Still, he was able to accomplish more than some rated above him within 4 years. To me, that earns high merit and will never be done again. How badly do you mark him for his losses?
It ain't that clear at all. Holmes had more title defences but Tyson was so dominant that during his reign, he was the consensus P4P greatest fighter in the world . Something Holmes never managed to achieve and in fact no heavyweight since Tyson has managed to achieve.
Personally I'd say Tyson was the greatest pressure fighter of all time that ever graced the heavyweight division
Certainly a great. Anyone in the top 10 (minimum) in their divisions history has to be considered an ATG in my opinion
P4P is opinion just like your statement that Holmes was clearly the best is opinion. That’s not reality either.
During Tyson's title reign Holyfield was a top contender and Tyson failed to beat him. Given what happened when they fought in 1996/97 I don't think there is any reason to think the outcome would be different in 1988 or 1989 so no I don't think he was even the best of the 80s.
Douglas would have gone down like the rest in 86 though. Just my opinion but he didnt have the mentality he had in that 1990 fight, I dont go with the theory Douglas would have beaten Tyson at any time regardless. Buster won in 90 because the stars aligned to make a great fighter, a one off event inspired by his mothers death. Not that it matters, Tyson didnt beat Douglas in 86 and I guess thats the point being made, I'm just saying its highly likely he would have.
The interesting thing about Holmes is I rate him as an overall greater champ than Tyson by a few notches, he just did too much in comparison, proved too much, got up too much and fraught like a beast, carried on a pretty decent career when older. Its difficult to rate Tyson's career higher than Larry because he didn't prove as much, but head to head I think Tyson wins, his style would always have been a problem for Holmes, imo. At the end of the day, Tyson in in my top ten but at the lower end because the other champs proved more, they have tangible evidence as to why they are more accomplish champs. There a lot of could have would have questions with Tyson, he needed that great fight where he faced someone like Holyfield in 90. He needed the early 90s. I wont hide that Tyson is my favorite heavyweight but I try to be realistic as to where he stands as an all timer.
But Tyson fanatics like to claim that his opponents fought him in the best shape possible during his reign so how can you say Douglas wouldn't have come into the ring in top condition?
I'd have to agree they were not all in their best form, but I take it on a fight by fight basis. So I'm not a Tyson fanatic, I like to think I am realistic as a fan of his. If Douglas in 86 was in 1990 form, Tyson would be in for a tough night, I wouldn't be surprised if he lost on points. Not all those 80s guys lost because they were in bad shape, they were just over matched, he would have beaten them anyway in my view. Tucker was decent but the detractors like to use the hand thing to say Tyson would have lost otherwise, which I don't agree with. Tyson did what he needed to in the 80s but as I admitted, he needed that great fight with an all timer that could test him. because of that and his lackluster second career he is not in my top 5, he is somewhere at the other end, H2H and career wise. I'll always admit, as great a talent as he was, there is simply no proof that says he would get up from a knockdown or pull a fight back from losing. He wouldn't need that quality in a lot of cases H2H against some greats, but I think he would in spades against my top 5 heavies definitely.
its not really about his losses, we know he could beat buster. Evander and Lewis are the only real losses if he had continued his form. And even they arent guaranteed. Its about his head, he didnt have it on properly in the long term, so was going to lose. Maybe if he'd started later, he'd have lasted longer.