Can Tyson Be Ranked Above Holyfield?

Not if you believe that the titles are manufactured as we already established. Everyone wanted to beat Larry Holmes. All the paper titlists would have crawled over hot coals to fight Holmes for a belt or no belt. That tells you everything you need to know.

No it doesn't. You either accept that he was the man who beat Holmes or you accept that the alphabet families actuallt mean something. If you put it altogether then what you are essentially saying is that at some point the man who seems to be the best is the best. Great until he doesn't do so well in his next fight then do we go back to Spinks or Holmes or Witherspoon. It's hardly a perfect system but it's better that what ammounts to a popularity contest.

But Spinks didn't retire? And paterson when on to dodge many contenders. So when was Liston champ? Because beating Williams was a lot more impressive than Paterson's reign. Wills was the best HW in the world for a time when did his reign begin and end? What about Peter Jackson. For a while in the 1990s there were 3 or 4 guys who might have been the best in the world, were they all champs?

The only double standard is contained within yoru argument.

When the HW champ retires the sport goes down. So it's best that a new champ is found quickly. the best thing to do is establish someone quickly and get them fighting the best out there.

But we've already seen that the belts were not making anyone champion. These guys held belts but nobody seriously thought of Dokes, Tate, Weaver, Thomas, Page, Tubbs etc as the world champion. Tyson didn't have to beat 3 paper champs to be the man he ahd to beat Spinks. And that was just the same for Jim Corbett as it was for Tyson.

At the crux of your argument is the idea that somehow it's unfair. I agree with you, it is... But that's a totally different thread.

 

I agree with the general sentiment of your post John, but there's a few things I want to point out:

1) When Louis lost to Schmeling, he was already being talked about as the future champion. Harlemites and the Black Bottom section of Detroit were very confident of victory for Joe, and when he lost full-scale riots broke out. The loss came as a complete shock to pretty much everyone.
The fight itself was not very competitive, Louis did well for about three rounds but then Max took over. Louis himself admitted he was fighting on pure instinct from the 6th round onwards, remembering nothing of the fight. I don't know what the official scoring was up to the time of the knockout, but I'd imagine Max to be well ahead at that point.

2) In the rematch Joe proved his superiority, but I've always found it strange how few have ever pointed out the harsh conditions Max fought under in that fight.
For one, the crowd was incredibly hostile and belted him with debris all the way to the ring and even in the ring itself. There were anti-Nazi demonstrations going on outside the stadium and elsewhere in the country.
Moreover, Max was the whipping boy for the Nazis. Imagine the pressure they put him under to win the rematch. Also, his wife was virtually kept hostage for the fight back in Germany to ensure Max's return.
How in the hell can anyone fight well with that sort of rubbish going on? It would be impossible. Imagine the roles were reversed and Louis found himself in Nazi Gemrany in the rematch.
I'm not taking anything away from Louis, don't misunderstand me. He was a machine that night, but Max I believe lost the fight long before setting foot in the ring.

3) True, Douglas didn't do anything of note prior or subsequent to Tokyo, but for that one night he was fantastic. It was literally one of those 'lightning in a bottle' moments. I wonder if he had turned up for the Holyfield match in the same shape and mindset he was in for Tokyo, whether Evander would have beaten him.
Despite the hammering he took, Tyson did almost still win the fight. Meyran did blunder the count, although Buster had every right to listen to the ref's count, not the timekeeper's.

4) We may accept the Frazier blowout by Foreman with little thought today, but at the time it was still a huge shock. Some say Joe was sliding badly...maybe he was, I don't know. In any event, this was still the undefeated champion of the world, conqueror of Muhammad Ali. To be absolutely annihiltated like that with such contemptuous ease is nothing short of shocking, regardless of the quality of the opponent.

Let's be frank. It is as one-sided a fight as we'll ever see, as one-sided as Louis' win over Schmeling, or Dempsey's mauling of Willard. Perhaps evem more so. Should Joe have done at least a little better? Yes, I think so.

5) Wlad has come back since the losses, but it doesn't really excuse the fact that they happened either. Since his last loss, the only punchers he's faced has been Peter and Brewster and the quality of his championship opponents has been dire, Calvin Brock being an exception.
I can't say he's exactly been pushed hard.

I'm not excusing the Tokyo loss by the way. Tyson suffered a humiliating defeat (made all the worse by Doulgas doing zilch subsequantly) when physically at least he was still the same guy that beat Spinks. There really is no excuse.
He should have at least given Douglas a life and death fight before capitulating, but didn't.

 

Lewis was ko'd, but he wasn't outclassed. He also avenged those losses emphatically. Frazier's loss to Foreman is definitely comparable, though. But that loss makes everyone hesitate to pick Frazier against punchers, if we draw the same conclusions from the loss to Douglas...

As for Trinidad and Hopkins - I was talking about HWs, since it's HW-rankings we're discussing after all.

This I can agree with. To answer the thread, I think it's entirely plausible to have Tyson ahead of Holy at HW. The strongest argument for Holyfield is that he beat Tyson convincingly two times. But Holyfield never annihilated fighters of the quality of Spinks or Holmes. He almost always gave good, game perfomances, but there were few master classes, at least at HW.

 

Very good post.

 

Hold on. Tyson was 30 years old for the match, and had 4 warm up fights. He looked very good in the 4 matches before. No one saw any signs of him being shot.

In truth, Holyfield had the right stuff to beat Tyson. The fight result was no fluke. Holy was not intimidated, had superior out fighting skills, and could counter punch. Tyson was not the type to fight past adversity; he was always a front-runner.

Maybe Tyson could have done better in the scheduled 1991 fight, but he pulled out with a cracked rib.

 

The highlighted ones weren´t against mere fringe contender/gate keepers but to atgs and with the exception of Sanders those guys were ranked and top contenders.

 

How you deal with the loss is the difference. If losing makes you a better fighter then all the better. I think an unbeaten record can mask a fragile ego.

Other than Marciano all of the other top tier greats got their careers back on the rails. And to be fair so did Tyson eventually after Douglas. But Douglas, no matter what is said, was never a great fighter.

 

I actually think Tyson looked no better against Ruddock than he did in 96. For most part, he was already looking to land single bombs by then.

Holyfield however, seemed to have some less power (he needed tons to put away Thomas and Dokes, couldn't dent Foreman and Holmes), though his workrate was much higher. Plus he still had that minority complex where he felt he had to slug it out to prove he was a real heavyweight back then. In '96, he had great self control and stuck to his gameplan at all time, even when he was rocked by the very first right hand Tyson threw.

That said, Holyfield would give Tyson hell, and then some, at any stage of their careers. I'll tell you one thing, though. Douglas was a stay-busy fight until Holyfield right after, and if he'd KO'd Douglas like he was supposed to or had not taken that fight, his legacy would've been a lot better.

 

Excellent insights and additions for sure. Even so the loss is a lot less telling than Tyson's as Louis really did improve substancially. Tyson by contrast was also dominated excepting one very short period, but was thought to be at or even a teeny bit shy of his supposed peak.

Personally, again, i give more latitude to Tyson for this loss than many others as i really do believe he was running at a very reduced capacity. Of course this was the fault of his own makeup and weakness.

Good points, this fight was of incredible magnitude and Max sure had it against him. I don't think you're so much debating against my view as expanding things to tell a fuller story, of course.

You know what - there would be enough guts in this event to make a very effective movie out of it. It would be fascinating IMO, especially if they stayed true to exact events.

Many detractors however will strenuously argue Douglas wasn't THAT good, Tyson was just exposed as overhyped and lacking true greatness against someone that refused to be bullied and gave as good or better than he got.

I totally disagree with that notion and have argued the point many times. I believe Douglas did have his best night ever, whilst Tyson put forth as bad an effort as he ever could have. He was quite lost and one dimensional and he and his corner lacked any idea really of how to turn the tide over the duration excepting one flash KD against the run of events.

Fair points, but Tyson was about 42-1 fave over Buster while Joe was what, 4-1 or similar? Don't get me wrong, shock waves went right thru the world of boxing when Foreman completely annilated Joe, but he was given a much much better chance than Buster. Apart from one brief flutter Douglas was in total command of Tyson, even if not using him as a human yo-yo as Big George did with Frazier.

Yeah, no argument from me. His real comp now just happens to be his brother, unfortunately for the world of boxing.

As i said, i give him some latitude. I reckon he was running on about 65% if that.

 

Thank you. A man holds a title, and everyone including every boxing commentator in the sport calls him the youngest champ, and some of these guys ( particularly on a chat forum 20 years later ), are digging some nonsense about lineal crap...Patterson winning the title in vacant fashion, made him no more lineal than when Tyson unfied the three sanctioning bodies, one of which had been vacated by a fighter who refused to defend his belt........Done deal........

 

Well I sure saw it TWICE and paid good money to see it also:yep
Tyson gets more excusesatsch
If you're a self-profeessed "**** up" that's no one's fault but his...
Holyfield was FAR more past it than Tyson going into their first encounter...Don't forget the TERRIBLE performance against Bobby Chayz (spelling) and people were really concerned for Holyfield's health, now the 1996 matchup was worthless:bart :nut

 

Except that there was already a precedent for picking who you defended against from Sullivan through to today. That nobody believed the sanctioning bodies meant a thing when Holmes left the WBC belt and picked up another made up three letter belt. Difference was that the championship was vacant when Floyd won it. It was not vacant when Tyson won his three alphabet pasta shapes. I lived through the era and Tyson was the saviour of the sport, recognised as the best fighter out there and yet everyone wanted Spinks to be beaten so he could be what was considered at the time to be the champion.

When it comes down to it Tyson being the youngest or not makes no difference to me in terms of how I rank him.

But the logic of him being the champion is so flawed that if you apply it then the whole history of the sport unravels. At least you've given up on the idea that Spinks wasn't champ because he won a disputed decision.

The implications of Tyson being champ before beating Spinks boggle the mind... But it's quite a pedantic point, I suppose, and yet, at the same time, goes to the very heart of what boxing is, or is supposed to be.

 

Well, like I said earlier I agree with the general sentiment of your original post, so yes I'm not really disagreeing with anything you say...just sort of expanding on it and adding a few of my own thoughts.

 

Tyson was innactive between 1991-1995 - thats 4years of his prime. Thats the age when you lose your stamina and can't operate with the same engine. Not to mention Tyson hadn't been past the 3rd round in 5 years, if you've boxed 10-12 rounders after not being past the 3rd before you know how damn hard that is.

A Tyson with the same engine/stamina he had back in 1988 beats Holyfield for me. In Tyson-Holyfield 1 I had Tyson winning most of the first 5 rounds and he had Holyfield reeling at 1 stage. He may well stop Holyfield

I think theres a good case for Tyson being above Holyfield based on Tyson's prime years are better, he didn't lose against Bowe's or Moorer types and had a much easier time with a younger Holmes.

 

Spinks surrendered any claim to being champion when he ducked out of the tournament to find the real heavyweight champion as far as I'm concerned. He didn't exactly seem eager to face Tyson, did he?

Tyson had the belts...to me that makes him champion. And officially he was, so that's enough for me.