BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑26 May 2026, 18:15 Well, it can't be "factually true" or false that many people overrate Tyson. It's an opinion where he should be rated.

But yes, some people go way overboard with Tyson. Some go the other way. He is a polarizing figure and people often let that get in the way when rating him.

I would rate Tyson a lot higher if he stayed on top of the division for more than 20 months, didn't go 0 for 3 against the best guys he faced, and avenged some of his defeats.

Those things tend to help a lot in terms of legacy

He the top heavyweight from the time heat Berbick until he lost to Douglas. That's about 39 months,. which is actually fairly long. Was one of the best for several years after that.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 12:10

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑26 May 2026, 18:15 Well, it can't be "factually true" or false that many people overrate Tyson. It's an opinion where he should be rated.

But yes, some people go way overboard with Tyson. Some go the other way. He is a polarizing figure and people often let that get in the way when rating him.

I would rate Tyson a lot higher if he stayed on top of the division for more than 20 months, didn't go 0 for 3 against the best guys he faced, and avenged some of his defeats.

Those things tend to help a lot in terms of legacy

His reign is longer than the 2 combined reigns of George Foreman (accordind to sanctioning bodies anyway). His reign is longer than Sonny Liston's. Floyd Patterson's. Gene Tunney's. Riddick Bowe's.

The people His reign is shorter than are the absolute cream of the crop for the most part, and He's right in that conversation with them.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 18:09 He the top heavyweight from the time heat Berbick until he lost to Douglas. That's about 39 months,. which is actually fairly long. Was one of the best for several years after that.

Nope. Anytime after Spinks he has to beat Holyfield in order to be the best. But unfortunately for his legacy he never did

From 1990 onwards there is Bowe who he didn't beat and then Lewis

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 13:36

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 18:09 He the top heavyweight from the time heat Berbick until he lost to Douglas. That's about 39 months,. which is actually fairly long. Was one of the best for several years after that.

Nope. Anytime after Spinks he has to beat Holyfield in order to be the best. But unfortunately for his legacy he never did

From 1990 onwards there is Bowe who he didn't beat and then Lewis

When you're the Champion of the World they have to beat YOU bro. Not the other way around.

I'd love to see Holyfield v Usyk

gilgamesh wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 13:39

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑28 May 2026, 13:36

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 May 2026, 18:09 He the top heavyweight from the time heat Berbick until he lost to Douglas. That's about 39 months,. which is actually fairly long. Was one of the best for several years after that.

Nope. Anytime after Spinks he has to beat Holyfield in order to be the best. But unfortunately for his legacy he never did

From 1990 onwards there is Bowe who he didn't beat and then Lewis

When you're the Champion of the World they have to beat YOU bro. Not the other way around.

The champion frequently isn't the best guy in the division so that's not really relevant to my point.

Tyson also didn't beat the reigning champ Spinks until 1988 which gives him a reign of less than two years

Vitali Klitschko had a longer title reign than Tyson and many people don't even put him in the top 20

Tyson couldn't dominate his own era so he's not in the conversation with those that did, he's more along the lines of Max Baer who was briefly the best then got crushed by Louis

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 11:18 Vitali Klitschko had a longer title reign than Tyson and many people don't even put him in the top 20

Tyson couldn't dominate his own era so he's not in the conversation with those that did, he's more along the lines of Max Baer who was briefly the best then got crushed by Louis

Whatever bud. This opinion is so ridiculous it's not worth arguing.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 13:20

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 11:18 Vitali Klitschko had a longer title reign than Tyson and many people don't even put him in the top 20

Tyson couldn't dominate his own era so he's not in the conversation with those that did, he's more along the lines of Max Baer who was briefly the best then got crushed by Louis

Whatever bud. This opinion is so ridiculous it's not worth arguing.

Did I miss the part where Tyson was the best of his own era. Because that's not how it looks to me.

How is going 0 for 3 against Holyfield and Lewis proving yourself the best of your era?

This whole tangent was started by me pointing out that other guys were far more dominant in their eras than Holyfield which is factually true.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 13:52

gilgamesh wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 13:20

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 11:18 Vitali Klitschko had a longer title reign than Tyson and many people don't even put him in the top 20

Tyson couldn't dominate his own era so he's not in the conversation with those that did, he's more along the lines of Max Baer who was briefly the best then got crushed by Louis

Whatever bud. This opinion is so ridiculous it's not worth arguing.

Did I miss the part where Tyson was the best of his own era. Because that's not how it looks to me.

How is going 0 for 3 against Holyfield and Lewis proving yourself the best of your era?

This whole tangent was started by me pointing out that other guys were far more dominant in their eras than Holyfield which is factually true.

Being dominant in your own era is certainly 1 indication of skill, it's not the only 1. Tyson from 1986 thru 1989 was about as dominant as it gets.

Id have the following above Holyfield in no particular order
Jeffries
Dempsey
Louis
Johnson
Louis
Liston
Ali
Holmes
Lewis
Wlad
Usyk

But I would say Foreman, Marciano and Charles all have a case for rating above him. Maybe a few others

Wow.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 14:27 Id have the following above Holyfield in no particular order
Jeffries
Dempsey
Louis
Johnson
Louis
Liston
Ali
Holmes
Lewis
Wlad
Usyk

But I would say Foreman, Marciano and Charles all have a case for rating above him. Maybe a few others

Louis, Ali, Holmes, Lewis ahead of Holyfield I can agree with. Even Dempsey and Johnson I can see a vague argument for it. I definitely can't really see it with Wlad, Liston, Usyk or Jeffries.

However there's still a few things happening that could boost Usyk's career.

A) He's still the Champion, and could still make more title defenses enhancing his legacy

B) Tyson Fury could continue winning and doing big things, making Usyk's win look better

C) Daniel Dubois could continue winning and doing big things, making Usyk's win look better

Any of those 3 things could potentially enhance his historical standing. We'll have to see how that Cookie ultimately crumbles.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 14:27 Id have the following above Holyfield in no particular order
Jeffries
Dempsey
Louis
Johnson
Louis
Liston
Ali
Holmes
Lewis
Wlad
Usyk

But I would say Foreman, Marciano and Charles all have a case for rating above him. Maybe a few others

Not in my wildest dreams I would put Lennox Lewis over Evander Holyfield at heavyweight. Holyfield beat way much better fighters and was decade's best heavyweight of the 90s.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 21:24

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 14:27 Id have the following above Holyfield in no particular order
Jeffries
Dempsey
Louis
Johnson
Louis
Liston
Ali
Holmes
Lewis
Wlad
Usyk

But I would say Foreman, Marciano and Charles all have a case for rating above him. Maybe a few others

Not in my wildest dreams I would put Lennox Lewis over Evander Holyfield at heavyweight. Holyfield beat way much better fighters and was decade's best heavyweight of the 90s.

They rate within a notch or 2 of each other regardless of who you'd put where. It's not outrageous to have either one rated over the other.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 May 2026, 14:39 Wow.

Ezzard Charles seems like the closest parallel to Holyfield historically. So I would rate them close to each other

Holyfield was the better heavyweight, though some people do underrate Charles. Pound for pound, Charles was certainly better.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 May 2026, 17:10 Holyfield was the better heavyweight, though some people do underrate Charles. Pound for pound, Charles was certainly better.

I actually think Holyfield was better period. Heavyweight and P4P. Though that admittedly probably wouldn't be the case if more of Ezzard's Light Heavyweight years were on film where you could see them.

But as far as what you can see with your own eyes. I gotta give the edge to Holyfield. Charles still ranks extremely high on the all time P4P list to me. Among the Elites no doubt. Holyfield honestly doesn't get enough credit in a P4P sense. Aside from his Heavyweight achievements he is also THE all time best Cruiserweight, and even in his very 1st Professional bout was fighting considerably stiff competition for a man of his experience.

Holyfield is a good example of a guy that doesn't have as impressive a record number wise as other fighters, but the quality of the competition and the consistency of high level performance even when losing gives him a high mark. Holyfield's an All timer for sure.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 May 2026, 17:10 Holyfield was the better heavyweight, though some people do underrate Charles. Pound for pound, Charles was certainly better.

Not in terms of accomplishments though. Charles was undisputably the best heavyweight for several years while Holyfield can't say the same, beat more ranked contenders. He didn't last as long but was fighting far more frequently which would accelerate his decline.

The top 6-10 range for sure.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑02 Jun 2026, 10:16

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 May 2026, 17:10 Holyfield was the better heavyweight, though some people do underrate Charles. Pound for pound, Charles was certainly better.

Not in terms of accomplishments though. Charles was undisputably the best heavyweight for several years while Holyfield can't say the same, beat more ranked contenders. He didn't last as long but was fighting far more frequently which would accelerate his decline.

Charles and Holyfield's 1st title reign both lasted 2 years. Charles did fight more often though. Holyfield faced more dangerous competition as a Heavyweight than Charles did. Not that Charles ducked anybody or anything, it's just that Holyfield had tougher competition to deal with.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑02 Jun 2026, 13:10

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑02 Jun 2026, 10:16

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 May 2026, 17:10 Holyfield was the better heavyweight, though some people do underrate Charles. Pound for pound, Charles was certainly better.

Not in terms of accomplishments though. Charles was undisputably the best heavyweight for several years while Holyfield can't say the same, beat more ranked contenders. He didn't last as long but was fighting far more frequently which would accelerate his decline.

Charles and Holyfield's 1st title reign both lasted 2 years. Charles did fight more often though. Holyfield faced more dangerous competition as a Heavyweight than Charles did. Not that Charles ducked anybody or anything, it's just that Holyfield had tougher competition to deal with.

At heavyweight, Evander Holyfield had better competition. Beat better fighters than Ezzard Charles. Charles's best competition was at light-heavyweight.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑24 May 2026, 12:22 Id put him just outside the top 10 just too inconsistent for my taste. Maybe 12 or so

The 1990s is an era of missed fights with or without Holyfield

When are you going to reveal your top 20 in order?