Most dominant heavyweight champion ever?

Of course, that's fair. I was talking more about the way Tyson dominated his opponents.

 

Point taken

 

I think that people remember the spectacle that Mike Tyson was better than Joe Louis because most that were there for Joe's reign are gone by now.

 

Wlad was never technically undisputed, but practically he was undisputed for a short stretch from December 2013 to May 2014. Undisputed title is as discretionary as the lineal title tho so it doesn't matter that much.

 

And from when do you count his lineal reign?

 

It's debatable. Just like in the case of the likes of Sullivan, Charles and Holmes, we don't know exactly when they became the universally recognized champions. For me, the Chagaev fight is the starting point. It was universally accepted that Wlad became the man then. Just recently people started questioning his lineal status, to p*ss off Fury fans I think. But even if you question the Chagaev fight, you can go as early as April 2006 and Byrd fight or as late as November 2014 and Pulev fight, with Povetkin fight inbetween. But when Vitali retired, there was no question who the man is as there was only one reigning heavyweight champion with enough of the claim to be viewed as the king.

 

Hi Guys.
I mean Jeffries was seen, in his day, as a very formidable HW and almost unbeatable, any credence ?
stay safe guys.

 

Chagaev seems fine to me. So a 6+ year reign, and Vitaly was around for about half of that and the clear second after Wlad during this time.

There is no way that seems even faintly logical to me in which this doesn't effect dominance.

 

John L Sullivan and Joe Louis seem to be the obvious choices.

 

Tyson is a weird answer to me. Holy was nr 1 for his whole lineal reign and half of his undisputed, about. And also in hindsight by far the best contender out there. How dominant can you be if you don't take care of that business?

The answer is of course Louis, the only interesting question is who is second. Holmes had a long reign, but as full of holes as a Swiss cheese. Wlad's had the issue of Vitaly.

 

I believe Holyfield started to be rated n°1 by the organizations not until the Dokes fight.

 

He was The Rings nr 1 for 1988, before Dokes. And at least today the orgs have their champion as the mandatory as soon as he moves up.

And think it was the same back then. Hearns became Hagler's nr 1 when he moved up.

 

But it's the organizations that decide who is the mandatory. I believe Frank Bruno was the n°1 WBA/WBC in early 1989 and Carl Williams the n°1 IBF. Tyson fought them back-to-back.
Holyfield was at least in the top 6, but not mandatory in early 1989 (see at 8:24 min in the link below).

This content is protected

 

I think you're mistaking what I'm saying here. I'm not saying Tyson ducked Holy and have no problem with him facing mandatories, even though they can be very puzzling, as Bruno in this case. Very strange that he would be mandatory for two orgs after doing absolutely jack ****, especially since the champion moving up often get this position. Yes, stranger things have happened with the orgs, but do you have a source on Bruno being mandatory for both?

But to be truly dominant, anyhow, you have to beat the best out there and Holy was widely considered the main threat to Tyson after Spinks, no matter what the orgs had. The Ring is usually a much better indicator here than the orgs, and certainly in this case. And they were definitely proven right in hindsight.

And that's just one reason why Tyson is a bad pick for most dominant. He's not in the running for second even.

 

Ali, Tyson, and Holyfield would have easily dominated during Louis' time/competition, they actually would have been more dominant because they would not have lost to Schmeling, Charles, and Marciano