Strong era's that produced weak champions.

I can't think of 10 guys who did more.

 

You really are dumb. After Louis lost to Schemling, he reigned as heavyweight champion for 11 years, and made the most consecutive defenses of the title in heavyweight history. And during his reign, he also got up off the canvas to come back and pull out wins. Longevity and coming back from adversity. Two things Tyson never had, which may well hurt your feelings.

Lewis never got off the floor to win against McCall and Rahman. Your correct, only a drunken full would say otherwise. But Tyson got DQ'd in his rematch with Holyfield. He took the easy way out, rather than grind out a possible win if he decided to play by the Marquis of Queenberry rules. He feared the embarrassment and humilation of losing yet again, and panicked.

Tyson lost for the first time at 23 years of age, but proved nothing of all time great status after the defeat. Thats the difference between himself and someone like Louis. Even Roberto Duran after "no mas" came back and silenced everyone. He rebounded and proved his critics wrong in many instances. Your man on the other hand, never.

McNeely, Mathias, Norris, Savarese, Neilson, Francis. If beating those opponents throughout your career after tasting defeat for the first time makes you true ATG then we have problems. I'll give Tyson a bit credit, his best ever win after Douglas handed him his ass was Ruddock. But its hardly anything to shout about.

Your in denial...........................

 

he was turning things around though robbi.

his comeback got cut short by prison time.

he did win back the title in the end though.

tyson is still an atg at heavyweight.

 

Listen, I didn't call you dumb no need for namecalling.

1. Louis lost to Schmeling what he did afterwards is irrelavant but the point remains he lost to fighter on Max Schmeling's calibre which is shameful but like Tyson's loss to Douglas it happened on an off night. BTW I have Joe Louis at number 1 everytime I do a top 10 ATG list.

2. Lewis lost via 1 punch KO. He is the only Champion that has went out that way. He corrected the wrongs but the point is he went out like a journeyman by going down via 1 punch.

Holyfield II was disgraceful no arguement there. But lets not forget that Holyfield once used his chompers in the amatuers after being thoroughly frustrated.

Tyson after Douglas, well he beat Bruno (at the time WBC Champ), Seldon (at the time WBA Champ), Botha (Former IBF Champ at the time). He was practically on his way to unfiying again after prison. Not to mention his wins over Ruddock 2x and Golota.

This is much better than Liston after Ali, Frazier after Foreman and Patterson after Liston.

tobkhan,

Tyson ranks ahead of:

Holyfield
Frazier
Liston
Dempsey
Langford
Jeffries
Wills
Lewis.


Louis, Ali, Foreman, Johnson, Holmes, Marciano rank ahead of Mike.

 

How many belts did Hopkins miss out on? He was running around with 4 belts last time i looked. He had the 3 Tyson had plus a newer one.

 

Tyson is 2-3 vs ATG's.

Holmes, Spinks with losses to Holyfield and Lewis.

1. Jeffries refusal to face Black fighters seriously undermines his resume. I rank him in the top 20 well below Tyson.

2. Dempsey held the title hostage and refused to face Wills. His inactivity, fewer title defenses is dismal vs. Tyson's reign. Also his run to the title has a few of blemishes unlike Tyson.

3. Liston cleared out most of the division in the late 50s early 60s much like Tyson did in the late 80s. Tyson maintained relevance in terms of solid wins including regaining the HW Championship after he lost the title whereas Liston become a footnote.

4. With the exception of the Ali win, Tyson's resume has more depth than Frazier. Had a better career after losing the title as well.

5. Lewis first won the title in the courtroom and then lost it via 1 punch in the ring against McCall. His resume is pretty good and he was for the most part consistent, but not really dominant. He was never really undisputed unil 1999 when he beat Holyfield (the first fight decision was BS)

6. Holyfield was too inconsistent as champ to ranked ahaed.

To be continued. Gotta go.

 

The true test for Lewis was going to be the McCall fight, he was up and definitely eager to fight on. Who is to say what may have happened. Plenty of fighters have been allowed to fight on in a similar condition, and some have indeed won from it.

 

I'm suprised no one has mentioned it (talking about Heavies again ), but the era that screams out the moment I read the title of the thread, is the 147lbers in the late 60s.

I know it was virtually all good luck, and he soon lost the championship, but Billy Backus being king of a division that had Jose Napoles, Curtis Cokes, Hedgemon Lewis and Mr Griffith making the odd appearance?

 

Holyfield lost to Michael Moorer who in turn allowed a 45 year old man to win the Heavyweight title. Tyson in the 90s had a 3 year prison stint that took alot out of him.

We can agree to disagree. I have Tyson in my top 10.

Truthfully I dont like to rank fighters like McVea, Langford, Jeffries- pre Dempsey fighters because the lack of film forces me to go on hear say and biased information that I have to accept as fact. If I cannot see the fighters peformance and I have to read about thier technique in books then all of a sudden they become these mythical figures. I cant grade what I cant properly assess.

 

WHo ever said tyson. dempsey, go die.

 

Tyson had two defenses of the linear title. The other fights still help his legacy but Tyson's problem is that there were heavyweights better than him in his own era and this prevented him from dominating his own time.

 

Well there is film on Langford, Jeff and a Pass prime McVea sparining with Johnson though.

 

That's the best analysis of Tyson I've heard in a long time, but you could easily categorize me with the "haters." Still, that's the point that resignates most with me -- an ATG is one who proves his championship worth especially after a major defeat.

 

Anybody who cleans out a division, unifies the titles, losses comes back after a layoff and wins the title again is an ATG.

What did Frazier do after his first major defeat?
He lost to Ali twice and then lost to Foreman again.

What about Dempsey?
He beats Sharkey only to lose to Tunney again.

The point is Tyson was an ATG and you cannot spin it any other way. The criteria for being an ATG does not include getting off the floor to win a fight or overcoming odds. The measure is:

1. Tenure as Champ
2. Quality of opposition
3. Ability as a fighter.

In other sports, dominant and decisive wins are awareded with praise whereas in boxing, dominant and decisive victories are greeted with skepticism.

The "xxxxxxx" express has so many passengers until "xxxxxx" gets Ko'd or outboxed. Then he's overrated.

1. After Jeff Lacy lost to Joe Calzaghe, Lacy was all of a sudden overrated. One dimensional, exposed. Not "Calzaghe was alot better than I expected" but "Jeff Lacy wasnt that good"

2. Michael Spinks at HW is remembered most for his 91 loss to Tyson as opposed to his (at the time unprecedented) Signature victory over the Real and Reigning HW Champ Larry Holmes.

3. Felix Trinidad has two losses (three if you count DLH) to fighters that are undoutedly ATG fighters. And all of a sudden he's limited, not that good.

4. Roy Jones jr. was a fighter in which people just couldnt wait to see lose.


Some people don't want to believe that a fighter can be head and shoulders above his competition. Instead they want to see struggle, they wanna see Rocky everytime a fighter steps in the ring. They don't embrace perfection rather they prefer imperfection. Thier ideal fighter is someone who gets up off the floor in a HW title fight and rallies back to win a the decision. My ideal fighter is someone who from start to finish takes care of business and leaves no doubt who the better man was.

My two cents.