greatness.

 

Of course he's a ATG but no way in hell does he make the top 5, he barely makes it into the top 10 if that.

 

If I recall, he had two months to prepare...8 weeks...which is about the length of any typical training camp.
You could argue that he needed more time (or a warm-up fight) due to being inactive, and that would be fair.
I wouldn't call it short notice though.

 

Few would argue that he is top 5. Maybe in a head-to-head sense, but not in a legacy sense.

 

Beating Hall of Famers strongly suggests greatness, but it is not necessary for greatness.

The most important measure, is consistently beating the guys who are the best in the world at the time.

 

That's totally rational. I have him around 8, so we are not exactly speaking from different ends of the room.

If you have a list of best 3 year stretches, he is likely number 1. But I might wanna think that over a bit more.

 

You are nothing but a simpleton, absolutely nobody in this Forum to say that

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDdSVYmp714