Tyson's rating in the 90's

I would have to rank Foreman and probably Moorer above Tyson as well.

Not to sound like a broken record here, but if Foreman's best win in the 90's was a gainst Moorer, and Tyson's against Ruddock, than that alone sets Goerge a bit higher. Michael Moorer's best win was against the reigning champ Holyfield. Ruddock's best win was against a declining Dokes. Moorer was a world champ in two divisions. Ruddock never won a world title. Moorer's record was 35-0-0-30. Ruddock's record was 24-1-1-17. What's more, is that Foreman's victory over Moorer was a clear cut knockout leaving no questions to be asked. Tyson's win(s) over Ruddock consisted of a contoversial stoppage and a decision.

Foreman also took a prime 1991 Holyfield the distance, whereas Tyson was beaten far more convincingly by a 1996 Holyfield who was deteriorating.

Asside from the Moorer and Ruddock fights, Mike and George's secondary wins in the 90's weren't much different in quality. Foreman won a close decsion over 36-0 Lou savarese, along with Coetzer, Stewart, Rodriguez, Ellis, Grimsley, and schultz. Okay the Schultz fight was arguably a robbery, but then again, it could be said that George was robbed in the last fight of his career at age 48 against Shannon Briggs. Cotzer, Cooney, Rodriguez, and Grimsley weren't that great, especially considering that some of those guys were declining, but how good was Tillman, Mcneeley, and Mathis? Not to mention you clearly said once yourself that Tyson's fight with Seldon reaked of a dive, and Bruce was a guy who lost in one round to Riddick Bowe, was knocked out by Mccall, and outboxed by an aging Tubbs. Bruno was also past his prime, and a man whom Tyson had the reassurance of beating fairly easily once before. Tyson destroyed Alex Stewart in one round, while Stewart made Foreman's face look like a trauma statistic. But, Stewart was arguably in the best shape of his career, when he fought George, and at least had previously been in the ring with Holyfield, Tyson, Moorer and unbeaten Paul Poirier. When Tyson fought Stewart the only memorbale outings that he had, was a fight with Evander and a win over Arthel Lawehorn. If the Alex Stewart comparision is the only example that Tyson fans will cling to when trying to rate him over Foreman, then I'd say it's a pretty weak argument.

Foreman's record in the 90's- 12-3

Tyson's record in the 90's- 9-3

Knockout Losses- Tyson 2, Foreman 0

Losses to past prime fighters or lesser comp- Tyson 3, Foreman 0

Best win- Foreman Ko Moorer. ( world title fight ) Tyson Tko/decision Ruddock.

 

There you go with the if's and's and but's **** again. The fact is, Bowe wasn't champion. Lewis wasn't champion. Holyfield wasn't champion. And you have no way of knowing what would or wouldn't happen if they were. The fact, however is that Moorer was champion, and he was a great fighter with stellar credentials. Foreman's win over Moorer was better than any win Tyson had in the 90's.....Period........

 

If you're only talking about his accomplishments in the 90's then I strongly disagree. Bowes record in the 90's was 27-1, Tyson's was 9-3. Bowe defeated Holyfield Twice whom Tyson lost two on both occasions, and the Holyfield wins were better than any of Tyson's victories during that decade. Bowe also had better secondary wins as well over Gonzalez, Donald, Hide, Seldon and Coetzer. Tyson's second tier oponents next to Ruddock in the 90's were Seldon, Stewart, Botha, Mathis, Bruno, Mcneely and Tillman. Not a great slew if you ask me. Plus Tyson lost to Douglas as well.

 

Tyson regained fragments of the crown by beating a past prime Bruno, and Seldon whom Bowe bested in single round. Big deal. Bowe's primary and secondary wins in the 90's are better than anything Tyson did between 1990 and 1999.

A close and difficult fight to judge. Nevertheless, being in the prosect phase of one's career and winning a questionable decision against a former champion, is not as detrimental to one's legacy as being undisputed champion of the world and getting completely owned and KO'd by a man who many considered as an average contender.

Bowe's choice to retire at an early age, doesn't change the outcome of what each man actually accomplished in the 90's.

Bowe's record between 1990 and 1997, was 27-1. Tyson's record between 1990 and 1999 was 9-3. Huge desparetey there, in and of itself. Bowe's best win(s) were over Evander Holyfield were better than any Tyson had ever accomplished in his entire career, let alone anyone he beat in the 90's. Bowe was never knocked out, and in fact who's only loss was a close decision to Holyfield whom he beat Twice. Tyson was knocked out by both Douglas and Holyfield, two losses that both went unavenged.

I'll agree that Tyson's overall career accomplishments were better than Bowe's if you factor into the equation what he did in the 80's. The comparison, however is what both men did in the 90's, In which case the facts and statistics are overwhelmingly in Bowe's favor.

 

On the contrary, I think it shows great significance, given that we can only rate fighters based on what they ACTUALLY did, as opposed to what they MIGHT have done, had the circumstances of their careers been different. Tyson's abscence in the 90's greatly detracts from his legacy during the decade.

Was Ruddock considered the best heavyweight in the division post 1992? I think not. The accomplishments of both Holyfield and Bowe vastly outweigh that of Ruddock's when looking at the whole decade. Therefore, Bowe's wins over Holyfield greatly surpass the significance of Tyson's wins over Ruddock.

The Botha and stewart wins were good victories, but Bruno was past it, and Seldon had been beaten by Bowe, Tubbs and Mccall, and what's worse, some have argued that Seldon took a dive in the fight.

Precisely my argument!! Tyson's accomplishements in the 80's can't be used when giving him a rating in the 90's. This is what I've been telling you for two days now. atsch

And what was Tyson doing around 1996? Getting his ass kicked by a past prime Holyfield whom Bowe had beaten a better version of twice? What's your point?

He didn't lose relevance. He retired. Big difference.

.

And a better win than any Tyson had throughout the entire decade.

The Lou Savarese fight was close, but Foreman clearly won it. Alex Stewart sustained two unanswered knockdowns against Foreman, therefore the fight was not a robbery. The only possible gift decision that Foreman received was against Axel Shultz, however when you consider that he was robbed of a decision against Shannon Briggs, his record would still even out to 12-3 as opposed to Tyson's 9-3, regardless.