Tyson

[Controversial]

The sport has changed, too many belts, more divisions, not as many fighters, too much emphasis on undefeated records and fighters wanting easy routes to titles for big pay days.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agreed. It's not almost entirely about those things.

It used to be that a prospect would fight a few tough veterans and other promising young fighters.
In the last 20 years or so, this has gone away. The undefeated record means to much . It is simply too risky to fight anyone halfway decent and have losses on your record.
As a result, fans get cheated out of better fights, as well the fighters not improving as much as they should since they have not been tested.

Then when a fighter becomes a contender, he doesn't fight another contender. Why risk it? with 4 champions, you are going to get a title shot soon enough.
As a result, contenders avoid each other. We routinely have undefeated fighters in title shots and we really have little idea how good either one of them really are.

Bowe gets criticized for not fighting enough top guys. But even he took some chances before getting a title shot. On his way up, he beat Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs and Pierre Coetzer.

Before he ever got a title shot, Tyson fought veterans like Jesse Ferguson and James Tillis. Which was normal then, almost unheard of in recent times.

After losing the title, he fought Razor Ruddock 2x. in non-title fights. Again, that rarely happens in the last 20 years or so.

So, the Tyson is an example of Marketing hype line is a bit over the top. Yes, there are fans of his who have excuses for all of his losses and overrate some of his wins. He was not the best heavyweight ever. But he certainly was not all hype.

[Controversial]

Exactly, fighters want easy routes to the title, fight easy challengers and cash out on a big pay day. Unfortunately lots of fighters are ruined by the money if they secure a big pay day, their interest and desire are never the same.

[apollo creed]

Speaking of consistency, you need to take that in consideration when evaluating fighters. Golota was about as inconsistent as you can get. He had meltdowns against Lewis and Tyson. They were not big wins for them.

Ray Mercer was also inconsistent. His performances varied greatly. Looked terrible against Feguson and not much better against Holmes. Looked very good against Morrison. Didn't look that good against Damiani, but turned it around and pulled out the fight. fought a good fight against Holyfield but just came up a little short. fought a very good fight against Lewis but didn't get the decision.

The thing is that you can't give a lot of credit to someone who beat an inconsistent fighter if that inconsistent fighter was awful in that fight.

A lot of the guys Tyson beat in the 1980s have very little in the way of quality wins though making those wins hard to evaluate. Ruddock never beat a guy who was clearly in the top 10 and Bruno and Tucker beat very few. Who did Carl Williams ever beat? One can question the value of those wins given the spectacularly bad resumes of the fighters.

Tony Tucker shared an era with Dokes, Ruddock, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Bowe, Holyfield, Mercer, Ruddock, Bruno, etc and somehow failed to fight any of them. He somehow managed to not fight almost all the top fighters of his era.

Basically it was a weak HW era and King was very clever to take every advantage of that and he built up very cleverly Tyson's marketability. In the mid-late of the 80's the great HWs of the 70's were over the hill and semi-retired, so King was seeing that opportunity and he took chances.

[Jakub079]

Speaking of consistency, you need to take that in consideration when evaluating fighters. Golota was about as inconsistent as you can get. He had meltdowns against Lewis and Tyson. They were not big wins for them.

Ray Mercer was also inconsistent. His performances varied greatly. Looked terrible against Feguson and not much better against Holmes. Looked very good against Morrison. Didn't look that good against Damiani, but turned it around and pulled out the fight. fought a good fight against Holyfield but just came up a little short. fought a very good fight against Lewis but didn't get the decision.

The thing is that you can't give a lot of credit to someone who beat an inconsistent fighter if that inconsistent fighter was awful in that fight.

A lot of the guys Tyson beat in the 1980s have very little in the way of quality wins though making those wins hard to evaluate. Ruddock never beat a guy who was clearly in the top 10 and Bruno and Tucker beat very few. Who did Carl Williams ever beat? One can question the value of those wins given the spectacularly bad resumes of the fighters.

Tony Tucker shared an era with Dokes, Ruddock, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Bowe, Holyfield, Mercer, Ruddock, Bruno, etc and somehow failed to fight any of them. He somehow managed to not fight almost all the top fighters of his era.

Basically it was a weak HW era and King was very clever to take every advantage of that and he built up very cleverly Tyson's marketability. In the mid-late of the 80's the great HWs of the 70's were over the hill and semi-retired, so King was seeing that opportunity and he took chances.

Interestingly, those fighters from the 1970s who were considered finished in the Tyson era - Holmes and Foreman, in the next decade were at the forefront until the end of the 1990s, although they were even older. how to explain it? Holmes himself, returning to the game, said - I can fight Holyfield, no problem, but I don't want to hear about Tyson anymore

[Caractacus]

Mike Tyson working the "Willie-Bag" !
"I WILL EXECUTE THE COMMAND" ! Cus D'Amato
Number one-Left hook to the jaw
number two-right hook to the jaw
number three-left uppercut
number four-right uppercut
number five- left hook to the liver
number six-right hook to the spleen
number seven-jab to the head
number eight-jab to the solar plexus

[Cojimar 1946]

Several years ago, I ran a thread about this. I took one year from each decade (I think I used 1925, 1935 etc all the way up to 2015) and counted all the fights that Top 10 guys fought the other top 10 at some time in their careers. This was just heavyweights and I used Ring Magazines ratings.

Not surprisingly, fights between the top guys declined started in the 1980s and continued to get worse in the 1990s and worse and worse in the decades of the 2000s.

Probably the biggest factor is the number of title holders. If there is only one, the guys in the top 10 will fight each other. They had to take the risk of fighting a live opponent in order to get a title shot. however, if there are 3 or 4 titleholders, it is smarter to bide your time, know you will get a shot in time.

I will say in the cases of Ruddock, Tucker and Bowe, we at least have something to go on.
Ruddock fought Smith and Dokes before he fought Tyson 2x. Dokes was ranked higher than him at the time. Can you even imagine a Dokes-Ruddock fight happening ine the last 25 years with no title on the line.

Tucker beat Douglas and McCall, and was competitive with Tyson. What never made any sense was why he just disapperaed for 5 years fighting complete no names until he finally fought McCall in 1992.

Would have been nice had Bowe fought more top fighters. However, its not like we have nothing to go one. He beat Tubbs and Witherspoon on his way up. They were past their best but had something left. Prospects never have fights like this anymore. Alos woth mentioned that Bowe did sign to fight Lewis, but the fight fell through because Lewis was upset by McCall. He was also going to fight Mercer, but it fell through because Mercer was upset by Ferguson.

The ranking of Dokes though is pure guesswork. He hadn't scored a good win in years and was badly out of shape vs Ruddock. It's certainly possible he was no longer world class. Same with Smith who didn't do anything of note subsequently and was also out of shape.

With Riddick Bowe we have 3 fights vs highly ranked opponents in Tubbs, Holyfield, and Golota. He won a close decision over Tubbs that many feel he lost, won a trilogy with Holyfield and was badly beaten by Golota only to be saved by low blows.
The Holyfield fights would suggest top 4 in his era, the Tubbs fight maybe a rank of 12 or so and the Golota fights not even top 20. Your ranking of him will vary tremendously on what fight you think best represents his ability.

[Giancarlo]

- This a thread that keeps giving for addled soft lads growing up bullied who carry the scars of their juvenile shame to this very day. Clusterfesting over the ultimate Bully both in and out of his prime, Iron Mike Tyson, natch they can never know Mike is still relevant and fighting today for Big $$$ unlike his era compatriots and most of the rest of the boxing community..

As a cogent historical reference, IBRO updated 2019 ratings has Tyson #11 between #9 Lewis and #12 Field. Those will change over time as the Ali ol'timers are the first to age out as the Louis ol'timers did before him.

https://www.ibroresearch.com/wp-content ... t-2019.pdf

Now this latest cash grab by young Jake Paul who has shamed boxing by promoting Big Purse$ match ups with Jake now scheduled in a Texas Sanctioned fight against Tyson using cartoon rules is telling. Nobody is courting Field who tried and fell down like a new born fawn recently, nor boorish LennieLewis nor Big Dummy Bowe to fight with Lennie still being a Lineal Champ in spite of retiring in ignominy a day before being stripped of his last title belt, the WBC.

Then the sublime irony of soft lads not understanding a great in their own time, Oleksander Usyk, and so the Klitschko Bros are still laughing their way to the bank while dominating Heavyweight Boxing. Usyk has been fighting on average much larger credentialed traditional Heavies than most Heavyweight champs in History, currently 27-0, 16 KO pro record with a 11-0, 5 KO title record

BRR, whenever I read your insane ramblings I picture you thus.

[Caractacus]

-1999-

[Caractacus]

-1988-

-1991-

[Ambling Alp II]

Several years ago, I ran a thread about this. I took one year from each decade (I think I used 1925, 1935 etc all the way up to 2015) and counted all the fights that Top 10 guys fought the other top 10 at some time in their careers. This was just heavyweights and I used Ring Magazines ratings.

Not surprisingly, fights between the top guys declined started in the 1980s and continued to get worse in the 1990s and worse and worse in the decades of the 2000s.

Probably the biggest factor is the number of title holders. If there is only one, the guys in the top 10 will fight each other. They had to take the risk of fighting a live opponent in order to get a title shot. however, if there are 3 or 4 titleholders, it is smarter to bide your time, know you will get a shot in time.

I will say in the cases of Ruddock, Tucker and Bowe, we at least have something to go on.
Ruddock fought Smith and Dokes before he fought Tyson 2x. Dokes was ranked higher than him at the time. Can you even imagine a Dokes-Ruddock fight happening ine the last 25 years with no title on the line.

Tucker beat Douglas and McCall, and was competitive with Tyson. What never made any sense was why he just disapperaed for 5 years fighting complete no names until he finally fought McCall in 1992.

Would have been nice had Bowe fought more top fighters. However, its not like we have nothing to go one. He beat Tubbs and Witherspoon on his way up. They were past their best but had something left. Prospects never have fights like this anymore. Alos woth mentioned that Bowe did sign to fight Lewis, but the fight fell through because Lewis was upset by McCall. He was also going to fight Mercer, but it fell through because Mercer was upset by Ferguson.

The ranking of Dokes though is pure guesswork. He hadn't scored a good win in years and was badly out of shape vs Ruddock. It's certainly possible he was no longer world class. Same with Smith who didn't do anything of note subsequently and was also out of shape.

With Riddick Bowe we have 3 fights vs highly ranked opponents in Tubbs, Holyfield, and Golota. He won a close decision over Tubbs that many feel he lost, won a trilogy with Holyfield and was badly beaten by Golota only to be saved by low blows.
The Holyfield fights would suggest top 4 in his era, the Tubbs fight maybe a rank of 12 or so and the Golota fights not even top 20. Your ranking of him will vary tremendously on what fight you think best represents his ability.

Dokes had fought Holyfield just a year before he fought Ruddock. He looked pretty good. He gave Holyfield a very tough fight. you should watch it.

The blows did not just save him Golota. Part of the reason he was losing was that he was getting fouled constantly. Hard to look good when that happens to you. That's why it's not allowed. He looked against Hide, Coetzer, Gonzales, Donald etc. as well. Not great fighters by any means, but good enough to show that Bowe was a great fighter.
Bowe cam every close to being 3-0 against a prime Holyfield. could have got the decision in the 2nd fight. Looked a lot better against a prime Holyfield than Lewis and Tyson looked against a past his prime Holyfield.

[Cojimar 1946]

Realistically the Holyfield trilogy only tells us Bowe matched up well with Holyfield. Plenty of guys did better than Mike Tyson vs Holyfield including Stewart, old Holmes, Moorer, and Mercer. If your claiming he was better than guys like Tucker and Witherspoon who never even had the chance to fight Holyfield that doesn't seem like a good argument since obviously they never fought Holyfield. That's why rating somebody based on a trilogy against one opponent is not a great idea.
If you were rating Lou Nova solely on the Baer fights you could make a case for him being top 3 of his era but the rest of his career was a huge disappointment.

Dokes was hugely overweight vs Ruddock nearly 30 pounds above his best (circa 212) and much heavier than he was vs Holyfield (225), that probably served to make him less effective. It would be the equivalent of Ali or Liston coming into a fight at 240

[keithmoonhangover]

Tyson before prison was a real force. After prison, he wasn't.

Dispatching Spinks and Holmes in such fashion cannot be overlooked.

[Controversial]

Realistically the Holyfield trilogy only tells us Bowe matched up well with Holyfield. Plenty of guys did better than Mike Tyson vs Holyfield including Stewart, old Holmes, Moorer, and Mercer. If your claiming he was better than guys like Tucker and Witherspoon who never even had the chance to fight Holyfield that doesn't seem like a good argument since obviously they never fought Holyfield. That's why rating somebody based on a trilogy against one opponent is not a great idea.
If you were rating Lou Nova solely on the Baer fights you could make a case for him being top 3 of his era but the rest of his career was a huge disappointment.

Exactly. You could say the same for Norton vs Ali or Frazier vs Ali. Look how they all did against Foreman. Some guys just do better against certain opponents

[keithmoonhangover]

On Bowe, I find it strange that some posters give him a pass for the Golota beatings, but cut Tyson no slack for being well past his prime for the Holyfield fights.

[Giancarlo]

On Bowe, I find it strange that some posters give him a pass for the Golota beatings, but cut Tyson no slack for being well past his prime for the Holyfield fights.

Hard for them to view it objectively when they are in love with a certain fighter.

[keithmoonhangover]

On Bowe, I find it strange that some posters give him a pass for the Golota beatings, but cut Tyson no slack for being well past his prime for the Holyfield fights.

Hard for them to view it objectively when they are in love with a certain fighter.

I'm no Tyson fan, in fact, I really dislike the rapist, but my views on him are unbiased. After prison, he was never the same fighter again. Beating Holmes and Spinks in such fashion is a big deal, no question.

[Ambling Alp II]

Realistically the Holyfield trilogy only tells us Bowe matched up well with Holyfield. Plenty of guys did better than Mike Tyson vs Holyfield including Stewart, old Holmes, Moorer, and Mercer. If your claiming he was better than guys like Tucker and Witherspoon who never even had the chance to fight Holyfield that doesn't seem like a good argument since obviously they never fought Holyfield. That's why rating somebody based on a trilogy against one opponent is not a great idea.
If you were rating Lou Nova solely on the Baer fights you could make a case for him being top 3 of his era but the rest of his career was a huge disappointment.

Dokes was hugely overweight vs Ruddock nearly 30 pounds above his best (circa 212) and much heavier than he was vs Holyfield (225), that probably served to make him less effective. It would be the equivalent of Ali or Liston coming into a fight at 240

Nobody else matched up with Holyfield better than Bowe. And he did it three times, 2x when Holyfield was at his absolute best. Two great fights. Could have got the decision or at least a draw.
I can make an argument that Bowe was better than of the Witherspoon and Tucker because of the Holyfield fights because Bowe- Holyfield actually happened.
Actually, beating someone great is more impressive than someone else who didn't actually fight him. Tucker was too busy fighting no-names for several years. He shouldn't get a pass for this.

Comparing Nova beating a fading Baer to Bowe beating a prime Holyfield is just stupid. Not comparable, at all.

[Cojimar 1946]

Realistically the Holyfield trilogy only tells us Bowe matched up well with Holyfield. Plenty of guys did better than Mike Tyson vs Holyfield including Stewart, old Holmes, Moorer, and Mercer. If your claiming he was better than guys like Tucker and Witherspoon who never even had the chance to fight Holyfield that doesn't seem like a good argument since obviously they never fought Holyfield. That's why rating somebody based on a trilogy against one opponent is not a great idea.
If you were rating Lou Nova solely on the Baer fights you could make a case for him being top 3 of his era but the rest of his career was a huge disappointment.

Dokes was hugely overweight vs Ruddock nearly 30 pounds above his best (circa 212) and much heavier than he was vs Holyfield (225), that probably served to make him less effective. It would be the equivalent of Ali or Liston coming into a fight at 240

Nobody else matched up with Holyfield better than Bowe. And he did it three times, 2x when Holyfield was at his absolute best. Two great fights. Could have got the decision or at least a draw.
I can make an argument that Bowe was better than of the Witherspoon and Tucker because of the Holyfield fights because Bowe- Holyfield actually happened.
Actually, beating someone great is more impressive than someone else who didn't actually fight him. Tucker was too busy fighting no-names for several years. He shouldn't get a pass for this.

Comparing Nova beating a fading Baer to Bowe beating a prime Holyfield is just stupid. Not comparable, at all.

It doesn't seem like a compelling argument though because obviously you can't beat someone if they won't fight you. The vast majority of top heavyweights never had the opportunity to fight Holyfield in the first place.
It would be like claiming that Duran is the greatest based on beating Leonard.

One way is to look at common opponents. In that respect Bowe really doesn't stand out from many contemporaries
He has similar results to Witherspoon vs Art Tucker, Tony Tubbs, and Jorge Luis Gonzales. Did better against Everett Martin though Witherspoon was badly out of shape for that fight.
Bruno had similar results vs Coetzer and Ferguson
He did better than Mercer against Ferguson, Holyfield, and Cooper so big edge there.
Vitali did better than Bowe vs Hide and Donald

The point with Nova is just that Baer is much better than the guys like Savold and Galento who beat Nova so we can't infer Bowe beats guys like Witherspoon because he beat Holyfield

[Caractacus]

remember this infamous photograph of Mike Tyson after he had just knocked down Jesse Ferguson in 1985 ?
I think there was a enlarged copy of it in on display in the Catskill Boxing gym.

https://boxrec.com/wiki/images/a/a5/TysonFerguson2.jpeg

[apollo creed]

Bottom line is Tyson has no top notch win on his record. He didn't beat Holy, Bowe, Lennox, Ike in the 90's era. Sure Mike looked cool in the mid of the 80's lackluster HW era but then Buster busted him. Mike was a good-spectacular fighter, no doubt, but the hype and the marketing behind him were spot on. Nostalgia merchants.

[Jaywheel]

Yeah beating Ike would have made him number 1 all-time, just like it did wonders for Tua's all time ranking.

[Cojimar 1946]

Part of the problem for Tyson is the lack of dominance over an extended period of time. He was the clear top heavyweight in the world for only approximately 18 months. Most people regarded as great have a far longer period at the top.
By contrast Max Baer was the best heavyweight in the world slightly longer than Tyson but gets very little credit for this legacy wise.

[Ambling Alp II]

Realistically the Holyfield trilogy only tells us Bowe matched up well with Holyfield. Plenty of guys did better than Mike Tyson vs Holyfield including Stewart, old Holmes, Moorer, and Mercer. If your claiming he was better than guys like Tucker and Witherspoon who never even had the chance to fight Holyfield that doesn't seem like a good argument since obviously they never fought Holyfield. That's why rating somebody based on a trilogy against one opponent is not a great idea.
If you were rating Lou Nova solely on the Baer fights you could make a case for him being top 3 of his era but the rest of his career was a huge disappointment.

Dokes was hugely overweight vs Ruddock nearly 30 pounds above his best (circa 212) and much heavier than he was vs Holyfield (225), that probably served to make him less effective. It would be the equivalent of Ali or Liston coming into a fight at 240

Nobody else matched up with Holyfield better than Bowe. And he did it three times, 2x when Holyfield was at his absolute best. Two great fights. Could have got the decision or at least a draw.
I can make an argument that Bowe was better than of the Witherspoon and Tucker because of the Holyfield fights because Bowe- Holyfield actually happened.
Actually, beating someone great is more impressive than someone else who didn't actually fight him. Tucker was too busy fighting no-names for several years. He shouldn't get a pass for this.

Comparing Nova beating a fading Baer to Bowe beating a prime Holyfield is just stupid. Not comparable, at all.

It doesn't seem like a compelling argument though because obviously you can't beat someone if they won't fight you. The vast majority of top heavyweights never had the opportunity to fight Holyfield in the first place.
It would be like claiming that Duran is the greatest based on beating Leonard.

One way is to look at common opponents. In that respect Bowe really doesn't stand out from many contemporaries
He has similar results to Witherspoon vs Art Tucker, Tony Tubbs, and Jorge Luis Gonzales. Did better against Everett Martin though Witherspoon was badly out of shape for that fight.
Bruno had similar results vs Coetzer and Ferguson
He did better than Mercer against Ferguson, Holyfield, and Cooper so big edge there.
Vitali did better than Bowe vs Hide and Donald

The point with Nova is just that Baer is much better than the guys like Savold and Galento who beat Nova so we can't infer Bowe beats guys like Witherspoon because he beat Holyfield

Of course, the majority of top hws did not fight Holyfield. Holyfield can't fight everyone. However, he fought several top guys in career. He did fight Dokes, Thomas, Douglas etc. He looked good in these guys, much better than Witherspoon or just about anyone else. More than enough to prove that he was better than not only those guys but just about anyone. No one fought better opponents than Holyfield at the time.

You can't take away Bowe's wins over Holyfield when comparing someone to Bowe just because that fighter didn't fight Holyfield. That is just stupid.
You also have to look at the timeline of when fights took place. Larry Donald was a much better fighter when he fought Bowe than when he fought Vitali. Baer was past it when he fought Nova. Bowe improved after fighting Coetzer and Tubbs. etc.

You need to go by Bowe's overall career and Witherspoon's overall career, taking into consideration the stages of their careers and of their opponents. Bowe's career was clearly better. Witherspoon's had a lot of trouble with a ton of guys who were not nearly as good as Bowe.

You have to go lot further than just picking out the common opponents.

btw -Tyson was the top hw for longer than 18 months. Almost everyone thought he was the top hw from the time he stopped Berbick (November of 1986} to when he lost the title to Douglas in February 1990. That is about 3 and a half years.

btw -

[Cojimar 1946]

Witherspoon negatively impacted his legacy by fighting long past his prime and suffering all sorts of awful post prime losses to guys he would have easily beaten at his best. If the same thing had happened to Bowe that would obviously negatively impact his legacy. Imagine seeing a totally shot Bowe brutally kayoed over and over in the late 1990s early 2000s by journeyman he would have demolished at his best.

The argument for Witherspoon is that he has better depth to his resume and a better skill set better suited for a variety of opponents. Holyfield is the only guy Bowe beat better than Witherspoons victims and Bowe struggled with lesser fighters like Tubbs and Golota . Could easily have lost to Tubbs and was losing to Golota prior to the fouls.

A lot of Holyfields legacy is based on beating Tyson but realistically the 1990s are a stronger era than the 1980s and a number of 90s heavyweights might have beaten Tyson if given the chance. A lot of Tyson's success was based on his power but if you have the chin to take his punches that neutralizes a lot of Tyson's strength and makes him very beatable.