Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
Quote Originally Posted by BIG H View Post
Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
Sure he had a weaker era than most done.
Did he?

Weaker than Dempsey's Louis' Marciano's Liston's Holmes', Wlad's?
His best foes before he tangled with Holyfield and Lewis in "their era" were a light heavyweight Michael Spinks, an older faded champion in Larry Holmes, and 2 guys who were just solid contenders but never really got the most out of their ability in Bruno & Ruddock.

Dempsey fought Gene Tunney who was one of the best p4p fighters to ever live...as a champion he was lazy something like 5 title defenses or so...the good life got to him.

Louis had 25 successful title defenses and that could have been more had the war not cost him a few years.

Marciano wasn't even really a heavyweight but he was undefeated as one, undefeated vs some very good albeit older fighters

Liston meh his era was weak

Holmes had a lot of good young fighters in his era and they just tried for too much too quickly and also there was a horrible drug epidemic sweeping the lower levels of society at that time as well so a lot of those guys didn't reach their potential.

Wlad's era isn't the best but like Louis he's just going to have to make the best of it and go for quantity. However he does have some younger guys that could offer some interesting matchups, we'll just have to see how they pan out.
On paper, Tysons resume wasn't impressive compared to some of the greater champions, but god dammit we saw what the man can do, and he would fare prett damn great against anyone in any era, thats what the debate really comes down to, is more skill, not so much resume of opponents, accomplishments. etc..