Can Tyson Be Ranked Above Holyfield?

I know this but you can´t take the belt away from the man any other way than beating that man inside a ring.

 

This is not a double standard. It is common since over hundred years that the two top contenders fight for the belt when the champ retires undefeated. The winner is the new champ.
Spinks was stripped of the Alphabet title but you can´t strip the man of the linear one.

 

I seem to remember that a lot of folks did...

 

Tyson dropped and nearly took out Douglas in the 8th round. Had that uppercut landed in the beginning or middle of the round rather than shortly before the bell, he would of won. The fight wasn't as onesided as you say.

Longevity wise, i'm not arguing Tyson belongs above Holyfield or even near the ATGs. But what he accomplished in his short 4 year prime and the way he systematically took apart everyone put in front of him is incredible. There's no denying Douglas was great that night, either, and I can think of several more embarrassing and onesided losses ATGS suffered than Tyson against Douglas. Frazier being dominated and taken out in 2 rounds by Foreman, Patterson getting iced in a single round by Liston, TWICE are examples of ATGs fairly near their prime getting starched in a more onsided manner than Tyson vs. Douglas in which he nearly won.

 

You can if he drops his only belt, and avoids anything close to a challenge for years.

 

Exactly, Spinks passed up Tucker because the Cooney fight was a bigger payday. So are we now to assume that a champion reserves the right to duck his mandatories where it conveiniences him while still enjoying the privelage of being called " The champ " ? The answer is no. You either fight the top challengers, or give up your status as champion to go after different opponents, but you can't have it both ways....

 

Who?

 

I don't consider Patterson an ATG, not on that level at least. As with Frazier... it was a bad loss, but he was further removed from his peak than Tyson and met Foreman, not Douglas.

I'm not saying that Tyson didn't have some very great wins in his prime, I just don't like the way people wants to sweep the loss to Douglas under the carpet with weak excuses just because it takes away from the image of unstoppable Tyson.

Thing is Tyson wasn't at all in bad shape. Just the fact that he could floor Douglas after taking a beating for 8 rounds testifies to this. Sure he wasn't in peak shape, but he wasn't overweight and didn't look slow and didn't tire quickly. He looked a lot less effective getting off than usual, but this had probably more to with Douglas having the measure of him than him being out of shape.

 

How so? Holyfield typically struggled with fighters who were generally much bigger in size, and could incoporate a lengthy jab, as opposed to ones that he had height advantages over. Additionally, he would have always had the upper body strength combined with the inside technique to tie Tyson up and neutralize his attacks as he was coming. Not to mention having the chin, heart and endurance, which by the way would have been even more prevalant in 1989.

Let's review some facts here:

1. Holyfield was 34 years old, while Tyson was 30.

2. Tyson had fought and won 4 matches in the 15 months leading up to that fight, whereas Holyfield had fought 4 times in the previous 3 years, which included two losses, and wins over a shot Bobby Cyz and Ray Mercer..

3. Tyson was a heavy hitter, which ordinarily outlasts the virtues of endurance and workrate as old age sets in.

4. Holyfield had multiple health issues that came and went during the mid 90's, some of which ultimately led to him taking over a year off from the sport..

You can make what you will of Tyson's 4 year layoff, but frankly I think you're blowing it up into something that it isn't while ignoring the other half of the truth, which I just provided. And by the way , those matches were not "worthless". They were very good performances by the real deal, and ones that he derserves full credit for..

Holyfield was fighting with a bum shoulder and managed to put up a better fight against a 34-0 professional in his prime, while Tyson got beaten to a pulp by a fighter who he was a 42-1 favorite to beat. And sorry, but I think its debatable as to weather or not Moorer was " nowhere near as good as the Douglas who fought Tyson"

Can you name a time when Tyson showed consistency in taking on Challengers of Riddick Bowe's, Michael Moorer's, or even Goerge Foreman's calibur? Hell, even the version of Holmes whom Holy beat was better than the one Tyson fought, given that he was launching an honest to god comeback and fighting decent opponents, rather than winging a half ass effort to come out of retirement. Sorry but having a list full of named opponents, many of whom were either not very active, out of shape, on drugs, past prime, or not very good to begin with doesn't cut it..

 

Practically 90% of the fans that I knew or heard over the radio who felt that Tyson was going to absolutely cream the **** out of Spinks...

Of course, the Ring magazine still considered Spinks the champion, but frankly a publication does not have the final say in anything. It's the people who decide who's king, and most fans nor even experts did not consider Spinks as the lineal champ..

 

I second this. Holyfield was considered old and washed up, not Tyson. I thought the three round destruction of Bruno in '96 was one of Tyson's best performances, ever. Obviously Mike had lost a step, but he was still a huge puncher with enormous speed and athletic ability. And the truth is, after the 5th round, his head movement always declined, also during his prime against Tucker and Smith for instance.

 

You do realise that Bonecrusher Smith KO'd Bruno? Bruno ,at any stage in his career,was not that much better than the fighters you chose to consider his inferior.You also failed to mention Tony Tucker.He was pretty solid heavyweight,in his time.

Apart from that , in what way was the 38 year old Holmes BETTER than the 42 year old Holmes ? What are you seeing here?
It's not like he went down easily.It took an unbelievable one-two by Tyson,to take Holmes off his feet and set up the beginning of the end.The first left knocked away the left hand of Larry,protecting his jawline,and the overhand right followed immediately on the exposed target.



Anyway,I think that Tyson would have to get in and get out with his combinations with infighters like Marciano,Frazier and Holyfield.His peekaboo square-on style meant that he would get less leverage and torque into his punches.The compactness of the punching and defensive skills of the above mentioned fighters would have him in trouble,if he chose to linger on the inside.

 

Tucker and Smith were decent heavyweights, but let's not get carried away here. Between 1984 -1987, Smith had recently lost to most of the better top raters, and hadn't done much to compensate for it. The Bruno victory came 3 years prior to the Tyson fight, when both men were still green, and Smith was getting his ass handed to him before stopping him late. The Witherspoon fight was a fix. Tucker was a good fighter who I respected, but his record was way too padded to give much merit to his being 35-0, plus he fought Tyson with an injured hand besides..

"Apart from that?" Holmes came out of retirement after 2 years without a single match, and coming off of two losses, albeit he arguably won his rematch with Spinks.. Nevertheless, he was visibly deconditioned, tired quickley and had dull reflexes... Upon his return in 1991, he began by fighting Journeyman in Doc Anderson, Mike Greer, and Gonzales..THEN he fought a top rater in Mercer and beat him..THEN he challenged Holy for the title.. Holmes was considerably better at 42 than he was at 38.. The regular activity along with the ernest and diligent effort at launching an ORGANIZED comeback made all the difference in the world as it would for just about any fighter.

Anyway,I think that Tyson would have to get in and get out with his combinations with infighters like Marciano,Frazier and Holyfield.His peekaboo square-on style meant that he would get less leverage and torque into his punches.The compactness of the punching and defensive skills of the above mentioned fighters would have him in trouble,if he chose to linger on the inside.[/quote]

 

I really don't see the rationale in the assumption that a peak Tyson would necessarily beat a peak Holyfield. Evander was an extremely well conditioned fighter with good infighting skills, a solid chin, a huge heart and wasn't intimidated by anybody. This is the wrong type of fighter for any version of Tyson to be facing. As already mentioned, Holyfield was arguably FURTHER past his prime than Tyson was when they actually met, and he thoroughly dominated that fight.. I mean, how many rounds did you give Tyson in the first match? How many rounds did you see Tyson winning in the second fight, prior to the desperate ear biting incident??

Now I have Tyson rated a bit higher than Holyfield from a legacy standpoint, but head to head, Evander will always be Tyson's kryptonite.