Can Tyson Be Ranked Above Holyfield?

Did Holmes lose it when he refused to fight challengers and took on a new made up title? Did Paterson lose it when he wouldn't fight Liston, but then get it reinstated when he signed the contract? Did Bowe lose it when he wouldn't fight Lewis? When exactly did Peter Jackson get the title? Johnson? Wills?

Spinks ducked out of the tournament for the following reasons. (1) he was already the champion and Butch gave him a belt so it must be true. (2) He knew he could lose to an average HW and miss out on a mega bucks pay day against Tyson. He wanted that fight and found a way to get it with minimum risk. So that's what he did. Spinks did nothing that had not been done a 100 times or more in the past.

If who people think is the best was the criteria then Tyson would have remained champion until he got blasted out by Danny Williams.

Put it like this Tyson was the greatest young HW ever. 100% agree but you can't award him the title with an argument that has no internal logic.

 

Did Greg Page clean out the division and unify the titles? No, in fact he lost to fighters who Holmes had either beaten or would soon beat. In his first try at Holmes vacant title, he lost to Witherspoon. The circumstances are different..

 

It's enough for me as well.. If the president of a major corporation loses his title for failure to meet his obligations to the company, the next guy doesn't get told by his subordinates that he isn't president just because he didn't DIRECTLY out perform the previous guy... The previous president lost the right to be president because he didn't meet his obligations.

 

I have read your post and find that it has some good points, but I'll bow out of here with these final thoughts.

The concept of being called a champion, cannot be compared to that of being a monarch during the middle ages. A world title is not something that a person necessarily acquires via association to a previous owner, or even for directly dethroning that owner. The right to become and remain a champion, comes from fullfilling various requirements and living up to the obligations of that responsibility. In this case, a champion has a responsibility to defend against the best. You make a candid point that fighters like Dempsey and Patterson were never held accountable nor stripped of their titles for failure to defend, but like everything else, even boxing changes. Spinks was rightfully relieved of his role as a titlist, due to blatantly chosing to fight another challenger for more money, while refusing to face the IBF's concenus worthy contender.

By losing his belt, did this leave Spinks with some superficial and invisible authority over the institution that is the heavyweight championship of the world? My and answer ( and many other's ) is absolutely not. We ask ourselves, what is the primary difference between Patterson not beating the man, and Tyson not beating the man? Your answer is that Patterson's predecesor retired, while Tyson's continued to stay active in the sport. My problem with these two men receiving different treatment, is that Just because a previous title holder chooses to hang in limbo, while selctively and safely lining his pocket's does not disclude the man who DOES fight the best and who IS labeled the best from BEING the best........

By the way, Upon beating Tucker for that last and final fragment of the heavyweight title, most considered him the TRUE champ... Spinks was a worthy challenger, and the most derserving to get a crack at Tyson. But it was HIM who was the challenger by this point, not Tyson......

 

And cheers for that FOF, appreciated. Same if you disagreed of course, always enjoy your posts and respect your opinion plenty.

 

This isn't accurate at all. The clear consensus from everyone was that the fight was occuring too late from Holyfield's perspective, not Tyson's. Holy was just about washed up, while Tyson still had quite a bit of his old life left, as he showed in one of his best performances ever against Bruno. How else did Holy open as a 25-1 underdog in a fight that many people considered winnable for him several years earlier?

Based on what? That same "version" of Douglas you speak of had already been beaten by Tony Tucker (among others) just a few fights earlier, and entered the ring against Tyson grieving for the recent death of his mother and coming off a bout with bronchitis (which nearly cancelled the fight).

On top of that, a 30-year old Holyfield lost only by a disputed split decsion to Moorer, whereas a prime Tyson was basically outclassed by a 30-year old Douglas and brutally KTFO. And Holyfield went on to prove his loss was a fluke by whupping Moorer in a rematch regardless. The same can't be said for a single one of Tyson's losses.

This isn't an argument in Tyson's favor at all. If anything, it just proves Holyfield was better at responding to adversity.

Actually, Holyfield almost always showed consistency/dominance in his successful title defenses. He just wasn't as flashy/explosive as Tyson, but when he won, he won his fights decisively all the same.

A better question is, when was one of Holyfield's reigns abruptly ended by a 42-1 underdog? Or by a guy that was significantly older and much more faded than he was?

 

No! Holyfield had a ton of heart...

 

No.

 

I think it would be fair to say yes...the pre Douglas...Cus/Rooney/Jacob version of Mike was on the positive Side a better overall fighter than the King/Holiday version....Mike may have been able to overcome his weakness to get off the floor to win and lack of late round stamina in a gruiling fight...Tyson would have dominated Bowe and other fighters that EVANDER struggled with....When Tyson was on a roll first time around he was a better fighter just needed to get over the mountain like Evander did vs HIM

 

That's a fascinating and very refreshing view. Seldom do i read such a unique take on something so done to death.

:good

 

Actually, Holyfield beat common opponents like Tillis and Thomas easier and more impressively than even a pre-Douglas Tyson did.

And of course, that's if you disregard their common fights with Douglas, which there really is no justifiable reason whatsover to do.

 

We both hold very different ideas on this. Thanks for arguing with me with much decorum - It's easy for folks to get carried away in online discussions. Much appreciated...

Morally you have a point but I'll stick to my opinion. Spinks cannot be stripped of his championship by the IBF when Holmes was not stripped of his by the WBC. You either believe that the alphabet soup boys should be respected or you don't.

Many people IMO respected him as champ on winning the IBF because boxing was booming again due to Tyson and because he was so popular BUT there were many, many people who did not subscribe to that view. I actually suspect that Tyson (as an avid historian) might well agree with me.

Thanks again, Ezzard

 

For those few of us here who are prepared to address reality, the answer to the question "Can Tyson Be Ranked Above Holyfield?" is obviously NO.

For those of you (and I fear you constitute a majority) who have convinced yourselves by some sort of mass psychology that (among other delusions) Tyson getting beaten up badly for 7 or 8 rounds of 9 and then brutally KO'd by Buster Douglas either doesn't count or is mostly meaningless, then I guess there are ways to make the answer YES.

With Mike Tyson the usual laws of measurement seem to be ignored or turned on their head. Coming into a fight 42-1 favourite and off a 1st round TKO over the leading contender is a sure sign of having slipped "past prime". Being "DOMINANT" over "top fighters" means relegating those occasions when top fighters DOMINATED Tyson to results that may as well have happened to someone else !

 

Is right. How can 3 people be "the champ".