1 Billion: Is there a case of Tyson being a top 5 heavyweight? not in my opinion

[Wild Blue Yonda]

bah, Tyson's achievements were no worse than Dempsey's. Dempsey gets horribly overrated by some people.

Tyson sure as hell didnt hav longevity, but he cleaned our his division in those first few years as champ. and this isnt an exaggeration of cleaned out that people often use, he had wins over almost every single top fighter around at the time.

Dempsey's era wasnt particularly good either, and Tyson beat just as much top competition as Dempsey.



oh yeah and I dont find much argument for Tyson being top 5 either. its just farfetched.

We will just have to outright disagree regarding Dempsey. It's not even worth debating point-for-point, to me. Dempsey has a much better CV, but you disagree, we will have to leave it there.

Regarding beating top opposition, though, there is a tendency to think of Tyson between the years 1985-90 (which I'm not in any way accusing you of doing, just noting it happens a lot). Tyson's career between the years I outlined in my earlier post have to count very heavily against him & any legacy he has.

[The_Demon]

Top 5? Hell no,and judging by the poll every knowledgable poster thinks the same

[Steak]

I dont see why it has to count against him. he went downhill after a certain period in his career, thats very clear. it happens to all fighters eventually, sometimes its more prolonged and sometimes its very sudden.

just because you had a ****ty rest of your career doesnt detract from the fact youve already beaten numerous quality fighters. Those accomplishments are already set in stone, just because you **** up later doesnt make those wins any worse.

and his wins over Ruddock, Bruno and Golota are definitely worth noting, even though good wins were far and few inbetween in his career after 1990.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

I don't accept he should have two-thirds of his career written off, not when he could've made noise & chose not to.

It isn't as if cleaning house in the 80's was a truly difficult thing to start with, to boot.

[Steak]

Two thirds of his career isnt written off. but it doesnt change the fact that Tyson already beat a large amount of notable competition. I dont feel that bad moments of someone's career should affect their legacy when at a better time in their career they accomplished a lot.

Ill take a guy that beats 10 notable opponents over 3 years over someone who only won about 6 worthwhile fights over 8 years any day.(well, ok, depends on the level of competition, but lets just say theyre considered equal...)

[Wild Blue Yonda]

I guess I dont see Tyson as ever having bested, "a large amount of notable competition." His pre-title run was as solid as it couldve been, & Im not rushing to criticise it, but it is easily the best portion of his career, and considering the relative depth at HW in the 90s, thats distressing.

Although Dempseys best work was done in a pre-title run, I dont see Tysons two-year, two-defenses reign as champ as any way equal to Dempseys tenure at the top, as much criticism as it (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) cops.

[IronDanHamza]

I guess I dont see Tyson as ever having bested, "a large amount of notable competition." His pre-title run was as solid as it couldve been, & Im not rushing to criticise it, but it is easily the best portion of his career, and considering the relative depth at HW in the 90s, thats distressing.

Although Dempseys best work was done in a pre-title run, I dont see Tysons two-year, two-defenses reign as champ as any way equal to Dempseys tenure at the top, as much criticism as it (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) cops.

Obviously your referring to his Lineage but his actual reign as a 'Champion' was much longer and had much more title defences and alot of those were solid.

Not that I'm claiming he has a case for Top 5. He doesn't, IMO.

But, it's still a solid 'title' reign.

[Steak]

who are these amazing guys Dempsey beat pre title? his best pre title wins are over Fulton, Brennan, and Miske, unless you want to make believe that old shopworn Gunboat Smith and a middleweight Levinsky were good wins. two of those gus he ended up fighting during his title reign anyway.

and what makes Dempsey's era so strong compared to the late 80s? the late 80s were a letdown in terms of potential, thats true, but they werent ****ty fighters. I would favor most of Tyson's best competition over Dempsey's best competition, since a lot of them were undersized and not particularly amazing even for their weight.

[hent]

I disagree, at least in the case of Dempsey, Foreman & Frazier, & possibly Liston, too. There's just absolutely no way Tyson's resume stacks upto those guys --- it's not even debatable. Even Marciano & Johnson, who had their troubles (Marciano fighting in a weakened era, & Johnson avoiding so many top-rated contenders during his title tenure), still have stronger, more lasting CV's than Tyson.

Between 1991-2005, Tyson's body of work is pitifully underwhelming, stood next to his actual ability.

To say their resumes are absolutely better is a joke. Tyson in 3 years did arguably more than those guys did in their whole carears.

[StarshipTrooper]

Tucker
Williams
Thomas
Golota
Smith
Berbick
Tubbs
Biggs
Brunox2
Holmes
Spinks
Seldon

Tucker - Career underachiever that Tyson hardly look impressive getting a decision over.

Williams - Mediocre fringe contender.

Thomas - Fresh out of rehab after squandering his ability on blow.

Golota - Notorious head case who pops a nutter against every top opponent.

Smith - Please. He was a mediocre joke when he fought Holmes and he was still a mediocre joke when he fought Tyson. And Tyson looked aweful aginst him.

Berbick - Worst fighter to ever hold a Heavyweight belt. Complete joke.

Tubbs - In a decent era this fatty doesn't crack the top-5.

Biggs - Absolute joke who was never a real contender.

Brunox2 - Lost every time he stepped up in class usually by KO.

Holmes - Noticably past-prime well before Tyson, hadn't fought in two years, come in out of shape after a short camp and STILL made Tyson look foolish for a couple of rounds.

Spinks - Not an outstanding Heavy. Came in looking like a deer caught in the headlights and started looking for a soft spot to lay down.

Seldon - You mean the dude that got KOed without even being hit? Please.

Sorry dude, but Tyson fought in a weak era during his prime and has a mediocre resume as a consequence. When your best opponent is a past-it fighter coming off a big layoff it doesn't speak much to your resume.

Poet