Who was better prime for prime h2h?

Different sports mate.
He was great briefly, He can’t be rated higher than those who sustained an overall higher standard for longer. Frazier at his absolute peak might have even been better than Ali (factor in FOTC) but he flamed out early and Ali gets deservedly ranked higher. Tyson is still comfortably 10-20 all time. That’s not só bad.
He just didn’t achieve what his ability and highlight package suggests he should have. He was flawed like everyone.

 

1.The broken ribs are about as believable as his “broken spine” lol
2. Douglas was clearly his toughest opponent to that point by virtue of the fact he kicked Tyson’s head in when they actually fought lol. Douglas was entitled to cash in on his triumph with a fight against Evander.

Cope better.

 

You must have Floyd Patterson as the GOAT since he knew how to get dropped and win. Or maybe Tyson was just better than guys like that.

 

question is who was better in his prime, not who had a longer prime or greater achievements. A 32-year-old Trevor Berbick was better than a 32-year-old Mike Tyson, and a 40-year-old Thulani Malinga was better than a 40-year-old Roy Jones.

In his three years in prime, Tyson won 10 championship fights, unified three belts, defended the unified title six times, was twice named Boxer of the Year, and was the No. 1 P4P. Which other natural heavyweight was the No. 1 P4P?

 

P4P is modern wankery.

If Louis and 67 Ali weren’t considered number 1 p4p (if that was even a thing back then) then they were probably kidding themselves. They were so far ahead of the field it was ridiculous, Louis did it far longer than Tyson and Ali minus the 3 year hiatus likely would have as well.
Your using media awards (which mean nothing) to big your guy up. Come on.

 

I rate Tyson as outstanding for the sport (particularly the heavyweight division) in his era. But he wasn’t unbeatable nor in the discussion for the best ever. There’s way too many hiccups that he had that the other ATG’s didnt have.

 

This isn't a media award. That's how experts and journalists from The Ring assessed him. It's like saying it doesn't matter that Inoue is among the top fighters in the P4P rankings, but you have a different opinion. He hasn't beaten any boxers you know, he hasn't been on the boards. For a dozen or so posts, I've been asking why you think the Tyson era was weak, and you keep dodging the question. Your main argument is that he wasn't very good, and that's it! Michael Spinks, in his Best in Faced series, considered him the best he ever fought (Holmes). Tyrell Biggs said the same thing (Bowe, Lewis), Tubbs said the same thing (Bowe), Ruddock said the same thing (Lewis), Bruno said the same thing (Lewis). It's just that for you, Lewis and Bows are of a different quality.

 

I’ve said he was great (briefly) all the time. The Best I’ve Faced is a diversion. They’ll rate someone they’ve either beaten or excelled against rather than give credit to the guy who destroyed them ie Ruddock/Lewis. Boxers have egos we all know that.

 

And fans have their preferences, we know that too. You find me an argument why Tyson's Prime vs. Prime wasn't one of the best. His rivals say so, the experts say so, the statistics say so, but Griffo—no, because he wasn't. I mean, he was, but he wasn't. Okay, maybe I'll stick to my opinion, and you to yours, although I'm not sure what it is anymore

 

It's not just the fact Holyfield went more rounds against them it was the fact he got lured into brawls and often got himself in trouble.

And I guarantee a prime Ali wouldn't be in a back and forth war vs the likes of a past it Michael Dokes or getting almost stopped by the likes of Bert Cooper.

The fact is Holyfield was struggling in most of his notable Heavyweight fights. That's why he didn't start getting respect until meeting Bowe because his short title reign before that was hardly overly impressive.

And whilst Holyfield may or may not beat a prime Tyson. I believe against every notable Heavyweight past or present I think a prime Tyson would fare better than Holyfield would.

And that's why my pick for this thread was Tyson.

 

I've never understood this argument from people.

Lewis never recovered and won a fight after being knocked down. But he still rates as a top 5 Heavyweight and proved his toughness in other ways.

I also hate this silly myth that every opponent Tyson fought was scared of him and didn't try and win its total nonsense.

James Tillis wasn't scared of Tyson and gave him a competitive fight.

Pinklon Thomas came to win and was competitive until he got stopped.

Tony Tucker came to win and won some rounds.

Frank Bruno came to win and hurt Tyson early before getting stopped.

Tony Tubbs came to win and was doing well until he got caught with a left hook.

Razor Ruddock stood toe to toe with Tyson over 2 fights in 2 brutal back and forth wars.

 

It’s simply a bs argument that haters fabricated exclusively for Tyson, similar to how the “prime ATG” thing was created for Floyd (even though the Canelo win is sitting right there).

 

What’s that got to do with anything?

It’s just a facet of Tyson’s career that is missing. Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Louis, Dempsey (and yes Patterson) etc all eventually hit the floor at sometime in their careers and climbed off the floor to win. Tyson eventually did too but he either didnt get up, plodded forward and got stopped or quit. He was a front runner. Cope better.

 

The issue is probably that you’re comparing a guy who hit the deck once in his prime (in a fight he barely trained for) against guys who hit the deck multiple times in their prime or got stopped in their prime.

 

Só Tyson want in his prime against Douglas?
23 years old, active, undefeated heavyweight champion? Sounds pretty damn prime to me.

But, but, but he didn’t train for that one boo hoo! Pathetic.