An unbiased evaluation of Tyson.

Comin off of a 3 year layoff..Comin right out of retirement to fight Tyson. Ya we didnt need Holmes to explain that one to us everyone knew it was just for the money!!atsch

 

I think he did. Tyrell Biggs was exactly the type of fighter who was winning belts up until the Tyson era. Biggs was an Olympic gold medallist just like Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and George Foreman had been. People talk about his drug problems AFTER he lost but nobody was talking about it BEFORE Biggs lost. In fact, Biggs run as an unbeaten fighter was as good as anything a young Clay got up to before Liston. Against Simms, Tillis, Snipes and Bey Tyrell was beating stronger names than Thomas or Tubbs, Smith, Dokes or any amount of the abc champions of the Larry Holmes era ever did to land title fights.

Tucker proved to be the second best heavyweight of TYsons era. The way Tony beat the underrated Buster Douglas has went unnoticed for too long. Douglas looked as good a 1980s fighter that had been around at the division in his losing performance against Tucker. Tony beat a very good fighter that night.

What hurts the Tyson legacy is how Douglas let himself down after beating Tyson. Had Tunney flopped as badly after beating Dempsey, say he was as bad against Heeney as Douglas was against Holyfeild would it have reflected so bad against Dempsey?

 

The claim that the first time someone fired back is nonsense and an insult to many tough men who stood up and got defeated. He beat big, tough, strong, young men at the top or near top of their games ... this is just a tired Teddy Atlas comment that those who don't know the facts use time and again ... as I earlier wrote men like Berbick, Smith, Briggs, Tucker, Spinks, Tubbs, Bruno were either coming off their biggest career wins or were simply still in their physical primes ... what they had in common was facing a holy terror in the ring and had to do their best to survive.

Tyson has gotten the most negative revisionist reviews because of how his career ended but it takes nothing away from what he accomplished at his best ..

 

I have often felt Douglas wanted to get out of boxing right after Tokyo. Had buster took a voluntary defence against a lesser man than Holyfeild and retired on a win I think both Tyson and Douglas's legacy would look a lot different.

Between the Tucker and Tyson fights buster was finaly able to be the fighter he always wanted to be but it had been a long and winding road until then. It took a long time for him to get it together but if you look at his record the class was always there. Matchmaking and timing has a lot to do with how strong a prospect looks. He was better than the record suggests...... as Tokyo proved.

 

It's almost as if he knew he had no chance. He(Holmes) probably figured that he's getting the money now so why even bother trying to get back into boxing with some tune-up fights and some serious training.

 

Holmes knew he had no chance!! So your exactly right!

 

This is the same Larry Holmes that went on to beat Ray Mercer, far more convincingly than Lennox Lewis did.

 

I guess that I started looking at this issue with a similar position to yourself, but I changed my mind.

Even if a great champion fights in a weak era, there will always be somebody who can give him problems.

Fighters who can dominate the best competition around are great, regardless of the strength of the era.

You can expect to wait a long time before you see another heavyweigt like Tyson.

There is one unexpected twist to this tale.

I once looked into which heavyweigt champions had beaten the most ranked contenders, and Tyson ranked surprizingly high!

This was due to his level of activity during his prime, and the fact that he was still consistently knocking off top ten guys, even when he was declining.

I am unsure where to rank him myself, but I know that he was great.

 

Yes, I remember your listing of fighters who beat the most ranked contenders.:good


I think Tyson was a great fighter and he makes my top ten. He was a fighter that people stood up and took notice of. Yes, he had the best of everything. all the right guys lined up to fight at just the right time - but he beat them and looked great doing it!

Even much later on his wins over Golota, Orlin Norris, Bruno, Saveresse could not be matched by anyone other than say a prime Lennox Lewis. There's no getting away from it Tyson was a great fighter.

There is no shame in losing Lewis and Holyfeild past his best and if only folks would recognise how good buster Douglas could always have been, even this loss is not so bad. Tyson v Douglas WAS a great fight. You have to be a great fighter to be part of a great fight.

 

It's hard to see with his diplomatic tone, but Janitor definitely just called you a hipster, and he's right.

Just like when the fresh pack of students join university and they all grow beards and become vegan, the denigration of mainstream fighters like Tyson is the boxing historian equivalent of this. Eager to show off how knowledgeable they are, they distance themselves as far away from the opinions of casual fans as possible.

Once you've gone full ****** it's often hard to balance yourself out again, so many people remain in this way of thinking.

 

Those vaunted champs of yesteryear who suffer this complex in a much more severe sense would be… Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Ali (first reign)… None of their resumes are as sparkling when one digs deeper into the versions of the those they actually faced.

All things being equal, I feel Tyson's run to the title and first reign, in fashion and substance, was more impressive than any listed above.

 

I'm a boxing hipster (Jung Koo-Chang! ) but to deny how good Tyson was seems...eh wrong I guess. In fact I think that Tyson gets underrated in terms of resume. Few guys come that close to cleaning out a division completely.