Is Tyson's Top 10 HW Ranking Justifiable?

When he was rolling down guys like in 86'87'88 he was atleast number 5 all time.

Its not his fault there wasn't strong opposition.

 

how can you rate Tyson in front of Holyfield?

 

Holyfield is black.

 

A fair case can be made for rating either man in front of the other, and I in fact have heard many good arguments for both. I guess it depends on what you look for. Tyson was very dominant and held onto the title longer. He was undefeated in many more fights before losing, spent his whole career at heavyweight, demolished opponents in frightening fashion and was the youngest champ in history. Holyfield has the the claim to have beaten Tyson head to head ( though both were past it when they met. ) Evander also proved that he could avenge a loss, rise off the canvas to win and basically regain focus to become the division's best fighter after being beaten - something Tyson couldn't do...

As it stands I think both men are worthy of a spot in the lower top 10, and I can't see rating either man much higher than the other. Time may have an effect on this of course, and in 20 years, history may remember them differently.

 

Tyson is a borderline top 10. I used to rate him outside the top 10 but now I currently rate him #10. I think I've had him as high as #9. I don't rate in terms of H2H because that's stupid. If I wanted to do that I would make an entirely different list for that for too many logical reasons not worth explaining. I have my own criteria, which is pretty balling I might say.

Most have gave good reasons as to why he deserves it. He held the belt for longer than other top 10 fighters. His competition isn't stellar but it doesn't help when you demolish them. The contrast in his domination and losses is what makes it easy for others to knock him (He did great against a lot of fighters except those few best ones). He could have been the GOAT. But I think he did enough to be a top 10 HW fighter. Funny enough, I have him ahead of the two guys that beat him (Lewis, and Holyfield). I don't know what it is but I rate Lewis insanely low compared to most people. Probably unjustly, but I do... Interestingly enough, so does Bert Sugar (#19 I believe).

 

Or Foreman? Or Liston?

 

Liston is tough one.

Foreman is easy for me. The guy completely demolished virtually everyone with an insane KO percentage going in. Then dominates Joe Frazier twice, and an arguably solid champion younger than 30 Frazier. And then he demolishes Ken Norton in 2 rounds. Those two names, especially the 1st are better than anything on Mike's resume. Unfortunately, Foreman met the GOAT in Ali. He was invincible, as was Liston. For Liston, though, he was past his prime. I won't argue that point. Foreman came back in the late 80's and put an impressive KO ratio going. He fought Holyfield hard and make a good counting of himself. He won the belt at 45 years old against a solid fighter in Moorer. That record shatters the previous one and is truly groundbreaking and far more remarkable than people seem to understand. He defends the title and alpha titles a bit and beats a Shannon Briggs at 47 years old. Yes, he beat Briggs but boxing wanted Foreman out. They had him and got the use out of him and didn't want that liability.

Who did Tyson beat that was better than on Foreman's resume? When did Tyson come back in a fight? Foreman was a champion in the 70's and apart of Tyson's era. That's why he's better and more deserving a better place. Personally, I rank Foreman very high at #4.

 

For two years he was an exceptional fighter and champion ... Berbick to Spinks ... and if anyone feels there were ten heavyweights in history that defeated that Tyson they are dreaming ... he may have beaten anyone during that time ...

 

And anyone who rates Top 10 Heavyweights in terms of H2H ranks under a silly criteria. H2H deserves its own list. Greatness is defined by what you do in your era (With other factors of course). Not highly weighting potential speculative fantasy matchups. This leaves far too much subjectivity and faulty biased-ness to the individual. Guys like Bowe, Wlad, Vit, Lewis, Liston could be argued as Top 5 Heavyweight champions just because of how great they were in this limited prime or at their peaks. That's just irresponsible and unfair method of going about it.

 

The irony of Tyson's 80's run is that, because he dominated convincingly, his wins are in an odd way, sometimes tarnished.

If Spinks had given Tyson a life and death fight the win would have done wonders for Tyson's all-time standing. Because it was so one-sided and brief, the win has reduced Spinks' legacy to almost that of a footnote in the division, and left people talking about other fights that were ring epics instead.

People point out that Tyson never got up to win...fair point. But in only one instance did he really ever get that chance, and that was in the first Holyfield fight. He rightly deserves some criticism there.
However, if there was a fighter alive who could get up from, and proceed to go on and win, against the sustained beatings and subsequent knockdowns he suffered against Doulgas and Lewis, then I'd like to know who that fighter was. I've certainly never seen him.
Tyson was done at that point, and it's a wonder he remained upright for so long in those fights, to be honest.

He never beat an opponent who beat him...again, at his best there were no need for rematches because he was dominant. He never got the chance to avenge the Douglas loss, and by the Lewis fight he was at the tail end of his career and near the end.
Once again, one can level a certain amount of criticism at him for the 2nd Holyfield fight. I have no problem there.

I will say though, that getting up to win against the likes of Firpo or Bonavena is a lot less of a daunting task then getting up and winning against a Holyfield, Lewis or even Tokyo Douglas.

I don't want to knock Dempsey, Frazier or anyone else that made that list. They deserve to be on it. I just find it strange that Tyson gets singled out for being on it, as if he's the only one who's spot there is questionable.

Rather than ask why Tyson is on it, ask rather why Holyfield isn't.

 

I agree totally.

Analysing a legacy can be done with backup of empirical data and other facts. It's quantifiable.

H2H matchups can never be more than, at best, an educated guess.

 

And lucky for me that's apart of my criteria .

But seriously, how can you rank in terms of H2H with modern advancements, knowledge, nutrition, rule changes, etc. So many things/factors shaped and changed the division for good or worse. And there were obviously advancements and knowledge to come forward in time. I'm not even going about the guessing speculative nature of it. Some fighters weren't exposed to certain styles and how they fair against that style is almost an assumption. H2H is a very irresponsible way of going about it. Examining and analyzing a fighter's skill set/abilities (Pros/con) is fair game, though. H2H deserves its own list.

 

Absolutely. I think it's madness to put Dempsey ahead. Tyson certainly does enough to earn a top 10 spot for me. 9 dominant title defences against some good opposition is impressive.