Is Tyson's Top 10 HW Ranking Justifiable?

Constant boxing logic?? Why because you say so? Your the one that said Holmes said his timing was off after the fight. Your also saying that Holmes got better at 42 or 43 when he faced Holyfield because he had a string of fights mostly against journeymen? Your timing doesnt get dialed in for a quick fighter like Tyson or Holyfield by fighting club fighters.
The bottom line is Holmes fought a decent fight, but when Tyson started getting closer, he did exactly what the old Larry Holmes would have done, and that was to fight his opponent back into boxing distance. The problem was that Tyson was too fast and too strong for him. :good

 

I'll have to watch this video at home.

Talking of longevity, I think he did pretty well for a short guy. Neither Marciano nor Frazier (both short guys) had longevity either if one thinks about it.

Tyson's reign as champ was what? A little over three years? It could have been longer, sure.
He was a player in the division for quite a while after that though, and had he not gone to jail, he could have been a top contender if not champ well into the 90's as it is. I'd say he was still an effective fighter until around '99, although he was slipping quite a bit by then. Not too many heavyweights can actually claim that - still being a contender thirteen years after becoming champ. Make it ten with the three year gap. It's still impressive.

He was also fairly active as champion...four title fights in '87, three in '88 and two in '89. There were no extended breaks when he was champ, unlike some others who preceded him.

 

Excellent post.

 

I don't think the ring had him ranked consistantly from memory, but the sanctioning organizations ( WBC, WBA & IBF ) all had him in their top 10. I believe Douglas was the IBF's #2 contender when he fought Mike Tyson in February of 1990. At any rate, I agree with lefthooks ascertion that he was no journeyman. He was a rated contender for the better part of maybe 4 years, and had faced some decent opponents in both his win and loss column.

 

I'd agree with most of what you've posted on this thread Lefthook, I think Holmes is a very underrated win for Tyson. The speed of hand and foot combined with an excellent defense is the reason Holmes didn't have his timing there. Tyson's domination means he gets underrated, if Holmes/Spinks had done better they'd be seen as great great wins, but both get underrated as opponents because of what he did to them both. Tyson would have taken out plenty of ATGs the same way he took these 2 out.

People forget that Tyson had 4years of his prime taken from him, albeit it was his own fault. After that he could never get back to what he once was, he managed to get the muscle/power back but never the stamina, which is key. Ofcourse we all know Tyson stopped training properly but he had already climbed his Everest, had money coming out of his ears. Fighters lose hunger when they have it all and Tyson got more than anyone.

1 thing about Tyson is, its a very hard style to keep going and demands physical perfection to beat those HWs who had say 10inches in reach and 6inches in height on him. Without that stamina of his youth he couldn't compete because he couldnt lean back and step off to rest like an ALi/Lewis he had to keep bobing and weaving, moving and punching.

 

Tyson never had 4 years of his prime taken from him. He never showed anything in both Ruddock fights to suggest he was back to his very best under Rooney in 88. It's pure guess work to think that he'd have been better from around 92-95 had he not went to jail, post Ruddock showings. Infact, if your saying he had 4 years of his prime taken from him, then you're more or less saying he'd have been on par or better between 92-95 than he actually was around 86-88.

Tyson went downhill after Rooney. No evidence whatsoever that his prime years were lost. He had his prime time.

 

True, but losing 3.5 years of his mid 20's didn't help things either. While he may not have ever returned to the level that he once was in the late 80's, I think they version who beat Ruddock and Stewart was still very formidable and a great force in the division.

 

Well, later in his career he was already going on with the Don King's circus. No more D'amato. No more Rooney. No more Jim Jacobs. So it doesn't surprise me that much that Tyson lost focus :twisted:

 

Not as good as he was under Rooney, but he was certainly better than his prison comeback.

 

Lets cut to the chase. Did he have 4 years of his prime taken off him?

 

Physical prime, yes, fighting prime, sorta. He was still a force before he went to prison. Was he at his best, no.

 

Thanks. :good

 

Four years at his absolute BEST? No, probably not. Four years of still being very CLOSE to prime? Yes.

To say that he didn't lose a single beat during those four years would be a stretch in my opinion.

 

I'd say no. I don't think he'd ever have gone back to the style that made him what he was. Physically he was the same guy, but he neglected a lot of subtle skills.