I think he can. It's not as if the question is "can Amir Khan be rated above Roberto Duran?" here. But personally, I rank Holyfield quite a bit above Tyson in the all-time pound-for-pound standings. Holyfield IMO is the greatest fighter to ever compete in the cruiserweight division, and has some excellent wins there. At heavyweight, his win over Bowe beats anything on Tyson's resume. Plus he beat Tyson twice. I look at Tyson as a great fighter h2h but not really p4p. His resume isn't great and he had some bad losses. He was nothing short of amazing 1986-1990, but he did not have a 'great' career IMO.
They both deserve to be rated fairly close to one another in my honest opinion. Tyson had the legacy of becomming the youngest heavyweight champ ever, along with a very dominant reign consisting of 9 strait defenses, and a first round KO of another all time great in Spinks. For whatever its worth, he also recaptured two thirds of the crown in his comeback, though I think that those title fights with Bruno and Seldon were bull**** set ups by Don King to get him into an easy title position, as neither of those men deserved to really be highly rated. People will say that Bruno at least beat McCall, but I'm not sure that he deserved to get the shot in the first place, and Seldon being rated 4 places above Riddick Bowe by the WBA was laughable. But anyway.......... Holyfield though not as consistant nor having as clean of a record as Tyson, arguably defeated better competition, including two wins over Tyson himself, had the legacy of dominating a whole other division prior to moving up, and was the only 4 time titlist in the heavyweight history... He also fought longer and better on a past prime basis for whatever its worth.. Lastly, depending on how amateur accomplishments are weighed, Evander did manage to win a bronze medal whereas Tyson did not get passed the trials in 1984. Of course, not everyone includes amateur acheivments, but I'll leave that up to the individual.. Personally, I rate Tyson a bit higher than Holyfield, but a fair argument can be made for both.
my thoughts exactly :happy tyson is one of those fun fighters u create threads on about fighting past or present champions and see how he would fare!
Agreed Buster Douglas was a great fighter that one night, yet Michael Moorer was a fine HW. Had some pretty damaging traits that held him back, but on his night he was a top, top class HW. And of course Holyfield was probabky his best performance...
Apparently Lennox went to Holyfield's gym.There was a groove in one of the punching bags for Holyfield to practise his headbutts on. Well Eddie Futch thought that Ali broke his jaw late into the fight,by a single hard punch.He thought it was unlikely that Ali had broken it in the early rounds since Norton was landed on it flush all night long.Angelo Dundee said it had been broken earlier in the fight.Take your pick. I think the frailties were already there in his 89 fight with Bruno.He was almost taken out with a left hook in the first round and was shipping clean punches-more than he had done in the rest of his career.
Patterson still holds the record for beeing the youngest champ. Tyson was merely the youngest beltholder :deal
Tyson deserves to be ranked above Holyfield. While Tysons loss to Douglas obviously hurts him, it's obvious to anyone watching without being biased that the Tyson that fought Buster wasn't the one that fought Berbick and Spinks. Just as the first round bell rang, the announcers commentated that rumors were Tyson hadn't trained hard for this fight and lost a huge amount of weight shortly before the fight. When I judge Tyson head to head I choose the Tyson that was possibly the most dominant champion in history and brutally took out Spinks, Holmes, Thomas, Berbick. Good fighters that Tyson dominated like no one had before. Head to Head Tyson is a MAJOR handful to anyone in history and I'd only pick Ali to beat him. Louis, Liston and the other greats vs. Iron Mike are pick em. The same can't be said for Holyfield.
Patterson won a title in a fight against a light heavyweight that had previously loss to a recognized champion. It is not like Patterson beat the man that beat the man that beat the man. Patterson didn't even win against a former heavyweight champion. Patterson beat the man that was once the man in another weight class.
This topic has been done to death, long before your arrival here, and I still say that Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champion in the history of the sport. Patterson won the heavyweight title by winning it in vacant fashion after it's original holder had retired. Technically he did not beat the man either. As for Tyson, I will not credit him for being the youngest upon his victory over Berbick, but by the time he had unified all three belts after beating Tucker for the IBF, he had my vote, at which point he was still a tad younger than Patterson was when he defeated Archie Moore. Some will try and argue that Spinks was THE MAN, and Tyson would not gain full recognition until he dispatched him.. I couldn't disagree more. In 1983, Larry Holmes was stripped of the WBC title for failure to face Greg Page. He was then awarded the IBF's newly manufactured title. Spinks defeated him for this belt, then arguably was gifted a win in the rematch. Over the next 2 years, Spinks would dodge every worthy contender and ultimately was stripped of his belt, which Tucker then won. In the meantime Tyson was cleaning up the division of its best fighters, including Tucker.. By the time time Spinks met Tyson in the summer of 1988, his claim to lineal status had been very far removed in my opinion.
I'll have to go with guys who had medical expertise and actually was in the corner with Ali, like dr. Ferdie Pacheko. He said it was broken in the second round. That Ali complained about pain in his jaw and that it made a sound when he opened his mouth that indicated that it was broken. People seem to go quite religiously by what Futch said about Ali, but the thing is that he wasn't in a better position to judge than anyone else in close proximity to the ring. His opinion weighs pretty light compared to that of an actual physician in Ali's corner IMO.
You don´t know how long I´m here :verysad I can see your point but they don´t matter at all. Marciano retired and the then time two best contender fought for the title. Patterson won and became champ. When Tyson won his belts there was still the real champ around. Unifying only means you are the champ if the champ isn´t around. But he was then.
Uhh, your join date located directly below your avator says July, 2008 does it not? Unless of course you've been posting under a different account. Fine, ignore the important facts while focussing on a technicality if it makes you happy.