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

yes I am, look up my post history on the subject, last time I was called out on it I made a massive post on it which was objective as anything ever poste and nobody replied to it. I'm at work at the moment so can't make long posts.

I'll finish this debate off for you later if you want me to.

 

of course not. we're talking top 5 in terms of greatness aren't we? Which would be mainly concerned with resume

 

What this ultimately comes down to is this; when it's fight time is any fighter in history that I could definitively pick over Mike Tyson? Not really, and certainly not 5 at least not with the kind of confidence that you can bet your house on anyway.

Tyson's attributes are unique to the extent that he has the ultimate blend of hand speed, one punch power and granite chin that will keep him in any fight. And even if I can see somebody outpointing him I can still imagine a plausible argument for Tyson winning. While I may also be able to say that about one or two other fighters I certainly can't think of 5 guys who I'd place ahead of Tyson in that respect.

 

sorry lufcrazy, I didnt read the first post about this being about h2h ability, I thought because you asked me about 5 greater that you meant resume based etc

 

Yeah it was my use of the word definitive I think.

I meant as in 5 heavyweights you would hang your hat on as being better h2h than tyson.

Not just 5 that might beat him, but 5 you think would do better in a huge hw round robin style tournament (well that's how I measure h2h anyways)

 

His accomplishments stand for themselves. Hes not overated, his accomplishments certainly dont rank in the top 5, but his ability at his best does.
I dont understand how people can rank a fighter like Lennox Lewis inside the top 5 and call Tyson overated. Giving Lewis massive credit for beating Tyson and Holyfield is worse than not giving Tyson credit for beating Spinks and Holmes. Take away Lewis and Holyfield and there isnt any more substance than Tyson's resume, certainly not the one sided domination.
More excuses are made for Tyson's opponents than Tyson's ONE loss in his "prime".

Is getting knocked out in two rounds or seven rounds worse than losing once in a one sided beating? I dont know how you could spin that in a fighters favor? Not saying you do, but these are common knocks I hear against Tyson.
Tyson was not the same fighter after the Spinks fight. Its not an excuse, nor is it excuseable in the sense of historical placement, but his body of work and ability preceeding that is enough in my opinion to make him a real force against any fighter in heavyweight history.

 

I'll come back to you with my explanation, I'm at work now

 

Yes without doubt. Tyson from 85-89 is a rough and tough night for anyone. Does'nt matter how quick his skill diminished, or what you think of him.
Being realistic, he was an awesome talent who, for those few years was arguably has good as anything seen, before or since.


Definitley top 5, in fact Tyson, Ali, Lewis, Louis, Foreman and Holmes are the best h2h heavies imo.
Considering this i think he is about no3.


I definitley see Ali at no1 and Holmes at no6, but the other 4 are interchangeable to me.

These are the 6 best h2h imo though.

 

First of all people need to understand the difference between the words 'underrated' and 'under appreciated'. Under/overrated is strictly concerned with how a fighter is rated, and has nothing to do with how many people partake in those ratings.

For example, Charley Burley is NOT underrated. If anything he is overrated. I've researched Burley enough to know about him as much as the next guy, and I've read his book, which is my favourite book, but let's be objective here. He is under appreciated. I've never seen anyone who knows who he is say a bad word about him as a fighter, but I have seen a lot of people saying they think he would beat Robinson, which for me is overrating him. Mike McCallum too got to the point where he was being called underrated so much that it was bordering on the overrated. I'll refrain from calling him overrated though because I think he's ****ing brilliant.

Peak Mike Tyson gets called the best heavyweight and or the best fighter of all time every ****ing day by the likes of armchair fans, hardcore fans, so called elitists, just about any type of fan there is says this **** about him all the time. He gets overrate, plain and simple. I do not believe that Mike Tyson in 1988 is the best thing ever. I believe he was ****ing amazing, but to call him the best is overrating him, for the simple fact that there are better fighters. The word 'most' comes into play because of how many people do this ****. As in he gets overrated MORE OFTEN than others do. I was not saying that he is overrated more severely than other fighters, just more times. Read my words before you comment on them and please refrain from making unnecessary replies to things I've said, there's no need.

Buster Douglas beat the life out of him in Tyson's prime. I'm not saying Tyson was in peak condition, but he was in his prime. I know the story inside out so save me the 'lecture'. Mike Tyson is my favourite person in the world, my favourite fighter of my llifetime, and I would happily kiss his shoes.

It knocks me sick that Buster Douglas gets zero credit for his win over Tyson. Imagine if you trained your ass off for a fight and won, and all that everyone ever said about it was that your opponent wasn't in the right mental state to fight, add that to the fact that your mother died before the fight and you yourself had to overcome ten times the mental demons that your opponent did, that's what happened to Douglas. Absolutely appalling.

I'm at work now so later. If you disagree then proceed. I can't reply now and cba going over this for the ten millionth time. My opinion never changed before and won't now

 

Buster Douglas gets plenty of respect for beating Tyson, his entire career is based on it, and because there was no rematch, theres been this mythical figure thats been created from it.
As appalled as you are at people not saying he fought a brillant fight, (which he did), its pretty appalling how he defended his title. The knocks against Douglas are more than fair, he simply wasnt a super great fighter for one night only, Tyson's lack of preparation was part of it, thats my opinion and Im sticking to it.
Going back to Tyson, he was very popular in a time when boxing was just making its way back into prime time and pay television which became all the rage in the late 80's. People to this day still use Tyson when they talk about boxing. Noone was knocking guys out like he did, and noone was dominating like he did. Most people on here dont know the difference between fighters abilities either, so to say hes overated because casual fans and armchair fans think he was the greatest is not really fair either.
Funny enough, people who say Tyson was overated, use him as a barometer as to why other fighters were great for one night, or greater than him, because they defeated him.

 

You're saying things that aren't necessary in light of what my post said. I never said Tyson wasn't amazing, I explained what overrated means, and I said he is overrated because people call him the best heavyweight of all time in 88, which is overrating him, and this happens consistently everywhere, on forums, in bars, everywhere.

You've lost your mind if you don't think people credit the Douglas win to Tyson being not in the right fighting state to win more so than they do to Douglas actually winning the fight on merit.

 

I never said he was overrated because casual/armchair fans think he was the greatest, I said he is overrated because ALL types of fans do this on every level consistently and have done for donkeys years.

Anyway, he was amazing.

 

Agreed,

and I will also ad, that while the Douglas fight needs to be weighed into his all time legacy, there are way too many who put too much stock in that one fight. A single loss during a "prime" period consisting of 42 bouts, a unified title and the all time statistic of being the youngest champion in the division, does not raise too many red flags for me. He is still one of the most formidable in head to head matches, and his body of work make him a top 10 from a legacy standpoint.

 

I never discredited Tyson in terms of legacy, people always take my overrated statement wrong/to heart

 

and I never said he wasn't formidable, you'll find I called him amazing in fact.

My posts are clear and easy to comprehend