Who did Mike Tyson actually beat ?

[keithmoonhangover]

A lot of people just write off the Spinks fight as a fluke or a one off.

It was an incredible achievement.

[desperados]

Three words you need to learn.

Styles make fights.

A man who can't down or KO an ancient, fat, 40 year old Shannon Briggs and takes 10 to 11 rds to shift grossly overweight blobs isn't going to beat Mike Tyson. Klitschko looks like he's moving through treacle compared to Mike Tyson. The sheer speed that Mike Tyson could hook to the body and come up with an uppercut on 6'5, 6'6 guys was actually scary.

The way Vitali couldn't put down Obed Sullivan, Chris Byrd, Timo Hoffman, Vaughn Bean, an old fat Lennox Lewis, an old fat chinny Corrie Sanders, an old fat chinny Shannon Briggs, does not say good things about his reputed punch power. He's not making a dent on Mike freakin' Tyson.

Nice post loaded, I think you and Jamesmcdonnel broke this thing down with far greater eloquence than me.
I see a Tyson 88-Vitali matchup looking very much like Tysons mauling of Bruno the first time or a more prolonged beat down version of the Golota fight obviously without the histrionics of Golota.

i see it a bit more like how the tyson-buster fight went, except without buster being knocked down, and Tyson not getting up at all rather than after 11.

[Petaling Pete]

In his prime he beat everyone that was put against him, usually in devastating fashion. Holmes was never put down like that in his entire career and subsequently had a reletivally long and successful career at heavyweight, including a credible challenge to Holyfield over the distance

He was ready to face Holyfield in the early 90's but his incarceration put paid to that.

He was an accident waiting to happen from Bruno onwwards and this marked the beginning of his decline.

Post incarceration he was matched up safely against Peter McNeilly and Mathis Junior before he faced two of the worst champions of all time in Seldon and Bruno to regain his belts.

Holyfield was coming off a very lean patch in his career after sub-par performances against Moorer, Bowe and Bobby Czyc, but proved to be Tyson's nemesis. Thereafter it was purely Tysons punch and name that kept him going.

Lewis was not an entity in his first reign and Don King manipulated the ratings to keep him out of the frame for the mid nineties. It was only in 2003 he got his chance but that version of Tyson was shortly to be ripe for picking firstly by Danny Williams in a career best effort and sadye by Kevin McBride who was not fit to carry his jock strap.

A short sharp peak that saw him face anyone and everyone that dared get into the ring with him. In that peak I would have fancied him to beat peak Lewis's Bowe and Holyfield's.

[loaded_gloves]

i see it a bit more like how the tyson-buster fight went, except without buster being knocked down, and Tyson not getting up at all rather than after 11.

Well you simply don't know what you are talking about. Vitali couldn't put chinny fat 40 year old men Shannon Briggs and Corrie Sanders down for the count, he couldn't even knock them down, yet he's going to somehow put a PEAK MIKE TYSON down for the count? You're living in pure fantasy!

The idea of Vitali Klitschko boxing with the speed, moves, skills, foot work, punch variety and clinical execution of Buster Douglas in 1990..... Jesus Christ, you are actually a loon!

Vitali moving like Buster Douglas. Will he do an Ali Shuffle as well? Perhaps throw a bolo punch? I think I have now heard EVERYTHING on this forum. Unreal.

[stujones]

Not sure how Shannon Briggs can be described as Chinny.

[Andypittcov]

Well I already knew Tyson was seriously underrated on this forum, now I know v klitschko is seriously overrated.

[loaded_gloves]

Briggs was down against Darroll Wilson, 3 or 4 times vs Lennox Lewis, rocked repeatedly by Frans Botha in the 10th, and down against Jameel McCline. The few live bodies he fought in his day all put him down. He's hardly got George Chuvalo whiskers.

Given Briggs track record, a 'puncher' should be able to flatten a 40 year old, grossly overweight version of him, disabled with one arm due to a torn bicep from round 1 onwards and unable to dodge or parry every blow that is swung at him.

There's no positive spin in the world you can put on that performance, if you are claiming Vitali Klitschko has the punch power to stop Mike Tyson.

[desperados]

i see it a bit more like how the tyson-buster fight went, except without buster being knocked down, and Tyson not getting up at all rather than after 11.

Well you simply don't know what you are talking about. Vitali couldn't put chinny fat 40 year old men Shannon Briggs and Corrie Sanders down for the count, he couldn't even knock them down, yet he's going to somehow put a PEAK MIKE TYSON down for the count? You're living in pure fantasy!

The idea of Vitali Klitschko boxing with the speed, moves, skills, foot work, punch variety and clinical execution of Buster Douglas in 1990..... Jesus Christ, you are actually a loon!

Vitali moving like Buster Douglas. Will he do an Ali Shuffle as well? Perhaps throw a bolo punch? I think I have now heard EVERYTHING on this forum. Unreal.

lol, calm down dear, we're talking purely hypotheticals & opinion.

Personally i think Tyson is the overrated darling of HW boxing. He had supreme power, natural talent, and was down right vicous. But as a man, he wasn't the brightest sprk, he lacked the mntal strength that made Ali great.

Many make the case that Ali would always "figure you out" or "find a way". Infact i hear that alot about Floyd aswell (such as Oscar, Hatton...)
If Tyson couldn't bang you out there was no plan B. He wasn' smart enough to employ other startegies.

When he came up against the Real Deal he had no plan B (out comes the excuse book, he was finished by then! etc...)

He couldnt take a punch like Vitali either. How many times have you seen Tyson in cookoo land? In the buster fight he was crawling about the ring with his eyes shut looking for his gum shield.

He had no game plan, no idea how to break fighers down that could withstand his attacks, i can only imagine his fustration at trying to get past one of boxings hardest 80" jabs. Wouldnt be long til he ate the straight rights. Lets not forget the K-Bros are super heavies, a weight division above if you like. 50+lb & 8"+ on Tyson.

And dont make me laugh about Briggs, he was in there to survive, he knew he couldnt avoid being hit, so he just took the straight rights and hoped to partially absorb them with his shoulder, whilst leaning away from them. Vitali was also content throwing from the shoulder and letting him fists reign down consistantly on Briggs. He wasn't generating punches through his thighs and throwing into them, there was no need, and no need to risk being countered, or injuring himself. Lets not forget Briggs spent 2 weeks in hospital with smashed up facial bones & said himself Vitali is the hardest hitter hes been in with. Throw in 90% KO ratio in there too.

really does make for a substancialy weak arguement and comes off as anti-klit bias when the only negative you can throw at him is not knocking Briggs out during the fight.... so he must be powder puff

[loaded_gloves]

90% knockout ratio.... over who?

Brian Nielsen has a high KO ratio too. So?

The picture you're painting is pure fantasy.

They have 50lbs on Mike Tyson? Er, no they don't. More like 25lbs to 30lbs weight 'advantage' (muscle mass? advantage?) yes. And wow, it's not like we've ever seen weight advantages like that easily overcome in heavyweight boxing. Jack Dempsey/Jess Willard 60lbs, Max Baer/Primo Carnera 50lbs, Chagaev or Holyfield/Valuev 100lbs+ for a more modern example, Byrd/Klitschko 30lbs, Holyfield/Foreman 50lbs, RJJ/Ruiz 30lbs.....

Tyson hit plenty 6'5, 6'6 guys square in the mush, and has got past longer reaches than the K brothers, with men who had a greater variety of punches and a lot more speed and high work rate than the K goons.

"90% KO ratio", lol. His 90% KO ratio power failed to put Obed Sullivan, Chris Byrd, Timo Hoffman, Vaughn Bean, a fat nearly 40 year old Lennox Lewis, Corrie Sanders, Sam Peter, or Shannon Briggs on the floor ONE SINGLE TIME. Some 'puncher'!

[desperados]

90% knockout ratio.... over who?

Brian Nielsen has a high KO ratio too. So?

The picture you're painting is pure fantasy.

They have 50lbs on Mike Tyson? Er, no they don't. More like 25lbs to 30lbs weight 'advantage' (muscle mass? advantage?) yes. And wow, it's not like we've ever seen weight advantages like that easily overcome in heavyweight boxing. Jack Dempsey/Jess Willard 60lbs, Max Baer/Primo Carnera 50lbs, Chagaev or Holyfield/Valuev 100lbs+ for a more modern example, Byrd/Klitschko 30lbs, Holyfield/Foreman 50lbs, RJJ/Ruiz 30lbs.....

Tyson hit plenty 6'5, 6'6 guys square in the mush, and has got past longer reaches than the K brothers, with men who had a greater variety of punches and a lot more speed and high work rate than the K goons.

"90% KO ratio", lol. His 90% KO ratio power failed to put Obed Sullivan, Chris Byrd, Timo Hoffman, Vaughn Bean, a fat nearly 40 year old Lennox Lewis, Corrie Sanders, Sam Peter, or Shannon Briggs on the floor ONE SINGLE TIME. Some 'puncher'!

1. your "over who" argument holds no weight. writing off a fighters record as having faught bums plagues these sort of debates, and can be applied to any fighter. I've seen americans laugh of Joe Calzaghes record as having faught nobody, with his best name being a Kessler that Ward took to shreds. Infact the point of this thread is to take to pieces Tysons record.

2. OK you take that one in terms of weight, its only 30lb. And yes, of course it's muscle mass, the K bros are in perfect condition @ 250lb. Your delusional if you dont think that an aditional 2+ stone of muscle mass would make the difference. hey are much stronger men.

3. sure, Mike has knocked out bums at 6'6. also, funnny you mention Valuev. Haye beat Valuev. Now lets take a K Bro who know how to utilize their height advantage. Take Haye v Vluev and Haye v Klitchko as a yardstick. Haye couldnt get near him and lost every round. It's not a case of Tyson has beaten any old tall guy. We're talking tall guys who are also world class boxing technicians who maximise every advantage they have, and defensive masters. Vitali has been hit with significant shots about twice in his entire career.

4. Byrd-Klitchko is really scraping the barrel. He lost every round and vitali retired due to a shoulder injury. He could have went on to win with 1 arm, but why risk his career? it's laughable you would use this scenario to put forward a point that a smaller man isn't always disadvantaged.

5. your argument has resolved to listing the ver few names who managed to avoid being knocked out by Vitali. OK then, 2 can play that game:
James Tillis, Mitch Green, Tony Tucker, Buster Douglas, Donovan Ruddock, Evander Holyfield (schooled twice), Lennox Lewis (didnt have the chin or skill for it), Danny Williams, Kevin McBride.

amazing puncher!

[Dave81]

If iv said it once iv said it a hundred times, if you go on about Tysons loss to Douglas, and post prison, you clearly no jack about Mike Tyson. Tyson was gone after Rooney left, yeah he still put in some goods performances, but if you watch his fights closely you can vividly see the d'mato/Rooney Tyson is no longer there, he just relied on his speed, power, and intimidation. To say any of the Klit brothers would beat him is outragous, and you need to get some dvds of 86-88 Tyson. There is no way either brother would of lived with that Tyson.

[Dave81]

And mentioning Williams and Mcbride as well lmao, i suppose Trevor Berbick is the real GOAT because he schooled Ali.

[DavidPayne]

I know, between 1985 and the Lewis fight, a period of supposed austerity in the heavyweight ranks he didn't fight Morrison, Foreman, Witherspoon, Moorer, Bowe, Mercer, V. Klitschko, Tua, Byrd, Lewis, McCall, Briggs. Basically anyone with a punch and/or a chin and some bollacks. Some because they lost at crucial times but nevertheless when some of those fights were out there Tyson was either inside or fighting Savarese, Bruno, Norris, Etienne, McNeeley, Nielsen, Selden, Francis,

When faced with a guy who didn't crumble Tyson very swiftly ran out of ideas. He took his beatings; had a good chin and was a phenomenon who would have caused all of the above massive problems and likely beaten several of them.

Holyfield would always have his number aged 17 or 57.

But his resume lacks depth for all the retrospective credibility afforded the likes of Bruno - who is now canonised because he would have been a top 3 heavyweight in the currently bleak landscape - which is a bit like saying how good a leader of the Labour party Michael Foot was.

This post and that of the thread starter Jessi are the kind of revisionist crap you tend to find more on youtube. Ref the highlighted comments above which are ridiculous I give you two names.....Razor Ruddock......but of course he didnt have a punch or chin or bollocks as you so eloquently put it, I mean he was only universally considered the second most dangerous HW in the world in 1991 and Tyson didnt need to fight him but did so twice in a 4 month span!!!!! ruddock was a guy avoided by Foreman, Holyfield and all the other big names of the time you mentioned in your list, which really is such nonsense i cant be bothered to break it down one by one. Tyson was supposed to fight witherspoon but timmy got himself knocked out in 1 by bonecrusher who tyson than fought. Mercer was beaten in his prime by a fat old Larry Holmes who Tyson had beaten 4 years earlier. The same fat old Holmes pushed holyfield the distance. Tysons victory over Holmes and the manner he did it in was spectacular and that Holmes might have been inactive but he could still fight and that 38 year old Holmes would be one of the 3 best HWs in the world today. Mccall was Mikes sparring partner! If you have seen what Mercer was able to do to Morrisson , letting 1991 Tyson loose on Morrison would have been like that story about gerald mclellan feeding a tame petshop dog to his rottweiler.

Jessi, Tyson did have a short peak of really 2 years (autumn 86 to autumn 88) but he crammed so many names in there such a spectacular body of work. The Holmes, and Spinks victories beat anything Vitali or Wladmir have achieved,neither 1988 Holmes nor Spinks at HW would have lost to ross purrity ,corrie sanders or chris byrd and the less skilled but iron willed and chinned 89-91 Tyson rates very very highly as well, the Douglas loss really doesnt mean much to me, when u fire your manager,and trainer, and lose 40 lbs in 1 month on a diet of 5-6 japanese groupies a day, and arent training and getting floored by sparring partners u were murdering a few months earlier thats what happens.

The Tyson couldnt fight when someone fired or hit him back argument is usually one of the lazy cheap mind that has never stepped in the ring....actually watch Tysons fights with powerpunchers Bonecrusher, Bruno, and Ruddock during his 1986-91 run and often he was hit with shots that would kayo all of todays hw's yet Tyson shook them off instantly and came back with hellacious shots of his own. The man during this time was an incredible fighting animal with an incredible chin and will to win. Forget post prison Tyson, he neither had the will, hunger or aptitude anymore for fighting and his skills and legs were shot.

The old Holyfield would have beaten any Tyson is also utter tripe and lazy thinking. The 1988-1991 Tyson would always beat any version of Holyfield headbutts or not.

Mugabi,

There is some laziness in my post - largely because I've done this topic so often - I'll concede that. However, you will also note my caveat that Tyson would have been competitive and likely beat many of the names I list -and additionally point to the fact some of them lost at key times ahead of possible bouts with Tyson - Witherspoon being the most glaring given his uncharacteristic knockout loss to Smith.

I don't think Tyson lacked courage or a chin, and suggest neither, and we're not presupposing Tyson was the matchmaker or his own protector are we? There were big fights missed which may or may not have been made without any input from Tyson. Lest we forget there was a commercial interest in risk management for all his comprehensive victories. Tyson got all his work of note done in the 1980's, but I also find it revisionist, to use your descriptive, to simply cast aside his career in the 1990's. Surely we have to judge the greater body of work and not just a purple period of 3 years? We have to judge Lewis with his defeats to McCall and Rahman, his struggles with Mercer do we not. We cannot merely select a three year period?

In short, I don't blame Tyson for not ensuring every heavy of significance featured on his resume during that period.

Whilst I appreciate your opinion on the Tyson would always lose to Holyfield debate, it is too general an assumption to make given their relative skills set but it is an opinion with as much substance as the counter-argument is it not - based as it is on Holyfield's messy scrap with Bert Cooper on the whole and Tyson previously impervious form. However, when heavily favoured, younger, fresher and on supposedly better form Tyson lost not once, but twice to Holyfield it offers infinitely more evidence that can be mustered to dissuade me from my view. When Holyfield wouldn't be bullied or subdued, Tyson didn't adapt, he opted out.

He was a sensational fighter, more than capable of beating every heavyweight that ever lived. But on balance of likelihood he cannot feature too high on my all time list and the implicit suggestion the original poster presents - that Tyson didn't actually beat many significant opponents is one that will always limit his place among his predecessors and successors.

[DavidPayne]

Christ, in this thread I've read Vitali Klitschko would beat Mike Tyson (Oh, the way Big Bro KOd a fat 40 year old Shannon Briggs, what a beast he is), and the division of today is SUPERIOR to that of the 80s!!

Unfreakinbelievable.

If I owned Boxrec I'd shut down the whole forum rather than allow people like this a platform to spew their insanity.

Three words you need to learn.

Styles make fights.

A man who can't down or KO an ancient, fat, 40 year old Shannon Briggs and takes 10 to 11 rds to shift grossly overweight blobs isn't going to beat Mike Tyson. Klitschko looks like he's moving through treacle compared to Mike Tyson. The sheer speed that Mike Tyson could hook to the body and come up with an uppercut on 6'5, 6'6 guys was actually scary.

The way Vitali couldn't put down Obed Sullivan, Chris Byrd, Timo Hoffman, Vaughn Bean, an old fat Lennox Lewis, an old fat chinny Corrie Sanders, an old fat chinny Shannon Briggs, does not say good things about his reputed punch power. He's not making a dent on Mike freakin' Tyson.

For all my criticism, implied or otherwise of Mike Tyson, I agree with this entirely. Klitschko is tough enough to have a go, but Mike would have, provided Klitschko didn't just bear hug him and throw him over for 12 rounds, smashed the Ukrainian to pieces. Lots of pieces.

[DavidPayne]

I'd happily be just as lazy undermining VK's resume, which really is awful. There isn't an opponent he's faced outside Haye and Adamek, both Cruiserweights, who don't merit the descriptive Fat or at the every least overweight and usually with added moniker of old and/or fkking useless.

[stujones]

I'd happily be just as lazy undermining VK's resume, which really is awful. There isn't an opponent he's faced outside Haye and Adamek, both Cruiserweights, who don't merit the descriptive Fat or at the every least overweight and usually with added moniker of old and/or fkking useless.

And Vitali hasn't fought Haye!

[palooka]

In his prime he beat everyone that was put against him, usually in devastating fashion. Holmes was never put down like that in his entire career and subsequently had a reletivally long and successful career at heavyweight, including a credible challenge to Holyfield over the distance

He was ready to face Holyfield in the early 90's but his incarceration put paid to that.

He was an accident waiting to happen from Bruno onwwards and this marked the beginning of his decline.

Post incarceration he was matched up safely against Peter McNeilly and Mathis Junior before he faced two of the worst champions of all time in Seldon and Bruno to regain his belts.

Holyfield was coming off a very lean patch in his career after sub-par performances against Moorer, Bowe and Bobby Czyc, but proved to be Tyson's nemesis. Thereafter it was purely Tysons punch and name that kept him going.

Lewis was not an entity in his first reign and Don King manipulated the ratings to keep him out of the frame for the mid nineties. It was only in 2003 he got his chance but that version of Tyson was shortly to be ripe for picking firstly by Danny Williams in a career best effort and sadye by Kevin McBride who was not fit to carry his jock strap.

A short sharp peak that saw him face anyone and everyone that dared get into the ring with him. In that peak I would have fancied him to beat peak Lewis's Bowe and Holyfield's.

I agree.

In perspective, that were 17 years after he'd won the title v Berbeck. The Lewis bout was awful.

[jamesmcdonnell]

i see it a bit more like how the tyson-buster fight went, except without buster being knocked down, and Tyson not getting up at all rather than after 11.

Well you simply don't know what you are talking about. Vitali couldn't put chinny fat 40 year old men Shannon Briggs and Corrie Sanders down for the count, he couldn't even knock them down, yet he's going to somehow put a PEAK MIKE TYSON down for the count? You're living in pure fantasy!

The idea of Vitali Klitschko boxing with the speed, moves, skills, foot work, punch variety and clinical execution of Buster Douglas in 1990..... Jesus Christ, you are actually a loon!

Vitali moving like Buster Douglas. Will he do an Ali Shuffle as well? Perhaps throw a bolo punch? I think I have now heard EVERYTHING on this forum. Unreal.

Vitali doesnt fight like buster Douglas, he's an entirely different fighter. Vitali would not have executed such a game plan as it is not how he fights. I think he would have frustrated and ground Tyson down. Tyson would have started fast, but Vitali is a man who is not easily intimadated and has an absolute Rock solid chin, and an iron will.

You might also like to reflect, that Vitali is himself past his peak. He was 38-39 when he faced Briggs, who shipped punishment which put him in hospital. Vitali's punch power is not what it was 5 years ago, and he relies now on volume of punches rather than individual big shots.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I know, between 1985 and the Lewis fight, a period of supposed austerity in the heavyweight ranks he didn't fight Morrison, Foreman, Witherspoon, Moorer, Bowe, Mercer, V. Klitschko, Tua, Byrd, Lewis, McCall, Briggs. Basically anyone with a punch and/or a chin and some bollacks. Some because they lost at crucial times but nevertheless when some of those fights were out there Tyson was either inside or fighting Savarese, Bruno, Norris, Etienne, McNeeley, Nielsen, Selden, Francis,

When faced with a guy who didn't crumble Tyson very swiftly ran out of ideas. He took his beatings; had a good chin and was a phenomenon who would have caused all of the above massive problems and likely beaten several of them.

Holyfield would always have his number aged 17 or 57.

But his resume lacks depth for all the retrospective credibility afforded the likes of Bruno - who is now canonised because he would have been a top 3 heavyweight in the currently bleak landscape - which is a bit like saying how good a leader of the Labour party Michael Foot was.

This post and that of the thread starter Jessi are the kind of revisionist crap you tend to find more on youtube. Ref the highlighted comments above which are ridiculous I give you two names.....Razor Ruddock......but of course he didnt have a punch or chin or bollocks as you so eloquently put it, I mean he was only universally considered the second most dangerous HW in the world in 1991 and Tyson didnt need to fight him but did so twice in a 4 month span!!!!! ruddock was a guy avoided by Foreman, Holyfield and all the other big names of the time you mentioned in your list, which really is such nonsense i cant be bothered to break it down one by one. Tyson was supposed to fight witherspoon but timmy got himself knocked out in 1 by bonecrusher who tyson than fought. Mercer was beaten in his prime by a fat old Larry Holmes who Tyson had beaten 4 years earlier. The same fat old Holmes pushed holyfield the distance. Tysons victory over Holmes and the manner he did it in was spectacular and that Holmes might have been inactive but he could still fight and that 38 year old Holmes would be one of the 3 best HWs in the world today. Mccall was Mikes sparring partner! If you have seen what Mercer was able to do to Morrisson , letting 1991 Tyson loose on Morrison would have been like that story about gerald mclellan feeding a tame petshop dog to his rottweiler.

Jessi, Tyson did have a short peak of really 2 years (autumn 86 to autumn 88) but he crammed so many names in there such a spectacular body of work. The Holmes, and Spinks victories beat anything Vitali or Wladmir have achieved,neither 1988 Holmes nor Spinks at HW would have lost to ross purrity ,corrie sanders or chris byrd and the less skilled but iron willed and chinned 89-91 Tyson rates very very highly as well, the Douglas loss really doesnt mean much to me, when u fire your manager,and trainer, and lose 40 lbs in 1 month on a diet of 5-6 japanese groupies a day, and arent training and getting floored by sparring partners u were murdering a few months earlier thats what happens.

The Tyson couldnt fight when someone fired or hit him back argument is usually one of the lazy cheap mind that has never stepped in the ring....actually watch Tysons fights with powerpunchers Bonecrusher, Bruno, and Ruddock during his 1986-91 run and often he was hit with shots that would kayo all of todays hw's yet Tyson shook them off instantly and came back with hellacious shots of his own. The man during this time was an incredible fighting animal with an incredible chin and will to win. Forget post prison Tyson, he neither had the will, hunger or aptitude anymore for fighting and his skills and legs were shot.

The old Holyfield would have beaten any Tyson is also utter tripe and lazy thinking. The 1988-1991 Tyson would always beat any version of Holyfield headbutts or not.

Mugabi,

There is some laziness in my post - largely because I've done this topic so often - I'll concede that. However, you will also note my caveat that Tyson would have been competitive and likely beat many of the names I list -and additionally point to the fact some of them lost at key times ahead of possible bouts with Tyson - Witherspoon being the most glaring given his uncharacteristic knockout loss to Smith.

I don't think Tyson lacked courage or a chin, and suggest neither, and we're not presupposing Tyson was the matchmaker or his own protector are we? There were big fights missed which may or may not have been made without any input from Tyson. Lest we forget there was a commercial interest in risk management for all his comprehensive victories. Tyson got all his work of note done in the 1980's, but I also find it revisionist, to use your descriptive, to simply cast aside his career in the 1990's. Surely we have to judge the greater body of work and not just a purple period of 3 years? We have to judge Lewis with his defeats to McCall and Rahman, his struggles with Mercer do we not. We cannot merely select a three year period?

In short, I don't blame Tyson for not ensuring every heavy of significance featured on his resume during that period.

Whilst I appreciate your opinion on the Tyson would always lose to Holyfield debate, it is too general an assumption to make given their relative skills set but it is an opinion with as much substance as the counter-argument is it not - based as it is on Holyfield's messy scrap with Bert Cooper on the whole and Tyson previously impervious form. However, when heavily favoured, younger, fresher and on supposedly better form Tyson lost not once, but twice to Holyfield it offers infinitely more evidence that can be mustered to dissuade me from my view. When Holyfield wouldn't be bullied or subdued, Tyson didn't adapt, he opted out.

He was a sensational fighter, more than capable of beating every heavyweight that ever lived. But on balance of likelihood he cannot feature too high on my all time list and the implicit suggestion the original poster presents - that Tyson didn't actually beat many significant opponents is one that will always limit his place among his predecessors and successors.

Yes, this is it, no matter how destructive he was in his brief prime, as a whole his body of work limits how high I can rank him - i say he makes the top 10 still, mainly because there arent many heavyweight champions with more significant careers at the top.

[loaded_gloves]

Vitali's punch power is not what it was 5 years ago, and he relies now on volume of punches rather than individual big shots.

Can you please point out his displays of big power shots James? He didn't down Obed Sullivan, Chris Byrd, Timo Hoffman, a fat old Lennox Lewis or a fat old chinny Corrie Sanders in his 'prime', and you'd think if he was a big puncher he would have scored at least ONE singular knock down against one of these men, right?

I mean, if you're gonna grind down a peak Mike Tyson you better be able to splatter at least a few of these men, surely?

[loaded_gloves]

1. your "over who" argument holds no weight. writing off a fighters record as having faught bums plagues these sort of debates, and can be applied to any fighter. I've seen americans laugh of Joe Calzaghes record as having faught nobody, with his best name being a Kessler that Ward took to shreds. Infact the point of this thread is to take to pieces Tysons record.

Do you have any idea how stupid this makes you sound? Like, actually retarded?

And later you cite Danny Williams and Kevin McBride against Mike Tyson.

The words "case closed" come to mind.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Vitali's punch power is not what it was 5 years ago, and he relies now on volume of punches rather than individual big shots.

Can you please point out his displays of big power shots James? He didn't down Obed Sullivan, Chris Byrd, Timo Hoffman, a fat old Lennox Lewis or a fat old chinny Corrie Sanders in his 'prime', and you'd think if he was a big puncher he would have scored at least ONE singular knock down against one of these men, right?

I mean, if you're gonna grind down a peak Mike Tyson you better be able to splatter at least a few of these men, surely?

Vitali has never been a one punch KO artist, my point is that his shots seem far more arm punches than they used to be.

I actually think that Vitali if he won against Tyson would have won on points, when I say grind him down, I mean mentally, not physically. Mike was used to being able to put people away clinically, and I dont think he could have gotten Vitali out of there early. Vitali, whatever his technical flaws, is effective and mentally incredibly tough.

You dont have to beat someone to the floor to subdue them mentally, and Mike had a history of mental frailty going back to his amateur days. Mike was however incredibly tough physically, he had one of the best chins I've seen on a heavyweight champ, all his stoppages came when he was exhausted and under a terrific onslaught. Even then it took many many shots to put him down and keep him down.

[jamesmcdonnell]

In his prime he beat everyone that was put against him, usually in devastating fashion. Holmes was never put down like that in his entire career and subsequently had a reletivally long and successful career at heavyweight, including a credible challenge to Holyfield over the distance

He was ready to face Holyfield in the early 90's but his incarceration put paid to that.

He was an accident waiting to happen from Bruno onwwards and this marked the beginning of his decline.

Post incarceration he was matched up safely against Peter McNeilly and Mathis Junior before he faced two of the worst champions of all time in Seldon and Bruno to regain his belts.

Holyfield was coming off a very lean patch in his career after sub-par performances against Moorer, Bowe and Bobby Czyc, but proved to be Tyson's nemesis. Thereafter it was purely Tysons punch and name that kept him going.

Lewis was not an entity in his first reign and Don King manipulated the ratings to keep him out of the frame for the mid nineties. It was only in 2003 he got his chance but that version of Tyson was shortly to be ripe for picking firstly by Danny Williams in a career best effort and sadye by Kevin McBride who was not fit to carry his jock strap.

A short sharp peak that saw him face anyone and everyone that dared get into the ring with him. In that peak I would have fancied him to beat peak Lewis's Bowe and Holyfield's.

I agree.

In perspective, that were 17 years after he'd won the title v Berbeck. The Lewis bout was awful.

Lewis beat a shell of Tyson, he was finished by that point as an elite fighter, and nobody knew it more than Mike himself - he was fighting only because it was the only thing he knew how to do.

[Petaling Pete]

In his prime he beat everyone that was put against him, usually in devastating fashion. Holmes was never put down like that in his entire career and subsequently had a reletivally long and successful career at heavyweight, including a credible challenge to Holyfield over the distance

He was ready to face Holyfield in the early 90's but his incarceration put paid to that.

He was an accident waiting to happen from Bruno onwwards and this marked the beginning of his decline.

Post incarceration he was matched up safely against Peter McNeilly and Mathis Junior before he faced two of the worst champions of all time in Seldon and Bruno to regain his belts.

Holyfield was coming off a very lean patch in his career after sub-par performances against Moorer, Bowe and Bobby Czyc, but proved to be Tyson's nemesis. Thereafter it was purely Tysons punch and name that kept him going.

Lewis was not an entity in his first reign and Don King manipulated the ratings to keep him out of the frame for the mid nineties. It was only in 2003 he got his chance but that version of Tyson was shortly to be ripe for picking firstly by Danny Williams in a career best effort and sadye by Kevin McBride who was not fit to carry his jock strap.

A short sharp peak that saw him face anyone and everyone that dared get into the ring with him. In that peak I would have fancied him to beat peak Lewis's Bowe and Holyfield's.

I agree.

In perspective, that were 17 years after he'd won the title v Berbeck. The Lewis bout was awful.

Lewis beat a shell of Tyson, he was finished by that point as an elite fighter, and nobody knew it more than Mike himself - he was fighting only because it was the only thing he knew how to do.

I always felt that Tyson was reluctant to face Lewis. In what I term his peak years between 1986 and 1988 he would have faced anyone but Lewis was still an amatuer.

In the 90's King had the heavyweight division by the short and curlies and it was almost laugable that Bruno substituted Lewis as No. 1 contender to get a shot at McCall. The whole Tyson comeback after incarceration did seem like theatre and was carefully plotted and staged by King .

When Lewis finally set Tyson up in 2003, there were so many obstacles to overcome reagrding rival networks, ring anouncers, sizes of ring, gloves you name it, it caused a problem (Arum and GBP please take note) and even when all that was resolved, Tyson took a chunk out of his leg in a pre fight conference in what could have been construed as a last ditch attempt to avoid the fight.

Tyson to his credit did soak up some punishment before being stopped as he did against Holyfield in the first match up, however he had been fighting on auto pilot for several years and his name on Lewis's resume is as convincing as Roy Jones Junior on Calzaghe's record

[rob h]

*2002*

Sorry for nit picking.