Why is it that people often rank fighters over fighters that beat them in mythological atg type rankings? A perfect example is Tyson vs. Holyfield. I hate Holyfield and Tyson was always my guy but in the real world goals achieved proceed hype or imagination. It's unfair to those who did what was unexpected of them, to take away there accomplishements by continuing to put there opposition ahead of them, despite actual results.
Most people do place Holyfield over Tyson. Also, one favourable matchup/winning result doesn't make a whole career. Would you rank Aaron Pryor over Alexis Arguello for 'greatness'?
I'm new to this and this is my first post so be gentle. By the way I'm from New Zealand and absolutely gutted Mike Tyson isn't allowed in our country. I think it really seems to be more about the personality than perhaps ability/record. In Tyson's case he would have fought Holyfield not long after Buster Douglas so it would have been alot more of a decent comparison between them. Take Muhammad Ali for instance, his cult status is based more on his personality than his record. I always argue with my friends that Rocky Marciano/Joe Lewis/Sugar Ray Robinson should be the greatest of all time. Just my thoughts.
Welcome to the site,Showstopper :hi: It's pretty consensual that Sugar Ray Robinson is indeed THE greatest of all time,pound for pound. I rate Ali over Louis and Marciano. All down to perspective. I could certainly understand others having Louis over Muhammad.
