Third greatest heavyweight of all time?

Larry Holmes, Tyson being a very close 2nd (or 4th including Ali & Louis)

 

Accolades mean little once you get in the ring.

Mike Tyson revolutionized boxing. He pioneered the heavyweight combination of blazing speed and crushing power.

a) Tyson at his lean peak weighed more than George Foreman, though about 4 inches shorter. Yet, his handspeed rivaled Ali's and bested any other powerpuncher's.

b) The consistent way Tyson destroyed opponents surpasses that of any other great. He put anyone, always taller, heavier foes, willing to fight him down and out for 10: Berbick, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks. No one before or after did what he did to these quality fighters.

c) He unified the title in record time, defeating all other claimant champions one by one, looking head-and-shoulders superior in the process.

d) At his peak, he hardly lost as much as a round. His getting hit was a mini-event all its own.

e) His chin, stamina and variety of punches were top notch: no flash knockdowns like Louis, no petering out like Foreman in his moment of truth, no mere one dimension like Frazier running after Ali to land a left hook in the 11th of FOTC. He went a hard and fast 12 with a tall technician like Tony Tucker, avoided being tired out and romped over the reluctant, cagey, bone-hugging Smith. He knocked out Berbick with a left hook, Holmes with a right hook, Spinks with a short rising right, Bruno with a right uppercut between the gloves, perfectly leveraged blows all preceded by blazing combinations.

If Ali is given accolades for outpointing Terrell and stopping, yet never knocking out the shot Williams, if Louis is credited for halting an older, lighter Schmeling in 1 and Max Baer in 4, the above must stand as at least equally impressive performances as well.

At his peak, Tyson looked as close to invincible as any heavyweight champion, ever. The 42-1 odds against Douglas speak for themselves. In the end, Tyson beat Tyson, as he chose to become disillusioned with a world he conquered much too easily on the strength of his awesome talent and discipline, but a place where he "knew" no one really cared about him.

My top heavyweights list, based on ring performance, has for years now actually been this: 1) Ali 2) Johnson 3) Tyson 4) Dempsey 5) Louis. Today I just felt Tyson edges out Lil' Arthur.

 

Huh? Tyson claimed his best weight was around 216-217. Foreman never weighed less than 214 in a pro bout and weighed 217 1/2 pounds from Frazier to 226 to Lyle. And was 231 1/2 pounds against Dino Denis. I also think Foreman was leaner than Tyson at his peak (And definitely had less body fat I think).

At his peak he hardly lost a round? Hardly not as in never but as in rarely? In just one fight 2 judges had the Tillis fight 6-4 for Tyson. I wouldn't consider your statement a stretch. Although his domination is nearly unsurpassed (But Liston and Foreman's rival it to a degree).

Tyson is a fine pick if it's based on abilities and ring performances. However, how is Dempsey at #4? You must highly rate dominance of a peak for that to be your list. Greatness requires longevity and consistency. Guys like Holmes, Marciano, and Louis did that. But even when highly rating dominance and a short peak I still think Liston and Foreman beat out Dempsey in this area.

Excellent post by the way. Very well detailed although I feel you give too much credit for Tyson's actual opposition. You justified your rankings under your criteria. An extraordinarily interesting determination of greatness, though.

 

I voted Lennox Lewis. I have no problem putting him at #3 because of his size and skills. I think a focused Lennox Lewis is a nightmare to anyone.

However, I just can't put Liston, Holmes or Foreman above him. I'm sure any of those three would have beaten Lewis, but based on Lewis' accomplishments and overall career, he gets my vote.

 

Tyson weighed about a pound more than Foreman, peak performance vs. peak performance: 218 1/4 vs. 217 1/2 for the Michael Spinks and Joe Frazier fights, respectively. I would say neither could flaunt the waist of a wasp. Tyson was just more heavily muscled; amazing, considering his height. No wonder he intimidated.

The Tillis fight was not Tyson's peak. Perhaps Pinklon Thomas was the most successful at winning rounds from Tyson at this stage. Larry Merchant would gush at the end of several rounds, "That's another round for Thomas!" Of course, by his own admission, Tyson was biding his time, tiring out Pinky, till closing the show in searing fashion.

Guilty as charged. I happen to rank the champions pitting them against each other peak stage vs. peak stage. One reason is when a nonfan asks who the greatest is, he is thinking in terms of who would beat who, not title defenses or kayo percentage. Most greats would turn back Marciano's title opposition just as he did. But how would the Rock do against a lineup of Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Frazier, Foreman and Ali? I agree that greatness requires proving consistency. But, all things considered, I am confident my top ten proved themselves over a reasonable enough time.

Again, what good are accolades when you are facing a monster? This is evident, by the way, in Michael Spinks' and Larry Holmes' introductions just before facing Tyson. The announcer was intoning their accomplishments just before bellowing out their names, but they looked petrified! "The Ring Magazine recognized champion...seven years king of the heavyweight division..." "Who gives two hoots in Hades! I'm doomed tonight."

Thanks. In Tyson's case, it's not just who he beat. His detractors set a favorite trap: "Who was the best fighter Tyson beat?" I actually think his opposition upon reaching the top and through his 9 successful defenses was pretty impressive, from a historical comparative perspective. But what convinces me of Tyson's greatness is the way he crushed that opposition.

 

:admin Vitali ahead of Foreman? You? Really? Even I wouldn't rate Vitali ahead of Foreman. Stylistically he'd be better H2H against certain ATG's, but overall?

I voted Dempsey without thinking much about it. H2H, time-warped, he would not be the third greatest, but in terms of talent and skill I'm fairly comfortable in the pick. Marciano, Lewis and Holmes were my other considerations, and honestly they're interchangable. But in terms of sheer greatness I prefer Dempsey, as an athlete and as a boxing talent if not a finished product.

 

Right. But consistently George was usually bigger. Some argue Spinks wasn't his best performance. Tyson himself said his best weight was 217. More often than not Foreman was more than that in his prime. Tyson was a stocky short bull of a man. Huge neck and big arms. But Foreman was a beast in his own nature. Very big strong arms, chest, and a good size neck. Foreman was an old school fighter that tried keeping his weight down. He definitely had less bodyfat. They're just have different builds. Shorter fighters are usually stocked with much thicker legs/necks.

Fair enough. Wait, what's that prime consist of? April 1987 to Nov 1988? How about Buster Douglas? Oh, I know that's not Tyson at his prime. Wait a second yes it is... it might not be Tyson's "peak" though.

That's fine. I don't adhere to that criteria and don't think it's fair to pit a guy from the early 20's to a guy that had modern sports nutrition, training, knowledge, etc. In some cases that older fighter wins. He has grit and could be technically great. Other times he is at a large odds against/disadvantage. Especially when pitting a Marciano/Dempsey against a Tyson or Foreman.

Spinks indeed. Holmes, I'm not so sure. Maybe nervous and unconfident knowing he hadn't trained enough especially considering his age and layoff.
Are you saying that you disqualify Foreman and Liston in a way cause they were monsters? Am I misinterpreating that part?

Indeed it is his destruction that's most impressive. I'm not that impressed with his opposition in historical perspective. In terms of names he has Spinks and an old Holmes. His top pick after Spinks is Bruno (And arguably best pick as being a legit HW force). The 80's overblown HW seemed to be a downturn following the golden era of the 70's. If it's anything, I'm not too impressed with Holmes competetion either.

 

#3 Jack Johnson
#4 Larry Holmes
#5 Rocky Marciano

 

Rightly so, but I don't see a really solid argument for ranking him above Johnson. For a ten year period (between Hart and Willard) Johnson beat what there was to beat. You can't even far from say the same for Holmes between 1977 to 1985. Also Johnson often showed himself to be a class apart from top contenders he met, while Holmes in most cases struggled with them. Thirdly, many of Johnson's contemporaries hailed him as one of a kind. This is not true of Holmes to the same extent.

Holmes was a wonderful fighter, but why above Johnson?

 

Lennox Lewis or Larry Holmes.

 

I rank Johnson third.