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

Yeah but Witherspoon already beat Smith. I admit it was a shameful performance by Witherspoon. Ridiculous to be caught off guard like that.

 

It was a good time. A lot of good fighters and excitement. I was surprised that Tyson beat some of the guys he did so easily after he won the title. I thought the bigger guys would be tougher for him.

 

I think this is a bit harsh. Didn't he step up when he won his first title at merely 20 by total destruction of a capable title holder? When he won the lineal title by even more dominant destruction in perhaps the most anticipated fight since Ali-Foreman? Those might seem like non-events in hindsight since Tyson was so dominant, but going in they were big. Sure, Tyson was a favorite but he had a lot to live up to and did so in every conceivable way.

The first fight with Holy is a really big fight only in hindsight. At the time Holy was thought to be an easy payday and there seemed to be no need for Tyson to step up. I do agree that he failed miserably in the rematch, though. But I think that fight has come to symbolize his whole career a bit too much. Did Duran "fail to step up" because of No Mas or being obliterated by Hearns (which is pretty close to Tyson's one-sided loss to Lewis)? I think that would be to over simplifying things and I think the same is true of Tyson to an extent.

 

Especially not if the Douglas in the rematch with Mike was the same one that showed up for the Holy fight.

 

Resume can only take you so far. You have to be able to beat the best of your era and Tyson couldn't. Spinks was not Tyson's most formidable rival and neither was a faded 38 year old Holmes. Lewis and Holyfield were the best of Tyson's generation.

 

Tyson being favored over Holyfield doesn't mean much given how the fights panned out, he was 0-2. And he didn't clean out his era while champion because his top contender ended up beating him twice when they eventually fought.

 

You picked Holyfield to beat Tyson after the Dokes fight? I'd been a fan of Dokes and rooted for him that night but in no way did I feel Holyfield would beat Tyson after that performance.

Holyfield-Dokes is my favorite heavyweight fight of all time. Holyfield took his lumps and if that was Tyson instead of Dokes in there, Holy would've gotten KO'd. This was my thinking back then.

Other than that, Tyson beats Holyfield in a prime for prime barnburner!!

 

I think only Ali,Holy,Lewis,Foreman,Rocky and maybe Joe Louis were better than Tyson.

 

Yes, but the timing of the fights also matter. Tyson beating Lewis in 1989 wouldn't have counted for very much. Likewise when they actually met Tyson was further from his peak.

In the case of Tyson-Holy you can say that Holy was at least equally past his best. I think a showdown in 1991 would have been more satisfying, though.

 

100% agree! Tyson’s short prime makes an apple to apples comparison more difficult.

 

Your criteria seems awfully fluid. The only reason it seems you don't consider Spinks the best of his era is because Tyson beat him. If Tyson had beaten Holyfield the first go around I'm pretty sure you would have found a way to discount that victory as well. Spinks came into that fight the undefeated Lineal Heavyweight Champion who twice bested Larry Holmes and had never hit the canvas in his career even after facing the hard hitting Gerry Cooney. It was a legacy fight and the most anticipated Heavyweight Championship Fight since Zaire in 1974. As for Spinks not being formidable? Tyson did to Spinks what Dempsey should have done to Tunney, what Louis should have done to Conn and what Liston actually did to Patterson.

From 1986 until 1991 Tyson was THE MAN, he beat all the alpha champs and the guys that those alpha champs beat to get the title in the first place. He unified the titles one by one, decimated his opponents along the way and eliminated any disputes as to who the man was. He cleaned out the division and in the process became the Ring Magazine's #1 p4p for 3 years running as a Heavyweight. He instantly became the benchmark fighter of his generation. That is were his greatness comes from.

Losing to Holyfield and Lewis doesn't negate that claim. I mean Holyfield is 3-3-1 (Should be 3-4) against the best of his generation (Bowe, Tyson and Lewis). But look at it this way, in 1990 Evander Holyfield was The Champion. In 1999, Evander Holyfield was A Champion looking to unify the belts and reclaim lineage. In between that decade Holyfield picked up 4 losses and a draw. Losing his belts to his contemporaries and even having losing records with some of his contemporaries shouldn't take away from what makes him great. Bowe beat him 2 out of 3 times and Micheal Moorer is on even terms with him but Evander still ranks ahead on the basis of what he did outside of Bowe and Moorer. To be frank, beating Tyson is the only reason why Evander is a consensus Top 10 ATG great heavyweight. Otherwise he'd still be great but more like Top 15 if not closer to 20.

Lewis's greatness comes from being a top fighter for the better part of the decade and being the last man standing. His resume has great depth and is practically blemish free; he's beaten every man he's faced and he has some pretty good names on his resume, though some were faded, most notably his legacy fights with Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. His reign was from 1999-2003 and it was during that time where Lewis was THE dominant fighter. To place a lot of emphasis on Lewis beating Tyson or rather Tyson losing to Lewis as measure of their respective greatness should be taken into proper context.

The Holmes that Tyson beat had more in the tank than then Tyson that Lewis beat. So if you count the Lewis fight against Tyson, then you must also count the Holmes fight in his favor as well. To put it in perspective, Tyson beat Larry Holmes 10 years after Holmes first won the title and 15 years after he first turned pro. Lewis beat Tyson 16 years after he first won the title and 17 years after he first turned pro. Based on Holmes's performance post Tyson, specifically against Mercer and Holyfield, it was clear that Larry aged better than Mike when you factor in Tyson's post Lewis performances. Just for shits and giggles, Larry Holmes beat Muhammad Ali16 years after Ali first won the Heavyweight title.

The point is there is a number of criteria used for ranking a fighter, win/loss record against the best of one's era is one of many different criteria used, not the only one.

 

Holyfield wasn't the only Top Contender of his era.

 

In the New York Times article discussing Louis taking step aside money goes on to say that Lewis planned offer Tyson a deal that would earn 45 million. Did Lewis feeling he was getting low balled causing him to step aside?