[Video] The man who kept Tyson from being a top 10 ATG.

To clean out the division he would have to beat Holyfield who was ranked prior to Tyson losing to Douglas. Given how their fights played out thats not a likely outcome.

 

Fitzsimmons? Is this some sort of joke? How would you defend Jeffries ahead of him? How many years did Sonny hold the title and how many defenses did he make? He's in my top 10 but what is your reasoning for him above Tyson?

 

My reasoning for Liston is that I see him as the best heavyweight in the world for 5+ years. From 1958 to 1963 there isn't really anyone that would be favored to beat him.

 

Well in order to make a good attempt at that Tyson would have had to stay out of prison yes? In an ideal world all this would have played out and we could carve things in stone instead of speculating and debating. Ideally he would have either got an immediate rematch with Douglas or a match against Holyfield when he beat Douglas. If he beat Holyfield ideally he would have fought Douglas tho we know Douglas went off the rails as well.

I don't think he would have beaten Holyfield personally but that doesn't carve it in stone. At the end of the day Tyson's own criminal behavior and inability to secure a rematch straight away against Douglas leaves quite a bit of speculation.

Tho i don't overly subscribe to it there are a lot of people that believe Tyson would have beaten both at this point.

 

I would agree wholeheartedly but it would have also been handy to have the title for some of this time yes. A counter argument would be that if he had the title earlier he quite well could have went off the rails earlier like Tyson did.

Wlad wasn't indisputably the best of his time either. As a matter of fact it's very dubious.

 

I said some slightly negative things about Tyson in another thread and was called a "hater". I'm not I swear! Most exciting sports figure I ever watched!

I'd put him top 10. What hurts him for me is how brief his prime was. He was a machine up until Spinks. I'll grant him the bad night against Douglas. That happens to a lot of fighters. I think Tyson would've won a rematch because I doubt Douglas could've been as sharp as before. If he was, then I'd give him a great shot to beat Tyson. Tyson never overcame anything. That's my problem with him. He needed a rematch against Douglas really badly. He needed to show he had one bad night and he's taking his belts back. He beat good fighters but didn't have that gutsy win that great fighters have. Does he have a really good win in the 90's? Bruno? Botha? The fight he really needed to win were the ones he lost. I'll give him a break on the Lewis fight because he was way past his prime and not in the best place mentally. Holyfield is who he needed to show his best against. Did he have any strong moments against Evander? I can't think of any. I just remember him looking tentative a lot and getting backed up.

He had amazing talent and lets face it, he's got some of the best boxing highlights you'll find. I just wish he had a few more big wins or at least some where he had to dig deep.

 

7-8-9...

in fluid order....Tyson, Frazier, Liston

so 7-9, somewhere.

 

Agreed.

 

The key part is justifying why they should go ahead, not just naming the fighters. I could blurt out 20 middleweights to rank ahead of Harry Greb and Sugar Ray Robinson, it doesn't mean they actually should be.

I'm one of the biggest Fitz fans you'll find, there's no way he belongs ahead of Tyson in a heavyweight ranking.

 

I actually ranked Jeffries ahead of him (Jeffries at 6 and Tyson at 7). I think Jeffries's title reign is one of the most dominant there's been, and in an era where there was little incentive for good defences, and undefeated outside of a comeback after years of inactivity.

 

I guess you might be able to make a case for putting Tyson in the lower top 10 but I would feel a lot more comfortable doing so had he beaten Holyfield. As it stands he is 0-3 against the two best heavyweights of his era. He was past it against Lewis but could have fought Lewis back in 1996 so he has only himself to blame for the fight not happening earlier.

 

96 is still a clear 6 years past his prime, when he did clear the division out.

 

That was a fluke fight in my mind. He caught Tim off guard but he won, and Bonecrusher was a good puncher who could hurt anyone. I am not a person who gets into set ups and Tim mentally was not a great fighter. He had the tools to be great and Tim on a good night motivated could have knocked out Tyson. Tim beat Smith some time before that fight. Witherspoon is the one guy at that time who I always thought could beat Mike. He was durable and quick and had a great looping right hand and was big. It is very possible that Mike could have done the same thing to Tim that Smith did. But Tim in shape and motivated I thought was a huge problem for Mike. Size and right hand and durable.

Yes you are right. There was tournament at the time and Tim would have fought Mike had Smith not knocked him out. Which some people thought Carl King told Smith to jump on Tim early.. I think that is Don King's son's name Carl. The Kings might have known that Tim could be problems for Mike. I don't know. I actually gave Smith a good chance to hurt Mike, and as it turned out he rocked Mike in the closing seconds of the fight and might have wobbled him a little.

 

Well surely if his fight with Lewis counts, so should his fight with Holmes, which would make him 1-3.

Liston is 0-2
Fitzsimmons is 0-3 counting the fight with Johnson
Langford is 0-1
Sullivan is 0-1
Wlad might be 0-2, depending on how things pan out.

A lot of it is just circumstance and it's all pretty meaningless.

 

The bottom line is that losing to Smith cost Witherspoon a Tyson fight. There was no avoiding and the likes.

Tyson would have stopped Witherspoon for mine. He could have made it awkward for a while or Tyson could have blown clean thru him as well. I don't see Witherspoon beating Tyson at Tyson's best.