Who is the most Overrated fighter in history????

First topic message reminder :

Simple question...........who does history love way too much..

I don't dislike Mayweather. Like i say, i had it 59-56 after 6. I'll give Floyd the remaining six, I'd still have it 116-113.

He beat some of the best, he also lost a few close fights to a couple of others.

Robinson, Ali and Armstrong did the same.

Agreed.............Robbo also lost to Lamotta and Turpin.......Losses were accepted more back then..

How anyone has De La Hoya ahead at any point in that fight is beyond me, it really wasn't a close fight.

Robinson had a lot of elite level wins to counteract the two losses in 132 fights or however many it was, he wasn't a boxer known for losing all his big fights as De La Hoya is. The harsh reality is that he was good, very good but he at no point set himself aside from his contemporaries, he didn't beat Mosley, he didn't beat Trinidad, he didn't beat Hopkins and he never faced Wright, when it came to proving himself to be the best he lost.

Robinson beat Gavilan and Lamotta
Ali beat Liston, Foreman and Frazier
Armstrong beat Ross, Sarron and Ambers

It's the little things that seperate the all time greats from the merely greats.

Well said Ghosty.

Has to be said though Ghosty...........That Lamotta was very ordinary and Oscar never lost to anybody that ordinary...

Although I agree with most of your points..

Has to be said too Ghosty...Whitaker, Chavez, Quartey are arguably up there too......

Robinson was giving away 16lbs or something when he lost to LaMotta he then went on to beat him 5 times just to prove a point including one of the most brutal beatings seen in the boxing ring. LaMotta was limited but he sure as hell wasn't average, nobody should still be standing after the valentines day massacre but Jake had almost unparalleled heart and durability.

I see ODLH win over Chavez as holding less weight than Robinsons over Armstrong and that's a win of his nobody talks about, Quartey is no different to Wilson or Bell. De La Hoyas big wins are comparable to the true greats also ran wins.

Boxing would be a far greater spectacle if everyone had the ambition of De La Hoya but lets not mistake that for true greatness.

I don't think people liking De la Hoya had any bearing on their scoring of the Mayweather fight for the most part, Ghosty. If anything, it'd be easier to speculate that a 118-110 scoreline in Mayweather's favour is a bigger indicator of bias from the outset than, say, a 116-113 margin for him (that's how I had it), only difference being the bias would be favouring Floyd and not Oscar.

Only two rounds for Oscar on your card? Mayweather won the fight beyond any doubt, but having seen and scored it three or four times I just can't see how anyone could have it as a competitive bout. Some fights are tricky to score, I agree, but only two rounds given is pretty hard on Oscar and his performance in that fight, for me!

Quartey would certainly be higher than an 'also ran win' on Robinson's ledger too, I think. Granted, Truss' analogy between De la Hoya and Robinson wasn't the best, but let's not run Oscar's victories down too much here. Quartey was an unbeaten fighter when De la Hoya faced him, had an supremely hard punch, an even harder chin, one of the best jabs of the modern era and, even when returning from a half-decade retirement at a higher weight, had enough in the tank to hand Vernon Forrest his backside before falling foul to a seriously poor decision.

More significant than Robinson's wins over Bell and Wilson, certainly in my eyes anyway. Quartey is a good looking name for any Welterweight champion in any era to have on their record.

Better than Wilson in no way Chris, going into their fight he'd lost once when outweighed by 16lbs to LaMotta, anyone who has Garcia, Arizmendi, Kaplan, Azteca and Cocoa Kid in their win column is a pretty exceptional fighter. Quarteys name is so embedded into our memories because he ran De La Hoya close. If we ranked Robinsons wins in order then Quartey is going to be fairly low down, like I said it's what separates the exceptional from the not so exceptional. Trinidad, Mosley, Wright and De La Hoya are all around the same level, the fact you couldn't give a definitive order for them to go in kind of proves my point.

Firstly, you seem to have missed my point a little bit, Ghosty. De la Hoya-Quartey was a genuine, big world title match up between two unbeaten fighters who were both champions (well, Ike should have been but for some odd politics). Robinson-Wilson was nothing of the sort, hence me saying that Quartey is the more 'significant' win.

Next, there's a bit of reinvention regarding Wilson as an opponent for Ray going on here. As you'll know, he and Robinson had been sparring partners in their youth - after Robinson's defeat to LaMotta, his confidence was totally shot for a while and he and his team basically lined Wilson up as nothing more than a tune up fight for another bout with LaMotta, a guaranteed 'friendly' opponent who'd give Ray a decent run out without having him under any serious pressure. According to Herb Boyd's 'Pound for Pound', the fight was pretty pedestrian as expected and Robinson "had no trouble taking a decision for him." Hardly the same as De la Hoya-Quartey. The next time Robinson faced Wilson, he was in a horrible run of form in any case.

Wilson's got some fine wins on his record, no question, but so too has Quartey. Wilson also has a number of losses in his peak years to middlers - the norm for the time, but it goes to show that, while a fine fighter, he was no elite opponent, either. Robinson has a multitude of wins on his record better than Oscar's over Quartey, but Bell and Wilson wouldn't be amongst them, for me.

Don't give me this giving away 16 pounds garbage to Lamotta.........

He should have been able to outbox the guy..

Good debate though...........

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Better than Wilson in no way Chris, going into their fight he'd lost once when outweighed by 16lbs to LaMotta, anyone who has Garcia, Arizmendi, Kaplan, Azteca and Cocoa Kid in their win column is a pretty exceptional fighter. Quarteys name is so embedded into our memories because he ran De La Hoya close. If we ranked Robinsons wins in order then Quartey is going to be fairly low down, like I said it's what separates the exceptional from the not so exceptional. Trinidad, Mosley, Wright and De La Hoya are all around the same level, the fact you couldn't give a definitive order for them to go in kind of proves my point.

In Robinsons case, if you've fought over 200 times, then as number, you'd have more of "your weights and era's greats" on your record.

But Del a Hoya only fought 45 times so you'd expect him to not have as many greats on his record, as a number, compared to Robinson.

However, if we consider the number of "their weight's, and era's big names" on each of their records as a percentage of their total fights, then I'd guess ODH would have the higher percentage of "their weight's and era's goodn's"

I'm not saying ODH compares to SRR but's it's something to consider when trying to assess how good ODH was (when analysing records only, rather than what we see) compared to others who are nailed on greats.

Chavez fought 100 times and had less quality than DelaHoya..........

so your argument doesn't hold water.......

I see de la Hoya routinely labelled as both underrated and overrated by my own standards so it tends to balance out. I do think his Golden Boy image and popularity among the masses has led to him being slightly undervalued by more hardcore boxing followers, a bit like Tyson though nowhere near the same margin of extremes.

I agree entirely..

Hard to hold Lamotta against Robinson when he avenged it 5 times Truss and he was far trickier than you're making out.

Wilson is a boxer I rate very Chris and it was a fight between the divisions two and three so no different to ODLH and Quartey, them both being belt holders makes it seem more of a spectacle.

If you look at the quality on robinsons and De La Hoya there really is no comparison; Armstrong, Angott, Gavilan, LaMotta, maxim, wade and Olsen before retirement blows him out the water.

No one is comparing DelaHoya to Robinson..............Just replying to the fact that he has beaten some top quality fighters and you won't give him credit for it...

Chavez is higher than Lamotta........

Whittaker is up there with Gavilan.............

Having read this very interesting thread and all the great opinions on it, i still think Iron Mike Tyson is the undisputed King of Overrated. Although he did beat a few half decent men, he never beat a single prime great heavyweight fighter only really stand out names on his record are a faded Holmes and a great light heavy Spinks who nicked the title of the faded Holmes. Only 2 really top heavies he fought both beat him in Lewis and Holyfield. So as exciting as he was and he was definitely a very good fighter, Tyson's greatness was for me is more myth than substance. All about opinions though, and full respect to those of other opinions of Tyson.

Very hard to assess Tyson for a whole number of reasons and I couldnt argue he is one of the most overrated fighters if you take the general public into account.

But I dont think its fair to downplay wins over Holmes as being faded for instance and then say he lost to Lewis for example. Tyson was far more shot against Lewis than Holmes was against Tyson in my view.

hogey wrote:Having read this very interesting thread and all the great opinions on it, i still think Iron Mike Tyson is the undisputed King of Overrated. Although he did beat a few half decent men, he never beat a single prime great heavyweight fighter only really stand out names on his record are a faded Holmes and a great light heavy Spinks who nicked the title of the faded Holmes. Only 2 really top heavies he fought both beat him in Lewis and Holyfield. So as exciting as he was and he was definitely a very good fighter, Tyson's greatness was for me is more myth than substance. All about opinions though, and full respect to those of other opinions of Tyson.

I don't really agree with this;

Many top heavyweights didn't beat a prime champion. Take Jack Johnson for example. He beat Langford when he was very young (and extremely small, it would be like Tyson taking out Hagler in terms of size difference), and beat a very aged Jeffries. Other than that he has McVea and Jeannette before he became champ, and outright refused to fight them once he had won the title. He ranks 3rd in many HW lists.

The same argument could be levelled at many. How many prime ATG's did Marciano, Dempsey, Holmes, and Jeffries beat? You could even argue that the Ali Frazier took out was not 'prime'.

By comparison, to say that Tyson's greatness is a 'myth' seems overly harsh, to put it mildly.

He won 10 consecutive world title fights and completely cleaned out his division. for 3 years he was arguably the most dominant Heavyweight champion of all time.

I also think Tyson's level of opposition during his first reign is very underrated. Spinks, Holmes, Tucker, Biggs, Tubbs, Thomas, and Smith were more than 'decent' in my opinion. They compare favourably, for example, with the majority of Holmes' opposition.

Continuing with the Holmes theme, Larry was never able to unify, for whatever reason. However Tyson did, and emphatically so.

It is certainly fair to criticise Tyson for his losses to Holyfield (a great in his own right), and Douglas. These losses are generally the reason why Tyson is ranked outside of many HW top 10 lists. However, I think holding the Lewis loss against him is a little unfair. I don't hold the Berbick, Spinks, and Holmes losses against Ali, and certainly wouldn't cite them as a reason to downplay his greatness.

I appreciate that some of Tyson's 'fanboys' overrate his abilities massively, yet it is my opinion that 'counter' opinions, such as yours, actually contribute to Tyson being grossly underrated by some more knowledgeable boxing fans.

The Tyson who fought Lewis was no where near as shot as the shell of Ali was when he fought Holmes or Berbick. Ali had had a very long career full of wars with some of histories best Heavyweights, Tyson had only had a handful of really tough fights and at 35 and still active was not physically faded, i think it was the mental issue of fighters not being scared of him and having tasted defeat that finished him as a fighter. The Holmes that Tyson fought had previously been champion for 7 years and at the end of his reign was clearly on the career wind down as a top fighter, by the time he got in the ring with Tyson he was 39 and retired for 2 years if people think that's in better shape than a 35 year old having his 2nd fight in 8 months then fair enough.

Can't agree that Tyson wasn't physically faded by 2002 at all, Hogey - surely all you need to do to be sure of that is looking at the Lewis fight and comparing it to the Tyson of the late eighties. He looked like he was in slow motion in comparison and fought much more upright and predictably.

Holmes was certainly past his best and not in the greatest condition by 1988, but after that point he was still able to outscore the hitherto undefeated Mercer - a Mercer who was unlucky not to get the decision against a pretty much peak Lennox Lewis a few years later - push McCall all the way in a title bid and lose with honour when challenging Evander, too. Tyson's career post Lewis consisted of three farces in which he was stopped in two of them by a domestic level fighter and then someone who wasn't even that!

I think Tyson was pretty useless as far as legitimate Heavyweight threats go by 2002, personally. He was younger than a 1988 Holmes, but was clearly a mental wreck with a disturbed mind, had visibly lost any of that speed or snap he used to have and also was dabbling in powder and God only knows what else.

Anyway, anybody else wishing for the return of LRR's Tyson defences? Telling everyone that, in fact, Holmes was at his peak when he faced Tyson and it was Tyson who was washed up, purely because Tyson went 17-6 with 2 NCs after they boxed and Larry Big Pants went 21-3!?

I agree with a lot of what you say, just dont think his problem was physical i think it was mental , no one loses bottle more than a bully when people are no longer scared of them or they have been bullied themselves. He became a lesser fighter because he didn't believe his own hype anymore and nor did anyone else.

Tyson was always mentally all over the place I think. The Holyfield fights probably did scar him but his whole boxing went downhill the older he got. He lost so much of the speed, explosiveness, dynamism of his younger years. He looked awful in some of his post prison fights. I think thats what I would classify as physically. His actual skills diminished even if he wasnt physcially past it.

I think post prison he actually relied on his reputation to beat opponents more because his actual skills werent as good. He steamrolled a couple terrified opponents, papering over the cracks before Holyfield gave him a reality check about how far his skills had deteriorated. By the time he faced Lewis he was both mentally gone and had lost a great deal of his ability.

hogey wrote:The Tyson who fought Lewis was no where near as shot as the shell of Ali was when he fought Holmes or Berbick. Ali had had a very long career full of wars with some of histories best Heavyweights, Tyson had only had a handful of really tough fights and at 35 and still active was not physically faded, i think it was the mental issue of fighters not being scared of him and having tasted defeat that finished him as a fighter. The Holmes that Tyson fought had previously been champion for 7 years and at the end of his reign was clearly on the career wind down as a top fighter, by the time he got in the ring with Tyson he was 39 and retired for 2 years if people think that's in better shape than a 35 year old having his 2nd fight in 8 months then fair enough.

We're talking about a fight which took place nearly 16 years after Tyson won his first world title. I think that the Tyson who showed up to face Lewis was actually worse than the Holmes which Tyson faced. Holmes actually went on to batter Ray Mercer only a few fights later.

Hopkins is 46, presumably as Ali was 'only' 38 when he lost to Holmes this loss can be used to conclude that Ali was not as great as some make out? The obvious point here is that a fighters physical and mental condition is dependant on many factors besides merely age.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Better than Wilson in no way Chris, going into their fight he'd lost once when outweighed by 16lbs to LaMotta, anyone who has Garcia, Arizmendi, Kaplan, Azteca and Cocoa Kid in their win column is a pretty exceptional fighter. Quarteys name is so embedded into our memories because he ran De La Hoya close. If we ranked Robinsons wins in order then Quartey is going to be fairly low down, like I said it's what separates the exceptional from the not so exceptional. Trinidad, Mosley, Wright and De La Hoya are all around the same level, the fact you couldn't give a definitive order for them to go in kind of proves my point.

In Robinsons case, if you've fought over 200 times, then as number, you'd have more of "your weights and era's greats" on your record.

But Del a Hoya only fought 45 times so you'd expect him to not have as many greats on his record, as a number, compared to Robinson.

However, if we consider the number of "their weight's, and era's big names" on each of their records as a percentage of their total fights, then I'd guess ODH would have the higher percentage of "their weight's and era's goodn's"

I'm not saying ODH compares to SRR but's it's something to consider when trying to assess how good ODH was (when analysing records only, rather than what we see) compared to others who are nailed on greats.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Chavez fought 100 times and had less quality than DelaHoya..........

so your argument doesn't hold water.......

I said "in Robinson's case", not in Chavez' case

...but thanks for supplying a good example to confirm what i saying:

As a percentage of total fights, the number of good fighters on ODH record is better than many other "greats" (chavez included)

tyson is the most overrated fighter in the world when i speak to guys who know very little about boxing. yet when i speak to boxing fans i often conclude that he is in fact underrated.

boxing pundits and more knowledgeable fans have often had to diminish tysons standings in the grand scheme of things, simply to balance up his overall appreciation. ive spoken to many tyson fans who have never even heard of buster douglas, and think tyson went to prison unbeatable and came out half the man he was. yet on the flipside i hear so called boxing fans saying tyson could have been handled by Wlad and anybody with a decent jab and workrate. as always the truth lies somewhere between the two. personally i think holy had his number, and lewis would have had a great chance anytime from 92 onwards. but the guy was still awesome

In the past I've said some unkind things about Tyson, mainly to wind people up, but the way I honestly see it...

*) He's overrated by some and underrated by others.....most boxers are, so it follows; Tyson's opposition, being boxers, would be overrated by some and underrated by others, therefore it's difficult to draw conclusions from that aspect alone.

*) The extent to which he declined after his incarceration is grossly underrated.

*) His absolute dominance over a period is accepted by most. However, a small portion overrate his second period as champion.

*) His ferocity may be over exaggerated. It certainly wasn't abnormal for a fighter. There are many ferocious boxers, the only difference between them and Tyson, was the fantastic results and spectacular finishes when Tyson landed.

*) His ability to deal with adversity in the ring was inconsistent (positive against Lewis, negative against Holyfield) so it's difficult to call him a flat track bully with any legitimacy.

*) His actual boxing ability is unforgivably underrated by those not in the know.


So there you have it, he's underrated and overrated, and the extent is depended on which corner you sit.

Outside Holmes, Ali and Louis, who has a better record as HW champ than Tyson? Several other HW champs who are rated higher than he is have inferior records and certainly inferior skills.

azania wrote:Outside Holmes, Ali and Louis, who has a better record as HW champ than Tyson? Several other HW champs who are rated higher than he is have inferior records and certainly inferior skills.

Its not really that simple though because theres more to look at. Foremans destruction of Frazier and Norton for instance I would consider better than Tysons record.

If difficult to evaluate the impact Tysons second career has and the stain it causes. Some people basically dismiss it while others treat it as proof he was never all that good. I think its giving Tyson too much of a pass to largely ignore it. He was past his best for sure but theres no real excuse for it. He only has himself to blame which should count against him in terms of his ranking. But when looking at head to heads or Tyson at his best I thinks its clear post prison he was not the same fighter.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Outside Holmes, Ali and Louis, who has a better record as HW champ than Tyson? Several other HW champs who are rated higher than he is have inferior records and certainly inferior skills.

Its not really that simple though because theres more to look at. Foremans destruction of Frazier and Norton for instance I would consider better than Tysons record.

If difficult to evaluate the impact Tysons second career has and the stain it causes. Some people basically dismiss it while others treat it as proof he was never all that good. I think its giving Tyson too much of a pass to largely ignore it. He was past his best for sure but theres no real excuse for it. He only has himself to blame which should count against him in terms of his ranking. But when looking at head to heads or Tyson at his best I thinks its clear post prison he was not the same fighter.

His second career is not that bad either. He came back and won the title twice. Sure he lost, but so did Foreman but he is forgiven. Tyson is judged harshly because he was that good and didn't achieve as much as his talents warranted. But nevertheless he achieved a tremendous amount. More than most other former champions.

Well had he not lost to Douglas, I think alot of the doubts might be removed. But he was knocked out when he should have been in his theoretical prime. His comeback wasnt really all that good. Foreman was ancient after a decade so I think we can forgive him easier than Tyson who even after a 3 year lay off never really attempted to get back his old sharpness. He seemed more content to just rely on power without the same finesse.

He beat a collection of good heavyweights but Foreman beat better ones. I can see the arguments for and against Tyson and its difficult to know how much slack to afford him.

My argument isn't a comparison between Tson and Foreman's standings. I have Tyson as the better fighter but Foreman higher by virtue of Frazier and Norton who Tyson would have beat also.

ou could argue that 10 defences and being unbeatable for 4 years merits more than where he is ranked. To me he is criticised because he could have achieved moch more which is unfair and should be judged by what he achieved.

I have him as 3rd best HW ever after Ali and Holmes.

I'd pick Tyson to win......but have Foreman higher........

I give De La Hoya credit for the wins he did manage but many seem to want to credit him with taking on the best and more often than not he lost.

You have to balance Whitaker, Chavez, Hernandez (under rated win of his) and Quartey up against Mosley, Trinidad, Mayweather and to an extent Hopkins. He has more than enough elite level wins and second tier wins to cement his greatness but he didn't set himself aside from his contemporaries.

He's under rated by those who ignore Campas, Castillejo, Hernandez, Mayorga, Vargas, Carr and all his other world title fight wins.

Duran lost to Leonard, Benitez, Hagler, Hearns, Sims at higher weights too....

He lost more against the big names than Oscar did...........

Chavez x2, Mayorga, Vargas, Quartey, Whittaker and Hernandez tends to suggest your argument is flawed.

azania wrote:My argument isn't a comparison between Tson and Foreman's standings. I have Tyson as the better fighter but Foreman higher by virtue of Frazier and Norton who Tyson would have beat also.

ou could argue that 10 defences and being unbeatable for 4 years merits more than where he is ranked. To me he is criticised because he could have achieved moch more which is unfair and should be judged by what he achieved.

I have him as 3rd best HW ever after Ali and Holmes.

I was always under the impression you ranked fighters on a who beats who basis, which is why the likes of Lewis or Marciano are so lowly rated in your view.

Was Tyson unbeatable for 4 years? He was unbeaten but thats not the same thing. I still think wasted potential and the way his career went should deservedly attract criticism and it also leaves questions about Tyson that would otherwise not be there. We dont know he neccessarily would have gone on to be the all conquering heavyweight he initially promised. He lost to Douglas and then got himself jailed a time when you had Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis emerging. We can only speculate how fights with them would have gone. Had he gone to beat them all then clerly he becomes top two I think. But what if he just lost straight up to Holtfield or Bowe or Lewis? On top of a loss to Douglas suddenly his creer isnt as great as promised at all.

We all know why Marciano is so low........

De La Hoya was a lot more suited to the higher weights than Duran, he had a bigger frame and grew into Welterweight whereas Duran bloated into the division not to mention Leonard I. You seem very protective of your american hero Truss.

No I just want thim to get a fair shout.........Duran lost to the best names he fought....

DelaHoya lost a few "Contentious" decisions..I thought he beat Mosley and beat most of the best names he fought..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:We all know why Marciano is so low........

And why is that dumbass? Is it for the same reason I rank Lewis so low? Or are you just a stupid, useless American who cannot think past the next MTV soundbite?

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:My argument isn't a comparison between Tson and Foreman's standings. I have Tyson as the better fighter but Foreman higher by virtue of Frazier and Norton who Tyson would have beat also.

ou could argue that 10 defences and being unbeatable for 4 years merits more than where he is ranked. To me he is criticised because he could have achieved moch more which is unfair and should be judged by what he achieved.

I have him as 3rd best HW ever after Ali and Holmes.

I was always under the impression you ranked fighters on a who beats who basis, which is why the likes of Lewis or Marciano are so lowly rated in your view.

Was Tyson unbeatable for 4 years? He was unbeaten but thats not the same thing. I still think wasted potential and the way his career went should deservedly attract criticism and it also leaves questions about Tyson that would otherwise not be there. We dont know he neccessarily would have gone on to be the all conquering heavyweight he initially promised. He lost to Douglas and then got himself jailed a time when you had Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis emerging. We can only speculate how fights with them would have gone. Had he gone to beat them all then clerly he becomes top two I think. But what if he just lost straight up to Holtfield or Bowe or Lewis? On top of a loss to Douglas suddenly his creer isnt as great as promised at all.

I was applying the principle most apply hence I stated I have Tyson as the 3rd best HW in history.

During his reign I believe the only HW who would have beaten him conclusively was Ali. Holmes would have had serious problems as he had a tendancy to get caught. Wasted talent or not, it shouldn't detract from his achievement for 4 years. Boxers who reigned for lesser time are ranked higher. It is for the reason that his takent was wasted that he gets marked down as opposed to looking at it in isolation.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:My argument isn't a comparison between Tson and Foreman's standings. I have Tyson as the better fighter but Foreman higher by virtue of Frazier and Norton who Tyson would have beat also.

ou could argue that 10 defences and being unbeatable for 4 years merits more than where he is ranked. To me he is criticised because he could have achieved moch more which is unfair and should be judged by what he achieved.

I have him as 3rd best HW ever after Ali and Holmes.

I was always under the impression you ranked fighters on a who beats who basis, which is why the likes of Lewis or Marciano are so lowly rated in your view.

Was Tyson unbeatable for 4 years? He was unbeaten but thats not the same thing. I still think wasted potential and the way his career went should deservedly attract criticism and it also leaves questions about Tyson that would otherwise not be there. We dont know he neccessarily would have gone on to be the all conquering heavyweight he initially promised. He lost to Douglas and then got himself jailed a time when you had Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis emerging. We can only speculate how fights with them would have gone. Had he gone to beat them all then clerly he becomes top two I think. But what if he just lost straight up to Holtfield or Bowe or Lewis? On top of a loss to Douglas suddenly his creer isnt as great as promised at all.

I was applying the principle most apply hence I stated I have Tyson as the 3rd best HW in history.

During his reign I believe the only HW who would have beaten him conclusively was Ali. Holmes would have had serious problems as he had a tendancy to get caught. Wasted talent or not, it shouldn't detract from his achievement for 4 years. Boxers who reigned for lesser time are ranked higher. It is for the reason that his takent was wasted that he gets marked down as opposed to looking at it in isolation.

I think the reason he gets marked down is more due to the unanswered questions produced by a somewhat unfulilled career and the fact his second post prison career and peaking at such an early age crated so many questions.

Boxers peak at various ages and have differing longevities. Wilfred Benitez was finished at 23 for example. Lack of training, dedication and I presume turning pro at 15 and taking serious punishment at a very young age. Tyson just burned the candle at both ends, his fragile mentality (not in boxing but generally) and the carniverous sharks that circled around him simply caught up with him as it would most people eventually.

I have never looked at his post prison career as being great or even the same boxer. At his peak he was exceptional. His peak lasted 4 years which was amongst the best in the history of the division. Tyson is a victim of his own talents.

Id consider Tyson a victim of his own failings than his own talents to be honest.

His 4 year stretch may well be underrated in many quarters but there still isnt enough in there for me to rate him anything close to top 3. And the failures that came after are alot less forgiveable given how much he himself was responsible and the age he was at.

At his absolute best he might have been top 3 most talented heavyweights but its a massive if and the rest of his career didnt do enough to support it substantially.

manos de piedra wrote:Id consider Tyson a victim of his own failings than his own talents to be honest.

His 4 year stretch may well be underrated in many quarters but there still isnt enough in there for me to rate him anything close to top 3. And the failures that came after are alot less forgiveable given how much he himself was responsible and the age he was at.

At his absolute best he might have been top 3 most talented heavyweights but its a massive if and the rest of his career didnt do enough to support it substantially.

You miss my point. When I say 3rd best I refer to H2H. I reckon only Ali and Holmes would have beaten him. But his record as champ doesn't have an elite HW. Having said that, neither does Lewis unless you include a past it Holy and Tyson as elite.

My list:

Ali,
Louis
Holmes,
Foreman
Then a bunch of guys too close to seperate in which Tyson would be in that list.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Id consider Tyson a victim of his own failings than his own talents to be honest.

His 4 year stretch may well be underrated in many quarters but there still isnt enough in there for me to rate him anything close to top 3. And the failures that came after are alot less forgiveable given how much he himself was responsible and the age he was at.

At his absolute best he might have been top 3 most talented heavyweights but its a massive if and the rest of his career didnt do enough to support it substantially.

You miss my point. When I say 3rd best I refer to H2H. I reckon only Ali and Holmes would have beaten him. But his record as champ doesn't have an elite HW. Having said that, neither does Lewis unless you include a past it Holy and Tyson as elite.

My list:

Ali,
Louis
Holmes,
Foreman
Then a bunch of guys too close to seperate in which Tyson would be in that list.

No I understand you rate him 3rd on head to heads. I find it to hard too call and hypothetical to rate that way myself. Douglas beat Tyson so do you rate him above? Or is it just more slack afforded to the wheels coming off the Tyson machine?

I dont consider Lewis to have what I would describe as an elite win. But he has longetivity and a record to match Tysons.

The whels came of when he left Rooney. Douglas boxed brilliantly no doubt. But one could clearly see that Tyson had little upper body movement. His explosiveness was not there. Apparently his training was awol and he had to diet just to look the part. But when it's all said and done, Buster won and won fairly.

I look atit in the same manner an old Ali took Spinks lightly and paid the price. Yes he settled it in the rematch. Tyson didn't have the opportunity.

Interesting that someone (might have been Mackem) put Foreman forward for consideration earlier.

We're here giving Tyson a good kicking for being totally outboxed and then stopped by Douglas, but I'll whisper this carefully - doesn't Foreman get a bit of a free ride for the Young defeat in comparison? It's often put down to Foreman's mind wandering away from boxing after the defeat in Zaire and his personal demons which were born in the aftermath, as if his huge struggle with Lyle, but while such an excuse is generally accepted for Foreman it tends to be thrown out the window when put forward for Tyson's capitulation at the hands of Douglas.

Could it be that Foreman just couldn't cope with good, rangy boxers? Frazier I was an amazing win for sure, and the fact that nobody else has ever really demolished a top 10 Heavyweight candidate in their prime like that would probably make Foreman a contender for a place in such a list on its own. But then again, Joe was made for Big George; a slow starter who he could punch down to and who he didn't have to go looking for, who tended to be relatively easy to land on, his magnificent performance in the 'Fight of the Century' aside. Likewise, Norton was a chilling performance, but we know now that Ken was always likely to freeze in the face of big punchers (although in the interests of fairness, this wasn't know to all and sundry when he and Foreman squared off).

Understand that I'm really just playing a bit of Devil's Advocate more than anything, but it's food for thought all the same.

Forget Young...should get more crap for the Ali defeat....

Never seen such an amateurish performance...