It doesn't matter. Lists will differ. But Holmes can reasonably be argued among the top 5. As can Holyfield.
I pick Frazier, Foeman and Liston over both of those 2 and idpick Tyson over Holmes too. Listons my number 2, which may came across as shock to some people
I don't do lists because THEY ARE IMPOSSIBLE... and when I think of ranking fighters it is always H2H, who is "likely" to beat who more often than not. So I'll give it a go for you. Louis Tyson J. J Walcott Ali now we know these men can lose too, to other top and equally good fighters, i.e Charles, Marciano. Forman, Holmes and the list goes on - they're ALL Great. but all things considered equal, these guys would probably get the nod more often than not. another example for greatness is the arguement for Elmer Ray, top 10, 25, 50... easier to pick a handful of Elite fighters, Louis, Greb, Armstrong, SRR and the like, then the next lot (which would be Great Top men, Champs & Contenders) are also greats with little between them. far too many great fighters in history to list accurately, and worst, God Bless them, to leave out!
For me Ali is at the top and Liston second. Liston is severly underrated. IMO hes the daddy of them all (Other than Ali) Tyson said hed be scared of Liston, Foreman said the only guy who pushed him around was not Fraizer or Ali, it was Liston.
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected (Hell for Liston or Foreman? Hell, I was going for Holyfield since '89.) Good argument, though, well-said. But I disagree with the premise that Tyson was somehow healthy for 4 years but was a train wreck for the decades around it. Mike at 25 was "not the same man he was when he was 20"--? That's off. He was not the same fighter, but he was always the same man. The four years that you (and I) rightfully celebrate are anomalous. He was protected and propped up and "on a leash" so to speak. That isn't psychobabble, that's a fact. Mike needed structure. Don King appealed to who he truly was -an empty, sad, angry man-child who happened to be blessed with heavy hands and fast-twitch fibers. King manipulated him to his own ends by appealing to his baser instincts. Mike's baser instincts were always closer to the surface than 98% of even Americans! Why was he great at 20? Because he was given the gift of discipline in the ring and structure to some degree in his life. He needed external restraints because there wasn't much in terms of internal restraints. You say that he overcame his past and practiced empathy, respect and all that. He might have appeared to, but the sad truth is Mike never knew who he was, he didn't know how to think for himself -he was a mimic of what he was around. There was only one Mike Tyson, and what he needed to perservere as a fighter and live a healthy life, he usually didn't get.
Cruiser is irrelevant here. Yeah he had it shortly as well between bowe 2 and moorer. His win against ruiz didn't make him champ because lewis was still around. As I said an accumulation of about 5 years with no real period of dominance.
This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected All I'm saying is, as a professional fighter, for four years Tyson held together enough to fulfill much of his potential. I will never and have never vouched for his sanity, mental health or wholeness as an individual, although I'm sure he was trying. Lennon said it best, "Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be." The ear-chomping, whining, rudderless, half-ass, post-Spinks Tyson was NOT the same fighter, performer, he was as an eager young man who was calm, patient, courteous, excellently trained, hungry, because the older man didn't much care anymore. The young man--for all his demons--had something he had to do. The young man was the better man. You seem to give a very large chunk of the credit for Tyson's success to his team. Thank God for them in Tyson's life; they did real good. But nobody can make you do anything. I credit Mike for Mike more than anyone else, because, when Ali visited young Tyson's school, for many others it was just an exciting day. As for Mikey, there, in that holy of holies--where the mightiest achievements are born--in his heart, he resolved to be someone--somehow, someday. He did good.
This content is protected This content is protected He did good, sure, but without that team, he wouldn't have done much at all. He would have been in the big house earlier. He was more nothing like Ali or Marciano or Louis between the ears. He was like Battling Siki.
Holyfield fought and beat a crop of better, bigger, more skillful heavyweights than just about any other heavyweight champion, outside of Ali and perhaps one or two others. He was fighting big 220 pound, 230pound + men who had speed and skill. or skill and power, or all three, while himself weighing 205 - 215 for the most part. Even champions as great as Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano, rarely or never fought 220 pounders with the speed and skills of a Bowe, Dokes or Tyson. Most of Joe Louis's challengers were more akin to the Ocasios and DeLeons that Holyfield was fighting at cruiserweight, in all honesty.
Depends on who's list. I can't think of 8 or 9 heavyweights who would definitely have to be ranked above him.
Id say Lennox possibly has the better resume....but thats another topic Ali, Lewis, Holyfield do have the best resumes at HW, Foreman also deserves an honourable mention. Who do you think is harder to beat H2H, Holyfield or Tyson? I personally see them having mixed results.