But can you objectively say that someone is still overall a better fighter than a person who destroyed them in one round?
Another vote for pre-Buster Douglas Tyson.
Sure, the guys he beat were no Alis or Fraziers, but neither Ali nor Frazier were as dominating as Mike in terms of consistent quick KOs. Looking back, I was surprised at how many wins he continued to have after marrying that witch. What might have been had cus lived a little longer…
Mike Tyson in the 80s was FAR more exciting than anything the heavies have seen since.
Tyson was never that great. There are hundreds of other fighters that were fast and strong and aggressive and completely dominated the competition as they came up through the ranks, only to be exposed and have their careers stall when they hit upper echelon competition (Ricky Hatton and Miguel Cotto are recent examples). Great fighters are made when they beat other great fighters (Ali beat Patterson, Liston, Frazier, and Foreman). Spinks was a middleweight as an amateur and had only four fights at heavyweight when he met Tyson. So Tyson’s biggest win was against a top notch light heavyweight.
I’d have to go with Lewis as the best of the three, in spite of the fact that he had no chin (victim of a one-punch knockout against a bum like Rahman) and no heart (denying Klitschko a rematch and sneaking out of the sport after a win due to a fluke cut.)
I’m a huge Ali fan. But I don’t perceive any of his opponents as having held the kind of power punches that reigned during the Tyson/Holyfield/Lewis era. They were a different style entirely, or that’s how it looks from my seat.
Ali did the kind of boxing I miss.
I’m a huge Ali fan. But I don’t perceive any of his opponents as having held the kind of power punches that reigned during the Tyson/Holyfield/Lewis era. They were a different style entirely, or that’s how it looks from my seat.
Ali did the kind of boxing I miss.
He was at the McBride/Tyson bout btw, to see his daughter fight in the undercard. It was really touching to see the deference shown to him, and to watch Tyson and McBride notice his presence as they entered the ring. In a pathetically empty stadium, Ali seemed loathe to accept the closer ring-side seat offered to him, and took a while to accept the offer despite the rows of empty chairs all around him.
Gotta disagree. Ali fought Sonny Liston, George Foreman, and Earnie Shavers, arguably three of the hardest punchers who ever lived, especially Shavers. Out of 74 fights Shavers won 68 by KO, 30 of those in a row, 20 in the first round.
Not to mention Ken Norton (33 KOs in 42 wins), who broke Ali’s jaw in their first fight, and Joe Frazier (27 KOs in 32 wins), who was a brutal body puncher.
People forget what a monster Foreman was. He was 40-0 with 37 KOs coming into the fight with Ali. He had just demolished Frazier and Norton, the two guys that beat Ali (Foreman knocked Frazier down 6 times in two rounds before the fight was stopped). Ali’s win was spectacular, an enormous upset in spite of the fact that Ali was already a hall of famer. Foreman was never the same.
People talk about what Tyson could have been if not for D’Amato’s death, the Douglas loss, Givens, jail, and cannibalism, but what could Foreman have been if not for Muhammad Ali?
The thing is, if you rate it according to success against top notch fighters, Lewis wins. He beat both Holyfield and Tyson. There is no major heavyweight of his era who Lewis did not beat.
Well, that is sort of the point, yes.
I’m an admirer of both Lewis and Holyfield, but the truth is, they beat an already dented Mike Tyson. Tyson at his peak was the epitomy of controlled aggression, which is the core of boxing, and that’s why he keeps my vote.
You’re pretty close to employing “no true Scotsman” here.
Do elaborate, please. Not on what it means, but how it applies here.
Since he lost, he must not have been at his peak. If he’d have won, then you’d never make the claim that he was declining. You’re assuming that he was unbeatable at his best so any loss must have occurred when he wasn’t at his best.
I don’t think Tyson’s pre-Douglas body of work is enough to call him the best. He faced a lot of tomato cans willing to eat a punch for a payday, never got really tested until Douglas, and he failed that test miserably.
The problem is to become an all time great, you have to have an all time great opponent to best. Ali had Foreman, and Frazier and a few other scary heavy weights. Lewis did not have great opponents. He had a whole career fighting bums and when he scheduled them, you generally thought ,why him or who is that?
It’s not just me who thinks Tyson wasn’t at his best, and you only have to watch the fight to see that none of his trademark head movement and flurries of punches were being used in that fight. There is no doubt Douglas fought the ideal fight, but he was not fighting the ideal Tyson.
And on a slight hijack, who really enjoys watching a heavyweight holding the arms of another fighter to stop him punching? It’s called “boxing”, not “wrestling”!
He beat Holyfield and Tyson. Both come in any list of all time greats.
Bowe refused to fight him and in anycase was defeated by Lewis in the 1988 Olympic Final.
Both small heavyweights over their primes. Tyson had ruined himself before he fought him. In his prime Tyson would have killed Lewis. Lewis could not take a punch and Tyso could deliver one.
Reviving a zombie topic as I thought a been thinking about it again. Back in '10, I thought Lewis, but now looking at some early Tyson fights, especially the Tucker bout, makes me think that perhaps Iron Mike deserves it more.