Is Tyson's Top 10 HW Ranking Justifiable?

Of course being destructive enhances your legacy. Blowing out top rated competition certainly makes you look more dominating. Lewis' whole buzz came from him destroying Ruddock didnt it?
As far as Holmes he went on to be quite competitive against good fighters such Holyfield, Mercer etc. Saying that his timing was off only for the Tyson fight is a joke.

 

Okay I understand you now. However, under that criteria I think Foreman should certainly make it. He was the underdog against Frazier and completely demolished the man who beat ALI. And then demolished the other guy that beat Ali. Tall tall order. Everyone thought he was invincible at that point. Ali was going to get killed.

 

Good point. Ok, Tyson is now #11.

 

Closer to their respective prime as well. I think there is a big difference between the two Tuckers each fought. Briggs hmmm. Mcall became champion by knocking out Lewis. Weaver who? There is a lot of WBO titlieist in there.

 

Um... wow. Do you understand what "timing is off" means? First this comes from Holmes himself. Secondly, this isn't age related. I'm not saying he was too slow or past his prime I'm saying his timing was off. And for a fighter like him that is a big deal. When you're out from boxing for awhile you'll lose that freshness and refinement to your craft. Holmes also probably didn't give himself enough time to train. Don King lured him out and got him 5$ million for the fight and you know what makes Holmes run.

Being destructive enhances your legacy very minimally. It does help, but of course when you lose to the best that contrast is something that can be a catch 22. Pep, Ali, or Charles aren't that much less of fighters for decisioning a lot of people. And dominating people doesn't add enough to the actual competition.

 

Were talking about a guy who dominated fighters that were competitive on the world class level. Tyson was able to find the openings with his speed and counterpunching. What do you think Holmes is going to say he was on point and Tyson awesome? He hated Tyson, did you watch the prefight hype? I actually thought he fought fairly well for a couple of rounds. Tyson just landed a hell of a right hand, and Holmes never recovered from it. It had nothing to do with Holmes timing, but more the speed in which Tyson had and landed that shot. He had never been KO'd, and as an OLDER fighter fought more competitively against some top rated guys, and the layoff was roughly a year and half.
I would also add the most dominating fighters have the best legacies in the history books.

 

No, them being champs says a lot about the era. An era in which Marvis Frazier was a top 3 contender (I believe). Frazier being the first to beat Ali is tenfolds in greatness and that means a heck a lot more than decent opposition in a bad era.

Notice how virtually all of these names folded or couldn't compete in the 90's. His best wins are Spinks and Ruddock.

Let's examine the list, though.

Holmes his best name but was off 2 years. Little timing and not enough training.

Smith lost to Marvis Frazier the year earlier. Also Witherspoon, Tubbs, and Holmes the following 3 years.

Berbick went on a streak of 8 wins prior to some losses against some decent opposition. He also looked bad against a near 40 year old Parkinson's Ali. And he squeaked a win against Thomas.

Thomas cleaned up in an aging Holmes era. Virtually did nothing after the Tyson lost while being 29 at the time. He beat Mike Weaver to win his belt. Weaver lost to virtually anyone who was better than average. Lost to Bonecrusher in 1 round.

Botha isn't too bad, but he's not exceptional. He padded his record and got removed his win of Schulz for riods. Lost to Moorer and drawed to Briggs who definitely lost to Foreman the year before. Lewis demolished him better than Tyson had.

Carl "lose to Weaver" and beat Tyson in the amatuers. Okay, he did beat Berbick in 88... :rofl

Biggs was good in the amateurs. However, he couldn't cut it in the 90's. And lost to the top notch opponents after Tyson. He could've been great, but mentally he was weak.

Tubbs, not an a belt-holder in a bad era. Lost to Witherspoon and was fat and had a weak chin.

Tony Tucker, another belt holder in the 80's. To Tyson's credit he hadn't lost. Still couldn't cut it in the 90's. And who did he beat that was so good... Buster Douglas?

Stewart is a good win. And in a great fashion.

Savarese lost to Holyfield in 07. A guess it's a good win for the old Foreman too.

Bruno might be an underrated win. He had power but lacked stamina and didn't have a top class chin. Good win though.

Seems to me just an incredibly weak era with weak contendors that hold a belt because the era wasn't good. Post Ali-post Holmes.

I'll try your exercise though.

George Foreman

Peralta
Chuvalo
Frazier X2
Roman
Norton
Lyle
John Dino Denis
Qawi
Cooper
Cooney
Stewart
Moorer
Schulz
Savarese (Before Tyson did)
Briggs (Yes he won)

Well, I think Foreman's is clearly better. A lot of not great names but there's Frazier, Norton, some good boxers here and there and then the 90's like Moorer, Stewart, and Briggs.

Let's try Frazier I guess

Bonavena X2
Machen
Doug Jones
Buster Mathis
Quarry X2
Ellis X2
Foster
Ali
Stander - (Although really a bum. His record is something you might see in that weak 80's era. He would be competetive there too. But hey, he did beat Shavers I guess).
Bugner

Okay, so less names for Joe. I'll guess Tyson with having more depth but Frazier better are the better boxers. And the Ali win is big.

I think Tyson has depth. But a lot of that depth are just wins of good opponents in a not so good era. He has very few over the top of the era. This is big. Plus, he doesn't have the depth of a Holyfield in the 90's.

 

Holmes didn't like him, sure. But it doesn't change the fact that Holmes didn't have the timing. He was off almost 2 years. If you think he had the timing at that age coming back 2 years ago then you must think highly of Holmes. The Mercer/Holyfield scenarios are different seeing as Holmes had consecutive fights up to that point. I guess you don't think Ali's layoff affected him that much either? And I bet you think he was better in FOTC than he was in 1972-1974. Timing my friend.

 

Yeah and Ray Leonard in 87. Timing my arse. This is what did it. Speed and power my friend.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxFcFCUAnW4[/url]

 

I think Holmes pretty much sums it up right here. No mention of timing problems, many compliments to Tysons speed and counterpunching ability.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqMMTDZ1Btc&feature=related[/url]

 

Holmes didn't have to mention it in the post-interview. And neither did Ali for FOTC. Why do you think Ali was better from 72-74 than in 70-71? He magically just got better? It was the timing. Ray Leonard was a rare case, as there are exceptions. But keep disagreeing with constant boxing logic.

 

You have seen the light, son!!!! :good

 

One Tyson win that I feel needs more mention is the Tubbs fight. Tubbs came in with an interesting plan, namely get in close and work the body. I think in this fight Tyson demonstrated that he could work in close when he felt like it.

It's said that Tubbs was given the round, but to me the writing was on the wall when Tyson rocked him on occasion up close in that round and several times in the 2nd.

That finishing hook he landed is also not much talked about, but it was a terrific punch, one that took all the fight out of a durable guy and sent him crashing to the floor. Tyson has that ability back then to nail you with a bomb that seemingly came out of the blue.
His accuracy and instinctive sense of distance was pretty amazing at his peak.