What Does It Say About Tyson...

While Tyson had something left, his opponents never had that much to begin with, were plodder types, and not very skilled. They were made to order guys vs a puncher who was not in shape to go 12 rounds if you ask me. Tyson looked horrible vs Neilson, and was likely even with Botha 2-2, before landing a monstrous right hand.

Put the post prison Tyson in there with better ranked fighters, and the " U " word might come out.

The post prison Tyson was on a bum of the month type of tour of carefully selected fighters, and I do believe his match with Etienne was very fishy. The tour was designed to get him into position to meet Holyfield and Lewis. It worked, and those who promoted / managed Tyson cashed out big time.

 

I think we can distinguish different versions of Tyson almost from fight to fight, rather than just "post-prison"

1995-'97 he was still good, obviously peaking there with the Bruno fight. Physically he looked damn good in the "bite fight", and with some vintage moves, but obviously he was mentally weak.

1999-'00 he was a lesser man, crushed by the Holyfield defeats and a renewed media interest in his bizarre behaviour, re-established as a hate figure. He knew he was a fraud by this point. He looked sloppy against Botha, then went back to jail for a few months, then came out and looked to perhaps be improving by end of '00, with the win over Golota, working off some rust. At this point he would still be a contender.

'01 - '04 showcased a Tyson that didn't even look like a worthy contender, IMO. He took a year off after beating Golota, and I think he looked like an old plodder against the fat Danish dude. Then he got crucified by Lewis, knocked out Etienne and, after another long layoff, knocked out BY Danny Williams.

2005 McBride. Dreadful beyond belief.

 

Bottom line is: Tyson was less shot at every stage in his career (except the very end) than most people remember, and overall was a much better fighter than some give him credit for. Even in 2000-2003, he was still one of the fastest and heaviest punchers in the world.

 

And there'in lay the voice of reason

:good

 

Now be fair, Roy Jones Juicer is at least three inches taller than 5'6.

 

The heavyweight division was in a horrible state back then, and still is. It seems to have been on a steady decline since the 70s or 80s.

 

I disagree. The 1990's was loaded with talent from start to finish. The 80's and 70's had a few dead spots in it. I'd match the talent in the 1990's vs most decades on a favorable basis.

Fighters like Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield, Morrer, Tua, Morrison, Mercer, et all were very good. An older Holmes and Foreman had their moments too.

There is no doubt heavyweight division did experience a down period when Tyson, and Holyfied got old, Lewis retired, and Vitlai retired. Then Don King took control and gave us too many matches where he had control of Ruiz, Valuev, Rhaman, and Byrd. Thankfully, Ruiz who un-watchable, and Byrd are gone from the picture. Rhaman is gone too. I don't think Vlauev is talented enough to come back, but he is still young enough to try.

As of right now aside from Wlad ,we really have not seen enough of the other top fighters like Chagaev, Ibragimov, Povetkin, or Peter to know how good or bad they are.

Let's give Chagaev props for beating Valuev, and Ruiz and accepting a title unification match before illness. Let's give Povektin props for moving at a fast pace and ending Byrd's run as a top fighter. Let’s give Ibragimov props for eliminating old men such as Holy and Briggs in easy one sided fights, and accepting upcoming title unification with Wlad. I suspect Peter, who eliminated old Toney, will take out an older Maskev.


Here’s what we should focus on: As a group, Wlad, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Povektin and Peter share an average age under 30. This means each man is approaching or just in their prime. When these guys mix it with the rest, and hopefully each other we can say if the division is in bad shape or not. I get the sense that Povetkin has a chance to be a special fighter. Chagaev in my opinion would be a solid #2, #3, or #4 in most decades.

All I can say for now is the division is on an upswing as the current belt holders in my opinion, are better than the guys Don King kept re-cycling in title fights. I hear some media people saying that these X- Soviets have diminished heavyweight boxing? BAH. They saved it from lesser fighters being controlled by King, and seem willing to fight in unification matches. Are they good as a group? Let’s time tell the tale.

 

I've grown pretty dillusioned with this "decade A would slaughter decade B" business. A decade is a long time in sport, and many boxers will progress and decline during that period.

For instance, I think the mid-1980s were a pretty weak period, especially from 1983-1985 when Holmes was on the decline and Tyson was yet to blossom. Most of the top 10 seemed to be either too old, too lazy or too high to even put two good performances together. But the early 1980s and late 1980s were much better in my opinion, with some very underrated boxers like Frank Bruno, Razor Ruddock, Trevor Berbick, Terrible Tim, Michael Dokes and Mike Weaver putting in some very good performances.

The same story was true in the 1990s. 1990-1992 was a weak period in my opinion: Holyfield and Bowe were good but stunningly inconsistant; Tyson was off the radar; Lewis was still raw and immature; light-heavyweights and fat old men were able to achieve a lot; there were far too many large waistlines around for my taste. But 1993 saw a lot of good boxers on the scene, and 1996-1997 was a very good period for the heavyweight division in my opinion.

In the turn of the century, I think things started off well, stepped down a notch from 2002-2005 due to widespread corruption, inactivity and sheer fat *******ry. But the division has picked up a lot of steam in the last two years or so, with boxers like Wlad Klitschko, Chagaev, Alexander Povetkin, Sam Peter showing at worst promise and at best really impressive talent. Wladimir in particular is the best heavyweight in the division since Lewis in the second Rahman fight, and is the kind of fighter who the old masters would look at approvingly.

 

I think the 90s heavyweights are overrated. The fact that old fat guys like Holmes and Foreman beat Mercer and Moorer suggests something was amiss. And I'm not just picking out the two worst showings from the young crop. Mercer, and Tommy Morrison, for example, had PLENTY of dreadful showings.

Frank Bruno - who couldn't win a title or beat a top American or maintain a high ranking in the 80s - beat the guy who beat Lennox Lewis. And Bruno hadn't improved THAT much.

Holyfield entertained us. But lost 2 out of 3 to Bowe. Bowe did not much else. Tyson got pummelled by Douglas and Holyfield. Lennox was hot and cold.
These guys weren't better than the (for the most part) dreadfully weak (and ALSO overrated) era of mid-to-late-70s through to late-80s.

Holmes is the best heavyweight since the early 70s, and he would have never been that much more than Ali's sparring partner, truth be told.

Of post-WW2 decades, I think the 1960s was the best for heavyweights, and tapered off dramatically half-way through the 70s.

 

An interesting line of argument in light of the topic of this thread. Out of all those names you mention, Tyson faced only two, and went a total of 0-3.

 

Ah yes, the egalitarian "All decades are more or less equal" response, I walked right into it.
But I can only tell it how I see it.

The Kurgan's point is correct, it's NOT about decades.
It's about the fighters who are put forward as respresentatives.
It's the overall historical rating of the fighters that I'm questioning.

 

tyson post-prison was at least 5 years removed from his prime and still won two titles. If it was any other fighter, everyone would be singing his praises.

 

As a general summary that's probably somewhat accurate, but I think it's quite obvious that some eras, whether you define them by chronological "decade" or not, are stronger than others for reasons that can be debated. We're in a lousy era for heavyweights right now and have been for some time; I doubt anybody would argue that the talent in today's top-10 is essentially equivalent to what the division boasted in the 1960s.

 

Not so impressive once I fixed it.

edit: OK, so you can't do strikethroughs on this board. My point still stands, dagnabbit!