Can Tyson Be Ranked Above Holyfield?

I agree totally. This is a point that I've tried to make in the past. At 37, Holmes was better than he was at 42. Holmes did not look like a bad fighter when he lost to Tyson. Holmes looked like a really good fighter getting blasted.

I am not trying to say Holmes was in his prime versus Tyson. I will say that Evander Holyfield is lucky that Holmes was 42 when they met. I think I scored their fight 7 rounds to 5 in favor of Evander. I think that Holyfield would have had much more trouble with the Holmes Tyson faced.

 

I agree I doubt the butts were accidental and Holyfield is known for this and as a dirty fighter as is Tyson.

 

You make good points, we share the same opinion that Holyfield is all wrong for Tyson. I do, however think a peak Tyson edges prime Evander, due to the fact that Tyson wouldn't tire as bad as the one in the mid 90s and he'd be mentally tougher, capable of a sustained attack. I personally felt Tyson was slightly ahead after about 5 in Holyfield 1, before he fizzled out. Prime Tyson, while not possessing Marciano like stamina had capable stamina for a puncher.

But I don't have majorquarrels with people such as yourself in picking Evander, he did after all beat him and stylewise his toughness, heart, chin would always present a giant obstacle to climb. But another thing to factor in is how would they perform against other ATGs. Foreman battered Smokin Joe but many people rank Frazier above him, due to it being a stylistic mismatch and the fact Frazier would do better against other greats, such as Ali. Just throwing that out there.

 

Louis's loss to Schmelling I think was as bad if not worse than Tyson's loss, then Frazier's loss to Foreman, Foreman's loss to Ali, Wlad's loss to Sanders, Lewis's two losses, the list goes on a loss never looks good and they can happen to the best of fighters.

 

I agree. Tune up fights are obviously important but it's not the be all end all of being successful. Being 4 years older plays just as much a role in a fighters decline and possibly more.

 

In my book if Spinks didn't put his hand up to fight Tyson then he didn't deserve the lineal title, to keep such a title the man had to fight not duck.

 

A very reasonable position on your part..

As for how Holyfield and Tyson would size up to other all time greats, Well its difficult to say. Frankly, I think a 1970's George Foreman would have a better chance at beating Tyson than he would beating Holyfield. I realize that a 43 year old Foreman took Holy the distance, but he had a greatly improved defense along with the ability to pace himself. A 1973 Foreman had the tendency to attack fast and furious early. I don't see him outpointing Evander, nor even stopping him late. The only way he wins that fight is to take him out early, and that just ain't going to happen. I don't see any all time great stopping a peak Holy before the latter half of a fight. As for Tyson however, George had the style that made him a destroyer of swarmers. Cus D'Amato himself once said that no swarmer would ever beat Foreman, and I think he knew that included his protege......

 

Ouch!!!

 

Agreed..

If a champion passes up mandatories to take bigger paying fights, such as in the case of Spinks denying Tucker a shot, then fighting Cooney for more $$$, then he deserves to be stripped of BOTH his belt and the lineal status that goes with it... You can't just deny mandatory contenders their right at a title shot when it conveiniences you, then retain the bragging rights of being the best in the world...It's a hollow concept and a gross double standard..

 

Patterson lost twice to Liston in an embarrasing 1 sided loss.
So did Frazier against Foreman.
Lewis against McCall/Rahman
Trinidad against Hopkins
Mosely against Forrest



But Tyson can be rated above Holyfield using objective criteria.

If you value dominance, quality of opposition and ability as a fighter then Mike gets the edge.

Holyfield has the feel good come from behind type of wins. His single victories are better than Tyson's single victories but Tyson's overall body of work is more impressive - if we are talking about Holy's tenure at HW.

p4p you could argue it for Evander.

 

Thats a bit outta line...

Even if you don't like Mike Tyson, top 25 is way off the mark.

You simply cannot list 25 names that rank above Tyson in the HW division. You can't even list 20 without aggrandizing fighters. Even 15 would get difficult.

Come up with an objective criteria- not one that changes to suit your argument but an objective criteria and you'll have hard time putting Tyson that low on the list.

 

I'm just having a laugh at people trying to deny Tyson's right to be called the youngest heavyweight champion in history. What a load of rubbish.

 

Louis' loss to Max was not as bad as Tyson's, Louis was still an improving fighter and the loss actually helped him with some technical shortcomings among other things. He got a whole lot better, and extracted one of the most brutal revenges one will ever see. Tyson in retrospect was peak, or more fairly already dropping. Needless to say critics have room to really go at him on this one. The Louis loss IMO is no big mark against him whatsoever. Frazier and Foreman's losses were to fighters that were or were to be ATG's. Douglas never did a thing thereafter and not much at all prior either. Lewis set the record straight on his two losses thankfully for himself and his legend. Wlad has a couple of shockers, but has done a lot since.

I'm a Tyson fan Punchy, and have been seen to argue heatedly in favour of him already being on the mental downslide and FAR from his best vs Buster, but this loss is still worse than almost all those above.

 

Haha.Fair enough.Though when you say you love Mike, I take it as being more in the way of a metaphorical pat on the head,rather than a genuine expression of warmth towards the man.

 

Name 25 more deserving fighters.