Tyson did quit. He went to jail on purpose so he wouldn't surpass Ali as the greatest. Similar to Barry Sanders retiring from the NFL early so he wouldn't break Walter Payton's career rushing record. Search your feelings JT, you know it to be true!!
A prime Tyson would do better against most of the other champs and contenders historically but Holyfield always beats him
Prime for prime I think Holyfield beats him. He may have to get off the canvas but I think he wins again. H2H Tyson is probably a tougher fight for most champions historically. Can see Norton and Frazier giving Holyfield a run for his money, I'd say Tyson destroys them in a few rounds, he'd KO Norton in the first
I’ve never said he wasn’t great for a brief period. But he also cleaned out a mediocre division before great big men like Lewis or flat out great fighters Ike Holyfield arrived to really test him. Actually he couldn’t even reign for long enough to face Holyfield because Douglas found him out in emphatic fashion. Also fighters like Tucker and Ruddock have been turned into something they weren’t purely because Tyson was tested by them. Otherwise they didn’t achieve much in their respective careers. It’s circular logic. I’m just pointing out that no version of Tyson whether trained by Cus, Rooney or anyone was unbeatable. He always had flaws that were going to be discovered eventually. You need to deal with this my man. And the fighter of the year stuff is meaningless. It’s little more than a popularity contest by the media. It’s already heavily biased towards heavyweights and Tyson was marketed extremely well at that time.
If this era was so weak, why couldn't Holmes, such a long-lived boxer, retain his title at only 35? He lost to Spinks, should have lost to Williams, and he called the green Berbick the strongest fighter he'd ever fought, while consistently avoiding Pinkie Thomas. Bruno, beaten three times in the 1980s, won the belt in 1995, clearly past his prime. Why wasn't Holyfield as dominant in this era? Check when Lewis began to be considered a great boxer.
Holmes had ruled the division for 7 years and made 20 defenses and going 48-0 before losing his title in a razor close fight. If Tyson was so good why didn’t he get anywhere near matching this? How come Tyson never once got off the floor to win a fight like most of the true legends did? Holyfield’s era was a whole lot tougher than Tyson’s is why. There were no Bowes and Lewis’s that Tyson had to face.He struggled enough with Tony Tucker. Bruno persisted but he beat one of the poorer alphabet belt holders there’s been. It wasn’t some example of 80’s prowess more so how much of a fluke McCall beating Lewis was.
This still doesn't explain why Holmes dominated the 1978-1984 era but stopped being dominant during the Tyson era. Why, while still near his prime, did he struggle so much with Spinks and Williams and get knocked out by Tyson himself? And then come back and beat the prime-time Mercer much more decisively than Lewis? The fact that McCall accidentally won the title in the 1990s and then relinquished it to Bruno suggests that the Bowes-Lewis era was weak. That's why Foreman won the title in '94, not '89, and Holmes came close in '95, even though in '88 they said he was finished. Tyson's greatness isn't about longevity. Even his fans agree that he was great for about three years, but during that time he was No. 1 in boxing for the first time. Was boxing as a whole weak back then? All the divisions?
My friend, for a fighter who was competitive at 45 in the golden era of heavyweight boxing, he should have easily held the belts at 35 in the weaker era. Holmes was like Hopkins, Klitschko, and Lewis. Very long-lived.