Why is Mike Tyson ranked above Holyfield?

I think I already did find it and posted it in reply to you in some other threat - Larry Holmes from his first Earnie Shavers fight to his fight with Tex Cobb fought 15 Top 10 fighters back to back in the span of 4,5 years. Lucien Rodriguez broke that streak and Larry was then unwilling to challenge himself most of the time after Whiterspoon.

 

I've got to be honest, and I'm sure many will disagree, but I've always been a tad puzzled when Holyfield ranks really highly in top 10 ATG heavies. I seem to remember The Ring ranking him as high as 3 at one point, behind Louis and Ali. Don't get me wrong... He is definitely a legend. And he has some very good wins and terrific qualities. But ATG lists are subjective and, for me, he never had the consistency at the highest level. He had occasional big wins against puzzling losses and surprisingly poor performances (though he still did win some of them).
Yes he was in the era of big men. And he had the heart of a lion. But I'd never feel I could really put my faith in him going into a head to head ATG match up because he was just too hot and cold.

 

This … I have Tyson ninth and Holyfield 11th on my own list so it’s not like there’s a chasm between them.

 

I think Tyson has become underrated but IMO his acolytes who constantly choose him in H2H matchups with Goliath of Gath if not Godzilla bear some of the responsibility. His reign was so dominant and he was at his peak so fearsome that he certainly sticks in the memories of people who saw him in real time, but come on.

 

Putting his current vamping social media , cultural reinvention, mass popularity aside, I find that Tyson has become absurdly underrated , the narrative that all his title opposition were weak and terrified simply revisionist crap parroted by either haters ( yes the hold a grudge for life Mr. Atlas) or morons or others simply ignorant of fact ..

Tyson was a meteor, his prime a sprint, 86 - 88, Marvis Frazier to Michael Spinks but it can be argued he was starting to fade after Holmes , his attention and dedication, absolutely mandatory to his maximum success dissipating based on the world class leeches vying for his once in a generation earning capacity as well as his own immaturity and poor character. By Tubbs he already had his eyes off the ball, the Spinks win historic but underpinned by a massive stylistic advantage. Tyson's prime is to be measured in that period and he destroyed an extremely good collection of talented, large fighters, most in their own primes who were coming off career defining wins prior to being decimated by him. He would never be this same fighter again. The rest of his career .. post Douglas to Ruddock, McNeely to Holyfield, post Holyfield to Lewis, post Lewis to McBride were all separate chapters spiraling downward... if you rate a fighter sum of the whole you can view Tyson in one light. If you view him H2H in his prime, another. In my opinion, no one displayed a better combination of hand speed and two handed power than the prime Tyson with the possible exception of Louis.

Holyfield to his credit also fought everyone ... his courage and talent unquestioned , his chin insane ... his health issues and what may have caused them are always curious but at the end of the day the whole generation of fighters are in question to some degree if they engaged or not ... Evander was an exceptional fighter ...

If you rate H2H, prime for prime I may pick Tyson , maybe , but if you rate overall career accomplishments I believe you lean Evander.

 

Damn, brave guy. Holmes is one of the few who for me can be equal or higher than MT (not for me, but it's ok), but he didn't have such a series. Which Tyson from Berbick to Douglas or Ruddock was Scott Le Doux, Leon Spinks, Alfredo Evangelista, Lorenzo Zanon better than? Tyson's rivals were better, simply put. that's one thing, now another - MORE IMPORTANT! - Tyson dominated his rivals. A simple example - Trevor Berbick withstood him for 15 rounds, how long did he last with Tyson? What Holmes 88, Spinks 88, Tubbs 88, Williams 89 class rival did Larry dominate in the same style as Mike? I don't care about time, but about domination, about the quality of victory. The Norton fight was great, but Larry was close to losing. Norton didn't seem like anything bigger than Spinks in 1988... you know what I mean?

 

perfectly said

 

Holmes series was longer than Tyson's and consisted ENTIRELY of Top 10 rated fighters. Tyson had some misses during his run, like Tony Tubbs or Frank Bruno, who weren't ranked in the Top 10 around the time they fought Tyson. There are also different types of domination. To me, second round knockout isn't necessarly better than winning 15 out of 15 rounds against Berbick. It's just the domination using another set of skills.

Be careful with using "Tyson's rivals were better" argument, as it can be used against you, looking at the fact, that he was fighting in the era considered weaker than some. Definitely weaker than Ali's era (or eras for that matter). So if we're using "better rivals" as a standard, both Ali's series are better than Tyson's, you could also argue that Lennox' series was better as well.

 

I wouldn't say Tyson always rates higher if anything Holyfield gets quite a generous high rating for losing alot of his big fights at Heavyweight 1-1 vs Moorer, 1-2 vs Bowe, 0-2 vs Lewis. And I believe his overall record was like 27-11 which is a very hit and miss record at Heavyweight.

Holyfield did fight better overall opposition and has better single wins, but Tyson's reign between 86-90 was much more impressive than Holyfield's reign.

I don't know who I would rate higher I'd have to look at bother fighters records extensively, but Tyson has the better reign and much better dominance. Holyfield has the longevity and fought a better overall standard of opponents.

It depends on your criteria but Holyfield beating Tyson in their actual fights might sway it for me in Holyfield's favour.

 

Yeah but Holmes did look alot more beatable than Tyson both at their peak, Holmes was almost stopped by Snipes, Shavers, Weaver, 3 opponents who Tyson would've dealt with fairly comfortably IMO.

Holmes has the longevity over Tyson but both at their peak Tyson was much more impressive in his title reign IMO.

Tyson destroyed Spinks who beat Holmes, destroyed Williams who had a good case for beating Holmes, destroyed Berbick who went 15 rounds with Holmes. And destroyed Pinklon Thomas who Holmes didn't fancy fighting towards the end of his career.

Tyson basically cleaned up the leftovers from Holmes's era.

 

But that's beside the point we are discussing now. Kuba asked for a better series than Tyson had during his title reign. I provided him with IMO more impressive Holmes run - longer stretch of fighting top 10 rated opponents back to back, with 4 more wins. You don't have to agree, but saying "nobody had a series like Mike" is just not true.

 

In my opinion, I think that Mike Tyson is ranked over Evander Holyfield is that when Holyfield fought Tyson, it was 1996. Time had elapsed in both of the careers of Tyson and Holyfield. Both were nearing the end in the fight game. Had both fought as they were projected to fight in 1990 before Mike lost to Douglas and later went to prison and let's suppose that Holyfield had won, then Evander would have been ranked higher, but Mike's victories stand out because Mike was in his prime. Holyfield's victory in 1996 and 1997 will be viewed that Tyson was past his best years when both actually fought.

 

why should I be careful if I think so? all Tyson's rivals from the Berbick to Ruddock fight seem better than Zanon, Evangelista, Le Doux. And Tyson beat them in a better style, over better rivals. These are facts and you cannot deny them. Holmes' series is great, one of the best in history, but Tyson's series is even better. Is the Holmes series longer? of course, only Wlad and Louis have longer ones. Does this mean that your criteria puts Wlad, Louis, Holmes at the very top?