barry wrote:Just one example, but what kind of actual ring accomplishments did Liston have better over Tyson?
I'm not saying Liston's accomplishments are light-years ahead of Tyson's, but here's why he deserves to be ranked higher on the ATG list:
1) Liston beat more quality HWs on his way to the title than Tyson did:
Liston: 10 opponents leading to 1st title fight summary: 10-0-0 (9 KOs), opponents' combined record: 387-93-31 (combined winning percentage: 81%). Notables:
Cleveland Williams (TKO3 and KO2), Nino Valdes (KO3), Zora Folley (KO3), Eddie Machen (UD12).
Tyson: 10 opponents leading to 1st title fight summary: 10-0-0 (8 KOs), opponents' combined record: 188-39-2 (combined winning percentage: 83%). Notables:
James Tillis (UD10), Mitch Green (UD10), Marvis Frazier (KO1), Jose Ribalta (TKO10).
The opps' win % are very similar, but Tyson's opposition is on average much less experienced, and he didn't dominate them as thoroughly - sure, he blew out the green, overhyped-and-overmatched Marvis Frazier, but had a less easy time against guys who were halfway-decent and not totally psyched out before the fight even started.
2) Liston beat a better title holder to gain his title than Tyson did to gain his:
Floyd Patterson was a much better fighter than Trevor Berbick - and Liston KO1ed Patterson not once but
twice - Patterson had only ever been KOed by Ingo Johansson in the first of their epic trilogy, and having beaten Ingo twice in a row, was again on top of his game when he faced Liston.
Now you can argue that at least Tyson *defended* his title more times - that's probably the single strongest argument that can be made to rank Tyson higher than Liston. I'd argue that the guys he defended against were less than HOF-quality (Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Tubbs, Bruno), past their prime (Holmes) or mentally psyched out before the fight even started (Bruno, Spinks), but all in all, not a terrible bunch, with some guys like Tucker that had decent skills. However, IMO the 1964 Liston would've mowed through the same gallery with similar or even greater ease, he simply had the misfortune of facing a brash young upstart named Cassius Clay in his second title defense.
3) In his prime, Liston only lost to a prime Cassius Clay, generally considered to be the greatest heavyweight of all time.
The early-to-mid-60s Clay was younger, faster and sharper than any version of Ali we saw later, including the one who had the famous wars with Frazier and beat the until-then-unstoppable George Foreman. Tyson lost to ... Buster something-or-other. Even if you wriggle your way out of that one by making any of the dozens of common excuses we hear about it, there's the losses to Holyfield (who was considered more washed-up than Tyson at the time, after his brutal wars with the much-bigger Bowe). Which leads up to what is for me the most telling fact about Tyson's career...
...Last but not, least, with regard to Tyson, I keep saying it, it's undeniably true, but the Tysonites keep pretending it's irrelevant:
***) Mike Tyson NEVER beat an all-time-great heavyweight close to his prime. Every time he faced such a fighter, he LOST BADLY.
(Beating a fresh-out-of-retirement Larry Holmes doesn't mean shit.)
So to summarize, maybe I've overrated Liston's accomplishments due to his association with ATGs like Patterson and Ali (and as mentor to a young Foreman), but to me that means that perhaps Liston should be ranked lower than I have him, not Tyson ranked higher.
Tantum wrote:Holmes of 1980 would have whooped Tyson a new one.
Yep. Even past his prime and on a couple weeks' notice, he was leading on points vs. Tyson before getting caught. Hell, as late as 1992 (and this time with time to prepare) Holmes was still good enough to beat a young Ray Mercer and be somewhat-competitive with a prime Holyfield. As late as '95 he only lost by close SD to Oliver McCall in a fight for the WBC title. Hah - you can actually make a halfway-decent argument that Holmes had a better career in the 1990s than Tyson did!
