Do you consider Tyson to be a H2H top 5 heavyweight?

My answer would be pretty much the same. So of his fights would be a 50/50 as to who would win, but I don't think any fighter would be a heavy favourite over him when he was in his prime.

 

Tyson does have the power to take pretty much any one out. I suppose head to head he could be top 5. All guess work, but what happens if Tyson is faceing a guy lower on the head to head poll so to speak, he takes Tyson best shots and holds and mauls him to victory like Holyfiled did.

I dont know why people are writing Jack Johnson off, I can see Johnson useing the same game plan that Holyfiled used, tie him up when close, and bully him on the inside. Thats how Jack fought.

 

He makes the Top 5 rather easily for me, although I don't have them definitively ranked in a partciular spot. It's actually this specific area in which a lot of Tyson's allure is centered around.

 

Perhaps because A) Tyson was 6 years past his prime against Holyfield who has had some weird ass longevity of elite mediocrity. And B) Because Johnson was good at tieing up lightheavies, cro-mags and has beens... when he wasn't in the ring with the likes of Hart, Choynski, O'Brien or Battlin' Jim Johnson.

Seriously, how many rounds would any of the above last with a 1988 Tyson?

 

No, not even close.

Tyson lost to every great fighter he faced plus a few bums. Tyson is top 30 at best.

 

No to all 3.

Hart's aggression gets him knocked out early doors for me; burns gets steamrolled by mike; philly jack might make it a fight for a bit but would ultimately fall to accumulation. My verdict is mike knocks out all 3 before the 6th round.

 

I agree. A lot of the people naming Holyfield alongside 2 or 3 others are almost certainly ONLY mentioning him because the actual Holyfield-Tyson fights suggest a stylistic/psychological edge that would always be present even with prime versions of both (some postors disagree of course).
It's not that Holyfield's style is EXPLICITLY the style they imagine this "super" "top 5 h2h monster" prime Tyson to be vulnerable to. They just can't deny what they saw.
So Holyfield gets a "honorary" spot.

Whereas I'd suggest that LOTS of ATGS would be very dangerous to prime Tyson without having any sort of "ideal style" to beat all of mythic Tyson's offensive strengths. They'd beat him though.

I never considered Tyson the finished product, seasoned enough mentally, to really give him the kind of credit that would equate to top 5 h2h.
Of course, in 1988 I EXPECTED him to reach that realm of greatness, but he was a couple of years away from achieving it, IMO, and then he already started to regress.

 

I think he would've probably burned out around 1993-94. Assuming he doesn't goto prison, even Tyson said the fights with Ruddock (not Douglas) took something from him not only physically, but mentally. He had an enormous opportunity at redemption if he could've beaten Holyfield to regain his titles in the scheduled November 1991 fight (a full five years prior to their actual first meeting). After that, you're looking a fights most likely with Riddick Bowe, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Michael Moorer. These are the type of fights needed in his "prime" to be ranked higher than he is currently, but they weren't there yet. Holy was a cruiser, Bowe was just about to turn Pro, as was Lewis and Foreman wanted the fight, but wasn't yet taken seriously.

I should add that I don't see him running through that list of fighters with any type of relative ease; only that a huge opportunity was about to rear it's head even in the scenario that he still loses to Douglas, and he completely missed the boat.

 

People always take it badly when I say it, but the most overrated fighter of all time. People will give a lot of unnecessary **** for this which is irrelevant. Mike Tyson is my favourite person on the planet, holds a place in my heart, and I worship the ground he walks on, let those facts be known.

Be objective.

 

you've not actually offered your own opinion.

Which 5 would you rank definitively above mike?

H2h is always subjective as we have very little empirical evidence to go by so your pleas for objectivity will usually fall on deaf ears since most picks are as objective as the next.

 

Tyson legacy fights were one sided losses. He was upset a bit too much. While Tyson might be the #1 all time heavyweight in terms of blowing out fringe contender types, he was essentially a front runner type. Those who stood up to him with either skills, or wills beat him...with the caveat that Tyson did not catch them early. Tyson's best wins were Thomas, Ruddock, and Spinks. Solid names, but he really needed to beat Holyfield or Lewis to be considered a top 5 head to head guy. Or Bowe. For some reason we never saw Tyson vs. Bowe.

 

I'm at work now, ducking and dodging my manager to post haha

ON RESUME

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holyfield
Johnson

you could argue Wills and all kinds on resume too, Foreman etc, you could argue Liston I'm not doing but just saying. And I'm NOT saying these guys are better fighters than him.

 

No and the only reason is becuase he wasn't a mentally strong fighter. His amazing skill set was one thing but it was his physcolgical edge that made him special. But once he got ko'd, the invincibilty left and you see the results (and yes of course the jail stint didn't help)

 

Hmmmmm do you factor in resume when considering h2h-ability?

I usually keep the two separate.

 

You're not being objective making a comment like that.