Tweet
07.11.04 - By Izyaslav “Slava” Koza - Noviras*****@hotmail.com - Before I begin, I just want to acknowledge once again that I am a fan of both Mike Tyson and Bernard Hopkins. They come into each fight prepared and try to win, which is something an honest fight fan cannot question. The focus of the article, as most people who read my articles, know, usually, has to do with competition. In my opinion, there is no greater way to judge a fighter then by the likes of who he has fought. It’s the measuring stick I use to determine the amount of praise I think a fighter deserves.
Bernard Hopkins biggest wins were undoubtedly against Trinidad and De la Hoya. It is unfair to deny that both were not already true greats, and were undoubtedly ready to enter the Boxing Hall of Fame. Trinidad was unquestionably at or near his prime, based on the Joppy fight and the past Mayorga demolition. De La Hoya was, in my opinion, close enough to his prime but unfortunately gravely unprepared for 160 pounds. At the very least, I would have liked to see a Sturm rematch before he got to challenge for the Middleweight title, but alas, the ambition for fame and glory does not look back at the facts, and the fact was that Sturm, a light hitter, effected Oscar with each punch.
Now, some say Oscar came in very competitive against Hopkins and that the weight was not an issue. Perhaps I am one of the few that will argue that Hopkins wanted to drag the fight out so as not to make it look like this was a total mismatch. Perhaps he was also a bit cautious, but whatever your opinion is, mine still stands, Oscar was not ready for this weight.
Tyson, on the other hand, is probably best known (ear biting, and money problems aside) for the Michael Spinks decimation, and the Larry Holmes’ win. As most know, Spinks was a true light Heavy, and Holmes was over the hill by a majority consensus, so many feel that those wins were not legitimate factors in placing him on a pedestal as an all time great.
BUT here is where the double standard appears, as I see it. Hopkins is given credit for the two victories over smaller guys, one of whom was arguably over the hill in Oscar (I personally had him beating Mosley in their second fight, but if he really didn’t, what has he done? Vargas perhaps, but “El Feroz” was a bit damaged already, in my opinion. Good win but not as good as it would have been had he fought Fernando earlier). Is Tyson?
If Hopkins is an all time great for beating two smaller guys, why is Tyson denied the credit for the Spinks win (which was much more emphatic by the looks of it then the half quit, half pansy effort by De La Hoya to get up)?
To add to that, I almost always hear that Hopkins deserves the honor, more so then his two key wins, because he has held on to the belt for so long. I won’t argue with that because it is a great accomplishment seeing as Bernard wasn’t really protected away from good fighters, its just their weren’t too many for him to fight (I feel he could have, and, in fact, still could, find a good challenge had he looked hard enough but that is an old news). However why is Mike becoming the youngest heavyweight champ just as if not more impressive?
So, to make my point clearer, either we deny Hopkins wins as non-significant because both guys were smaller than him, seeing as Tyson gets little credit for Spinks, or we give Tyson credit for Spinks and Holmes, because Hopkins gets credit for Tito and Oscar.
Furthermore, I feel Tyson, and any other heavyweight for that matter, were always at some sort of disadvantage in a “boxing glory sense.” Yes, the heavies are the “dollar division,” and where the glamour is, but what about a natural heavy who needs a challenge, but has no weight category to move up to? If Hopkins wanted to, he could outgun Tyson and any heavy in terms of accomplishment by going up to Lt. Heavy or Cruiser, perhaps, whereas any heavy has already reached the boxing glass ceiling, in my opinion. Just take a look at Vitali or Ruiz or Byrd? If either one of them beats the other two, will it really mean that much to boxing historians?
Finally, I wish to say, this article was written with Mike Tyson in mind, more so then Bernard Hopkins. Tyson has always been a nice guy (my opinion), but a victim of himself, and I think a lot of people sympathize with that, because many of us out there suffer from it. I think, that at some point, he will look at his life and realize his greatest accomplishment, besides perhaps his children, were those he made in the ring. In my mind, trying to tear them down, as some people do, is unfair.
However, the reason I chose to compare them to Bernard Hopkins’ accomplishments, is to show that I am not above this unfair judgement myself. I admit that I was unfair in taking something away from Bernard by saying his wins against Oscar and Tito were not worth a lot, because the guys were smaller than him. I can’t deny that, even if I didn’t think Bernard did something great, he certainly did as he lay there after the Tito stoppage. In my mind, the fact that he thought he accomplished something makes it a true feat, and perhaps that is all that matters. Do I still believe he can find a great challenge and put 7 exclamation marks on how great he is? You bet I do, but right now, I cannot take away the fact that he is in our understanding a boxing legend.
Respect to both Mike Tyson and Bernard Hopkins, I am humble that I got to see some parts of their career, and write my thoughts about their accomplishments.
Bernard Hopkins biggest wins were undoubtedly against Trinidad and De la Hoya. It is unfair to deny that both were not already true greats, and were undoubtedly ready to enter the Boxing Hall of Fame. Trinidad was unquestionably at or near his prime, based on the Joppy fight and the past Mayorga demolition. De La Hoya was, in my opinion, close enough to his prime but unfortunately gravely unprepared for 160 pounds. At the very least, I would have liked to see a Sturm rematch before he got to challenge for the Middleweight title, but alas, the ambition for fame and glory does not look back at the facts, and the fact was that Sturm, a light hitter, effected Oscar with each punch.
Now, some say Oscar came in very competitive against Hopkins and that the weight was not an issue. Perhaps I am one of the few that will argue that Hopkins wanted to drag the fight out so as not to make it look like this was a total mismatch. Perhaps he was also a bit cautious, but whatever your opinion is, mine still stands, Oscar was not ready for this weight.
Tyson, on the other hand, is probably best known (ear biting, and money problems aside) for the Michael Spinks decimation, and the Larry Holmes’ win. As most know, Spinks was a true light Heavy, and Holmes was over the hill by a majority consensus, so many feel that those wins were not legitimate factors in placing him on a pedestal as an all time great.
BUT here is where the double standard appears, as I see it. Hopkins is given credit for the two victories over smaller guys, one of whom was arguably over the hill in Oscar (I personally had him beating Mosley in their second fight, but if he really didn’t, what has he done? Vargas perhaps, but “El Feroz” was a bit damaged already, in my opinion. Good win but not as good as it would have been had he fought Fernando earlier). Is Tyson?
If Hopkins is an all time great for beating two smaller guys, why is Tyson denied the credit for the Spinks win (which was much more emphatic by the looks of it then the half quit, half pansy effort by De La Hoya to get up)?
To add to that, I almost always hear that Hopkins deserves the honor, more so then his two key wins, because he has held on to the belt for so long. I won’t argue with that because it is a great accomplishment seeing as Bernard wasn’t really protected away from good fighters, its just their weren’t too many for him to fight (I feel he could have, and, in fact, still could, find a good challenge had he looked hard enough but that is an old news). However why is Mike becoming the youngest heavyweight champ just as if not more impressive?
So, to make my point clearer, either we deny Hopkins wins as non-significant because both guys were smaller than him, seeing as Tyson gets little credit for Spinks, or we give Tyson credit for Spinks and Holmes, because Hopkins gets credit for Tito and Oscar.
Furthermore, I feel Tyson, and any other heavyweight for that matter, were always at some sort of disadvantage in a “boxing glory sense.” Yes, the heavies are the “dollar division,” and where the glamour is, but what about a natural heavy who needs a challenge, but has no weight category to move up to? If Hopkins wanted to, he could outgun Tyson and any heavy in terms of accomplishment by going up to Lt. Heavy or Cruiser, perhaps, whereas any heavy has already reached the boxing glass ceiling, in my opinion. Just take a look at Vitali or Ruiz or Byrd? If either one of them beats the other two, will it really mean that much to boxing historians?
Finally, I wish to say, this article was written with Mike Tyson in mind, more so then Bernard Hopkins. Tyson has always been a nice guy (my opinion), but a victim of himself, and I think a lot of people sympathize with that, because many of us out there suffer from it. I think, that at some point, he will look at his life and realize his greatest accomplishment, besides perhaps his children, were those he made in the ring. In my mind, trying to tear them down, as some people do, is unfair.
However, the reason I chose to compare them to Bernard Hopkins’ accomplishments, is to show that I am not above this unfair judgement myself. I admit that I was unfair in taking something away from Bernard by saying his wins against Oscar and Tito were not worth a lot, because the guys were smaller than him. I can’t deny that, even if I didn’t think Bernard did something great, he certainly did as he lay there after the Tito stoppage. In my mind, the fact that he thought he accomplished something makes it a true feat, and perhaps that is all that matters. Do I still believe he can find a great challenge and put 7 exclamation marks on how great he is? You bet I do, but right now, I cannot take away the fact that he is in our understanding a boxing legend.
Respect to both Mike Tyson and Bernard Hopkins, I am humble that I got to see some parts of their career, and write my thoughts about their accomplishments.
Comment