Ranking the Modern Heavyweights

[Jersey-Jim]

After Holyfield beat Tyson, his All-Time rankings among fans and historians went through the roof. He made it into most of the top 10 rankings and even the top 5 with some individuals.

Considering the fact that he won grew from a LHW to win the CW title and then beat "The Monster" Mike Tyson.

Most people, myself included, thought he was too small to absorb the kind of punches Tyson threw. Tyson was knocking just about everyone out and legitimate "Heavyweights" at that.

The fact that he stood his ground and fought Tyson made it even more impressive.

Tyson's rise was, years before, was very impressive. It was a once in a lifetime experience, watching Tyson mow down fighter after fighter on his way to becoming the youngest champion ever in the history of the division. There was a point when the question wasn't - could you beat Tyson, the question was; could you go the distance with him.

Those who finally did, did so fighting in survival mode.

Then, the money and the gangsta hanger on's appeared, Kevin Rooney was dumped, and Tyson's career and skills began their decline.

Overall, Tyson made quite a few successful Title defenses.

Now, here we are in 2008. Many remember Holyfield as a decent fighter who wouldn't stand a chance against most of the all-time greats. And Tyson is remembered as a one dimensional slugger by many. It's funny how some fighters are remembered for their best nights while others are remembered for their worst.

On the other hand, you have fighters like Riddick Bowe who are ranked high because of what "they could have done" as opposed to what they actually did. I don't know if it's because Eddie Futch made the comment about how Bowe could have become the best ever - even better than his old friend, Joe Louis?

Either way, back to Holyfield and Tyson. Do you think, at their best, they would have been in the same category as - let's say a Larry Holmes? Most people here remember Holme's career pretty well.

Ali stuggled at times against fighters who boxed, like Ken Norton. Could Holyfield have done just as well or better against him? Ali actually fired Holmes as a sparring partner when he started getting the better of him and with the jab.

Or, do you think the Heavyweights of the 70's had more depth in the division and fighters like Tyson and Holyfield wouldn't have accomplished anything near what they did in the 80's or 90's?

[SWardle]

I consider Tyson an 80's boxer more or less. After D'Mato died, he fired Kevin Rooney and he went dormant for 4.5 years while in prison he was never the same fighter. I'm not going to make excuses for the dude like people make for other boxers. I'm just going to say that I don't believe Tyson was anything special in the 90's. He was still a top shelf HW in the 90's but there were better fighters than him at that time. In the 80's he was pretty much king. Totally different fighter, too. Would've loved to have seen Holyfield vs Tyson pre-self destruct mode. Ultimately, the problems and flaws in Tyson were his fault. He made the wrong choices. He surrounded himself with leaches. He never grew up and remained an imbecile in his personal life. So, the blame is on him for not being as great as he could have been.

When it's all said and done, I still think a prime Tyson could step in the ring with anyone and have a good shot at winning. He had blazing handspeed, an uppercut and left hook that could knock you out, blazing combos, some of the most precise punching I've ever seen... power and to top it off, he was incredibly hard to hit. His defense was excellent. At his peak he was one hell of a boxer.

I was never much on Holyfield but I can't knock the guy as one of the best fighters of his era.

To answer your questions:

I think Tyson could stand toe to toe with anyone in the 70's at his peak, other than Foreman. Whether or not he'd win... well, it's 50/50. I don't think anyone from the 70's outside of Foreman could destroy Tyson. But I don't think Tyson would mop the floor with Frazier/Ali etc..., either. They'd be good fights and I'd go 50/50 on Tyson winning either match. Foreman devoured smaller boxers, though.

When you say Ali struggled vs boxers, I never saw that myself. I watched pretty much his entire career recently and it seemed to be he struggled against swarmers and boxers that were relentless. Like Norton/Frazier. Guys that fought going forward and just came at him with an all out assault the entire match. Tyson in his prime was that style of a fighter. Holyfield never was, really.

[meade95]

Originally Posted by Jersey-Jim

After Holyfield beat Tyson, his All-Time rankings among fans and historians went through the roof. He made it into most of the top 10 rankings and even the top 5 with some individuals.

Considering the fact that he won grew from a LHW to win the CW title and then beat "The Monster" Mike Tyson.

Most people, myself included, thought he was too small to absorb the kind of punches Tyson threw. Tyson was knocking just about everyone out and legitimate "Heavyweights" at that.

The fact that he stood his ground and fought Tyson made it even more impressive.

Tyson's rise was, years before, was very impressive. It was a once in a lifetime experience, watching Tyson mow down fighter after fighter on his way to becoming the youngest champion ever in the history of the division. There was a point when the question wasn't - could you beat Tyson, the question was; could you go the distance with him.

Those who finally did, did so fighting in survival mode.

Then, the money and the gangsta hanger on's appeared, Kevin Rooney was dumped, and Tyson's career and skills began their decline.

Overall, Tyson made quite a few successful Title defenses.

Now, here we are in 2008. Many remember Holyfield as a decent fighter who wouldn't stand a chance against most of the all-time greats. And Tyson is remembered as a one dimensional slugger by many. It's funny how some fighters are remembered for their best nights while others are remembered for their worst.

On the other hand, you have fighters like Riddick Bowe who are ranked high because of what "they could have done" as opposed to what they actually did. I don't know if it's because Eddie Futch made the comment about how Bowe could have become the best ever - even better than his old friend, Joe Louis?

Either way, back to Holyfield and Tyson. Do you think, at their best, they would have been in the same category as - let's say a Larry Holmes? Most people here remember Holme's career pretty well.

Ali stuggled at times against fighters who boxed, like Ken Norton. Could Holyfield have done just as well or better against him? Ali actually fired Holmes as a sparring partner when he started getting the better of him and with the jab.

Or, do you think the Heavyweights of the 70's had more depth in the division and fighters like Tyson and Holyfield wouldn't have accomplished anything near what they did in the 90's?

Very good post -

I say with time both Tyson and Holyfield will be remembered well - History will be kind to both - Problem is both fought longer than they should have (so that will sour recent memories some) but as time passes and the realities of their accomplishments, along with the very real assets each brought into the ring....will start to rise their stock again.

Both Holyfield and Tyson would have fared well in any era - Nobody Vs ATGs would go undefeated......but yes, I believe both could have won the HW championship in any era....

And what you said about some fighters seemingly only remembered on their "on" nights while others seem to have thier "off" nights focused on...is very true.

[meade95]

Originally Posted by SWardle

When it's all said and done, I still think a prime Tyson could step in the ring with anyone and have a good shot at winning. He had blazing handspeed, an uppercut and left hook that could knock you out, blazing combos, some of the most precise punching I've ever seen... power and to top it off, he was incredibly hard to hit. His defense was excellent. At his peak he was one hell of a boxer.

I will concur with all of this.....outside of the fact that his defense was excellent. No, I believe it was more a matter of 99% of the guys he fought didn't have the stones to stand in the box and exchange with him.....they fought backing up .....and for most, it is always going to be hard to hit someone like that.... Tyson chin was always there to be hit (and he has a solid chin, no less!) but you had to stand in there and trade with him (you had to have the chin to take it, or skills to make him miss while standing your ground) not too many guys have those assets........(or the handspeed to counter him).

[Mad Bomber]

My contention all along with Tyson was, if you had a good fighter in there with him who had a good jab, and good movement he would frustrate him, and probably beat him.

I think had Tony Tucker not fought him as soon as he did after breaking his hand while winning his fight with Buster Douglas he may have been the first fighter to beat him.

When Douglas got in there with him he frustrated him with his jab, and movement, as well as the fact that he wasn't afraid of him, and if you remember when Tyson hit him late after one of the early rounds, and when Douglas hit him back Tyson turned and complained to the referee.


Greg

[Jersey-Jim]

The 80's version of Tyson seemed to be a lot better disciplined, conditioned, etc. than the post Kevin Rooney fighter. He mowed down a still capable Larry Holmes. No fighter had stopped Holmes before or after that fight.

Ali said that he thought Tyson was "awesome" in the 80's during an interview after one of his fights.

The thing is, Tyson burned out quickly after Rooney was gone. Fighters like Tyson and Frazier usually burn out pretty quickly. Marciano was an exception for that style.

Tyson didn't have the type of heart, though, that fighters like Ali, Holmes and Holyfield did. He probably could have beat anyone, but once the chips where stacked against him, he didn't seem to have the ability to improvise and adjust.

[wildhawke11]

I remember just after Tyson unified the HW division the ring magazine and its experts did an article on Tyson v the former HW champs Tyson in there opinion came out the winner against most. One of his hardest fights was against Jack Dempsey but the extra weight that Mike carried helped him prevail in the end. Remember this was the early Tyson who many experts tipped to become the greatest HW ever.


At times its hard to separate the fighter from the man outside the ring who was a bully at times and a disgrace to boxing in general. The truth is i feel we loved it when the past his best days Tyson got hammered by others, Finally we thought he got what he deserved for being in our eyes the bully and bad guy.

I would dispute the fact of anyone saying Tyson did not have a good chin. Look how many hits he took from Lennex Lewis before he finally folded. He might never have beaten Ali i agree. But for any fighter who cant push him back and keep him back the Tyson i am talking about has as much chance against another slugger as they have against him in the very early rounds. If average fighters can put Joe Louis on the deck and other shake him up with punches. It stands to reason that the heavier and much harder hitting Tyson has to be given a chance of doing the same to Joe and maybe even completing the job. I also give him a punchers chance against Frazier and such.

Would any of you here or any of the great trainers from the past liked to have had a piece of the young man who unified the HW division and not the later older one who boxing became very secondary to. I think at least 90% would have jumped at the chance. So that alone tells me as a young man he must have been a little special. Maybe he does not make the elite top ten group but for many who we consider falls in that group they would not relish the thought of the first 4 or 5 rounds i feel. At least Tyson took on and beat men his own weight and if you care to check out in our long gone past this was not always the case, guys like Jim Jeffries and even Jack Johnson often had a big weight advantage in their favour.

Where in the top 30 would all those who constantly knock Tyson place him. Even if its at 30 and i would say closer to 12 or 13 would be about right that's still a pretty good achievement all said and done. After all looking back in HW history there are thousands of fighters who never even make the Top 50. As a man i think Tyson stinks, but as a fighter he was a little better then some i feel think.

[bear]

Mike Tyson.
I remember that name for some reson.
Wasn't he trying to endorse a product called the Robin Givens speed bag?

[grevan]

Say what you will about Tyson, but the next time someone comes along in the Heavyweight division and scores 15 knockouts in his first 9 months as a pro I'll be watching. And if he runs up a 37-0(33) record and unifies the titles within four and half years I don't think I'll be the only one glued to the set...

Overall it's hard to rate Tyson amongst the top 10 of all time. But at his best, with Rooney in the corner, from about 1986-89, he gives anyone a hard time, Ali, Louis, Marciano, Holmes, Foreman etc included.

[Bogie]

I agree with a lot of what has been said in this thread about Tyson, but the truth is he is just another case of an athlete who had the talent to be remembered as one of the greats but due to his own personal flaws and poor judgement, he probably will not be.

[Claybor]

At his best Tyson was the scariest sob I ever saw fight 'live'.

[IceTea]

Tyson was basically an aggressive counter puncher, which is what the peek-a-boo style is all about. He was very good defensively until 1988, The first Frank Bruno fight, when the earlier death of Cus started to erode his skills.

I think Rooney was just in the right place at the right time. I don't believe he was anything special as a trainer. What has he done since? I've read a few stories that Cus was going to can Rooney and bring in someone else but he died before he did so.

On the all-time scale, Tyson is anywhere from 10-15. Any slugger other than George Foreman would have a real tough time.

[meade95]

Originally Posted by IceTea

Tyson was basically an aggressive counter puncher, which is what the peek-a-boo style is all about. He was very good defensively until 1988, The first Frank Bruno fight, when the earlier death of Cus started to erode his skills.

I think Rooney was just in the right place at the right time. I don't believe he was anything special as a trainer. What has he done since? I've read a few stories that Cus was going to can Rooney and bring in someone else but he died before he did so.

On the all-time scale, Tyson is anywhere from 10-15. Any slugger other than George Foreman would have a real tough time.

I would agree with you on the whole about Tyson - His style and where he rates, along with giving any pure banger trouble (outside of Foreman)......But as for people suggesting his defensive skills started to erode around 88......I don't buy it.... It was more a matter of the quality of his oppostion improving vastly over what he had faced mainly before....

Tyson was always there to be hit (when he came out of that peek-a-boo style....If the other guy had the skill assets neccessary (and stones) to trade back with him....Stand his ground and fire back...... Tyson was always there to be hit...

Hell it is what Michael Spinks gambled on and tried to stay in the box and land back on him......Problem is Tyson's handspeed was too much and Spinks chin wasn't up to taking such a shot.....(not many could).

[IceTea]

Originally Posted by meade95

I would agree with you on the whole about Tyson - His style and where he rates, along with giving any pure banger trouble (outside of Foreman)......But as for people suggesting his defensive skills started to erode around 88......I don't buy it.... It was more a matter of the quality of his oppostion improving vastly over what he had faced mainly before....

Tyson was always there to be hit (when he came out of that peek-a-boo style....If the other guy had the skill assets neccessary (and stones) to trade back with him....Stand his ground and fire back...... Tyson was always there to be hit...

Hell it is what Michael Spinks gambled on and tried to stay in the box and land back on him......Problem is Tyson's handspeed was too much and Spinks chin wasn't up to taking such a shot.....(not many could).

* He faced Holmes, Tillis, Spinks, Tucker, Berbick, Ribalta, Bonehugger, Tubbs and a few others who were skilled before Bruno. Bruno, punch for punch was most likely the hardest puncher of that era (less foreman and cooney), but his boxing skills weren't on the same level as some of the above boxers. I thought that Tucker gave him the best fight before Bruno or Douglas. Tucker wasn't scared to death of him like most were before him.

[IceTea]

One underrated guy from the 90s that isn't mentioned much is Zeljko Mavrovic who got a shot at Lennox Lewis in the late 90s. Lennox still says that Zeljko was the toughest guy he ever boxed.

Zeljko Mavrovic Best Fights - Explosive Fights

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by IceTea

Tyson was basically an aggressive counter puncher, which is what the peek-a-boo style is all about. He was very good defensively until 1988, The first Frank Bruno fight, when the earlier death of Cus started to erode his skills.

I think Rooney was just in the right place at the right time. I don't believe he was anything special as a trainer. What has he done since? I've read a few stories that Cus was going to can Rooney and bring in someone else but he died before he did so.

Didn't Rooney train Vinny Pazienza in the aftermath of his accident?

Also, I think the effects of Cus are grossly overrated. Teddy Atlas definitely has a chip on his shoulder WRT Tyson but he's of the opinion that Iron Mike ran roughshod over Cus when the old man was able to show up at practice. And Tyson didn't fall apart when Cus died; his downfall at the hands of Buster Douglas was more due to some of the worst cutman jobbery I think I've ever seen (they were using IIRC surgical gloves filled with water to try and reduce swelling between rounds!) and what I can only describe as a great deal of hubris WRT training after Jacobs got pushed aside.

Maybe Jacobs himself didn't do a whole lot more than what any other halfway decent trainer could have done but on the other hand they didn't replace Jacobs with a halfway decent trainer.

On the all-time scale, Tyson is anywhere from 10-15. Any slugger other than George Foreman would have a real tough time.

That's a tough one, in part because I'm not sure *how* to rank Tyson. He's a little bit like a Sandy Koufax, a guy who was dominating but only for a few years (actually, not nearly as long as Koufax, which makes this even harder). I just can't bring myself to rank him above any boxer with a championship-quality career of any length, which still puts him ahead of Max Baer or Ingemar Johanssen but man... can you even think of ranking ahead of Lennox Lewis or even Floyd Patterson? Floyd ended up playing a good opponent to a lot of up and comers in the 60s and early 70s but at least he didn't bite anybody doing so...