Prime Tyson one of the Greats

Quite a lot in practice.

The fighters that will never be forgotten are those who generate a high media profile. Tyson like Jack Dempsey before him had a colosal impact upon the sport and will probably be better remembered than Lennox Lewis.

Based purely on resume he has also gone up in my rankings the more I have looked into the detail of it.

 

On mine too. I rank him over Dempsey and Liston for example.


To the other. It depends who you talk to. To casual fans, yes, you are right. But on here I think we judge greatness a bit different.

 

We are the only group who might argue for Harry Wills over Jack Dempsey.

 

the only one whom had a realistic chance against a prime tyson of those mentioned here is foreman. tyson had better chin than shavers , holmes would have always lost to tyson. ali lost to frazier whom was weaker than tyson in both offense and defense. liston was technically inferior to tyson if boxing is the discussed technique. marciano was floored against old moore and old walcott , what would have happened to him against tyson whom destroyed much bigger and stronger fighters than marciano himself and every opponent marciano ever fought ?
i even doubt foreman's reaction to the pressure tyson could put on him.
after being hit harder than ever , foreman could be stopped as well.

 

Tyson never made it through a fight where he took serious punishment. Everytime someone fought back hard he failed to finish. Any Ali up until 1975 beats him easily. Tyson could never handle that kind of war that Frazier had to to beat Ali.

How about Buster Douglas. Something tells me he beats a young,primed Tyson.

 

Did you see the Ruddock fights?

 

If hes an enigma so are Larry Holmes and Lennox Lewis. Why is his longevity terrible, because he got the same amount of fights in a shorter time period? His resume is not lacking, unless you want to make a bunch of excuses why he defeated so many former champs, undefeated fighters and former greats, for the most part, far quicker than any of his peers. :tired

 

Tyson was awesome at his peak and his resume is healthy but he never,ever showed a willingness/ability to come back from a loss or even a fight in which he was seriously hurt.

If he was on top early he won and if not he lost.Lewis at least showed the balls and ability to learn from and avenge a defeat,something Tyson never did.

This is why,despite how amazing he looked,doubts remain as to whether Tyson was the monster his fans would have you believe or if he was always a flawed and mentally fragile fighter.

 

He lost once before going to jail. He never had the chance to avenge that loss. How can you come to that conclusion? Based off of his fight with Holyfield after he rotted in prison for four years? Why do you have to be seriously hurt and comeback from that to show greatness? Didnt he take a lot of punishment in the Ruddock fights to show he could fight through adversity against a dangerous opponent? Not to mention the willing contenders that got off the matt to continue after Tyson floored them multiple times?
BTW every fighter is flawed, yeah even the great ones.

 

I don't dispute Tyson's greatness just how great he actually is.

Tyson had ample time to avenge his loss to Douglas before prison but it never happened (I'll concede Douglas's sloth had a lot to do with that),instead he feasted on Tillman and Stewart then met Ruddock.

And damn right I hold his loss to Holyfield against him.Holyfield was supposedly finished and was cherry-picked as a name for Tyson to destroy yet no one told Holyfield that.Tyson losing to such a hand picked opponent who had suffered far more ring wear and tear can't be excused,considering Tyson was 4 fights into a comeback and had looked fantastic against Bruno and briefly Seldon.

Tyson was a phenomonal talent in his hey day and deserves a top 10 ranking but should never be rated alongside Ali,Louis and Lewis imo.

 

Not fighting Douglas again was no fault of Tyson's he wanted an instant rematch. It was more Don King's fault for not signing Douglas to future options. Douglas had to defend his title againt Holyfield and then he retired after an embarrassing loss.
You can hold Tysons loss to Holyfield against him, but I dont consider it part of Tysons best reign in his career. Looking great against Bruno (which I didnt think), and Seldon (non fight), didnt provide any insight as to how capable he was to fight 12 hard rounds.
There was something different about Tyson for sure, and it was evident as early as the McNeeley and Mathis fights, where he was off balance and swinging wildly with no real boxing technique.
I think he should be ranked right alongside of Lewis myself.

 

he would have beaten them all in his prime. especially louis whom he would have sent to an even earlier retirement very quickly.
if it is true that holyfield had more ring wear on him it is just because he was an inferior fighter to tyson. just like in quarry-shavers , mccallum-jackson and serially in hopkins , holyfield , ruiz , ali and wladimir klitschko fights , holyfield clinched when hurt.
lewis and douglas also clinched against tyson.

 

Re. your point about Frazier. Yes,Tyson had a more varied offense than Joe,but I can't see Tyson standing up to the punishment that Ali put on Frazier. Imo,he'd get hurt,and disheartened.

 

catching tyson properly at his peak was near on impossible you can count on the fingers on one hand when he was caught cleanly i think tyson would have caught ali more often than the other way round post rooney different matter

 

You are not actually trying to call them wars. he took some shots, they were not wars.