The idea that Tyson is not qualified for the Hall of Fame is laughable. I'm not even going to address it. I do think one can make the argument that Tyson is not necessarily a first ballot Hall of Famer. His loss to Buster Douglas is inexcusable if he was really as good as we thought. I tend to think, however, that what the Douglas fight really did was expose Tyson as a bully who was quite a bit less spectacular when his opponent came to fight and who could not overcome adversity.
Still, in the context of his effect on the heavyweight division during his prime, I'm not going to dispute that he is as deserving of first ballot inclusion as Rocky Marciano or Sonny Liston. After harsh reflection, they fall into much the same category as Tyson when it comes to the difference between perception and reality.
I am going to address a statement cited in support of Mr. Dettloff's thesis.
'“I voted for Tyson, and he's a definite first-ballot Hall of Famer,” Showtime boxing analyst Steve Farhood told me. As editor of KO Magazine and also former editor of The RING, Farhood covered Tyson’s pro career from the earliest stages.
“Those who don't think so are practicing revisionist history,” Farhood said. “I laugh when I read how Tyson was an underachiever and should have been dominant for much longer. First of all, he was not only the top heavyweight in the world, and the first undisputed champion in years, but he was the No. 1-ranked fighter in the game, pound for pound. And to secure that position, he beat the No. 2, Michael Spinks.”'
I am not going to deny that Tyson occupied that position in the rankings. I'm just going to point out that it was part of the ridiculous Tyson mystique of the time. I was a kid in the middle of it. Tyson was everywhere. Nintendo even re-wrote their popular arcade title 'Punch Out' around Mike Tyson when bringing it into the burgeoning home console market.
But was he really ever the best fighter in the world, ranked that way or not?
Tyson beat Spinks in 1988. That year KO Magazine ranked Tyson #1 and Julio Cesar Chavez #2. Chavez and Tyson had very parallel careers, with much of Chavez's success happening on Mike Tyson undercards. Tyson was the heavyweight, so he got the attention, but was he a better fighter than Chavez lb for lb? Evander Holyfield, who made the words 'all-time great cruiserweight' really mean something for the first (and arguably only) time ever was #3. If one considers the quality of his foes at cruiserweight vs the quality of Tyson's at heavyweight (excluding a clearly gun-shy Spinks who never tried to put up a fight), he could make a really good argument for having faced better opposition than Tyson.
So if we rate Chavez #1 and Holyfield #2 based on what we know now, Tyson drops to third place at best. #4 is Saccharine Ray Leonard, who had come out of retirement to upset Marvin Hagler the year before. The year before, prior to that upset, Hagler had been #1. One can argue whether Leonard deserved to win the fight, but he definitely hung in with the best pound for pound fighter in the world until the final bell. Depending on when that particular listing was published, doesn't that rate Saccharine Ray the #3 spot?
So Tyson has been pushed down to number four already. Number five on the list is a man as feared as Tyson in lower weight classes and other corners of the world: Jeff Fenech. Number 7? Fenech's greatest rival, Azumah Nelson. In that same harsh light of reflection, can we justify rating Tyson as better than Fenech or Nelson pound for pound? Nelson had been on the list in 1986 and 1987 and would be on it again in 1989. I don't think it is out of order to promote both men over Holyfield and Leonard to #2 and #3.
The other names on the list were Michael Nunn (#6), Jung Koo Chang (#8), Buddy McGirt (#9), and Sumbu Kalambay (#10) and it isn't impossible to argue that Tyson might have been somewhere in that league. So a more contextual version of the top five might read:
1. Julio Cesar Chavez
2. Jeff Fenech (who earned his spot by beating Nelson)
3. Azumah Nelson
4. Evander Holyfield
5. Ray Leonard
From here it becomes more difficult to rate the rest of the names on the list. It's a matter of taste whether to rate Tyson above or below Nunn. In the spirit of the idea of the 'pound for pound best', however, I would ask this: if both men were the same size, how would you handicap Tyson-Nunn? Nunn didn't have a big punch or a granite chin but he was a very good boxer who threw great combinations and came to fight. I'd rate his chances at least as good as Buster Douglas. Those chances come closer to 50/50 than they do to 300/1 when viewed in the light of what we know now. Better than that if we accept the not too ridiculous thesis that Nunn was a more skilled boxer than anyone Tyson ever faced at heavyweight.
So an historical review of the guys on the list in Tyson's heyday suggests that Tyson was maybe number six in the world at the time at best, more likely number seven, pound for pound. All the guys I've rated above Tyson had faced much liver opposition between 1987 and 1988 than Tyson had. Chavez was still riding the most frightening unbeaten streak since Sugar Ray Robinson. Azumah Nelson was a pound-for-pound fixture who fought in a then-overlooked weight division*. Fenech had beaten Nelson. Leonard had up-ended the previous number one in a huge upset. Holyfield had fought some of the toughest men of the early-to-mid 1980s, who had been two-division champions at 175 and 190. Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Eddie Mustapha Muhammed just have to be rated over Tony Tubbs and Bonecrusher Smith in the 'strength of opposition' department if we're serious about the words 'pound for pound.'Even Michael Nunn knocked out Frank Tate and Juan Roldan in 1988.
Tyson? He'd beaten Tony Tubbs, an overweight and rusty Larry Holmes who hadn't learned how to fight without his speed yet, and Michael Spinks. The only fight that meant anything was the one with Spinks and it would have meant a whole lot more if Spinks had not come into the ring already expecting to take a nap**.
Come to think of it, maybe number seven is still a stretch.
I want to note that I am not considering anything but the accomplishments that figured into the ratings at the time, except maybe for Nelson simply because he was on the list for his third straight year. I'm simply viewing those accomplishments through an historical lens rather than through the enthusiasms and biases of the time.
Sometimes revisionist history is necessary because the accepted 'facts' of the time were simply wrong.
*Back then, fighters below lightweight got a lot less respect than fighters above it. Today, we routinely rank guys in the 126-135 bracket much closer to the top and guys in the 200+ range much closer to the bottom. Sure, today's heavyweights aren't particularly good... but neither were the heavyweights of the 1980s. The division was simply still viewed with a glamour now lost.
**I don't mean to imply that Mike Spinks threw his fight with Tyson. Certainly he didn't consciously decide to lose when he could win. He simply came in expecting to get really badly beaten up so he planned to lie down and take it easy as soon as things got bad. Who knows what might have happened if he came to fight?
No comments:
Post a Comment