When exactly was Mike Tyson's prime?

You are one narrow minded fvck. What does Tyson's prime have anything to do with **** by the way I can't stand Tyson he's an excuse making POS and well you fit right in with him.
He beat up a bunch of wash ups in record fashion true but one thing wo a doubt is that one piece of **** like yourself would get fed your own nuts by Tyson . I'd love to see you say this stuff to his face. Instead you hide behind your safe haven of your keyboard. It's obvious how you haven't the slightest clue about a damn thing just kid dynamite scaring the hell out of you

 

And you failed to comprehend my answer, but I'll try again and break it down further..

If we're talking about who he beat prior to winning the WBC against Berbick in 1986, then those names include:

-Mitch Green
-James Tillis
-Marvis Frazier
-Jose Ribalta
-Jesse Ferguson

Not exactly a stellar list, but not at all a bad one either for someone who was barely 20 years old and had been fighting pro all but maybe 19-20 months.

If we're talking about his wins up to the point of unifying the alphabet titles, then that list looks like:

-Mitch Green
-James Tillis
-Marvis Frazier
-Jose Ribalta
-Jesse Ferguson
-Trevor Berbick
-Pinklon Thomas
-James Smith
-Tyrell Biggs
-Tony Tucker

If we're talking about the point at which he claimed lineage against Spinks plus his additional two defenses against Bruno and Williams, prior to losing to Douglas, then he's basically cleaned out an entire division - something that very few champions have ever done.. His resume is solid and his opposition was decent.

 

There is no point in arguing with this guy , I've been looking at these boards for months and no matter what you say it won't register in his brain . What happened to old school ESB , I remember debating stuff w Suzieq49 , Holmes Jab , dinnerwconteh, we had some gnarly debates and butted heads but did it tactfully and respected each other's opinion and often learned from each other. I had to bail once mods let orcs roam free and unchecked on
the boards. Seems like they are in favor of nonsense makers that clog up decent threads Neighborhood gone bad since the home owners association turned it over to the renters rather than the homeowners , magoo you're too intelligent and well versed to waste your time with pukes like these.

 

Thanks. And you're right. But human nature makes us compelled to correct the wrongs. I'll have to try and resist the urge in the future.

 

:deal where are the moderators?? I don't think they exist personally - or that's who Hamburger and co are really, having a laugh at our expense possibly??

For the record Tyson's best fight was Mitch Green

 

im not arguing with you on who he beat when he was unifying the titles. Im saying who he beat before his first title since ya know a belt kinda makes you world champ. Beating

-Mitch Green
-James Tillis
-Marvis Frazier
-Jose Ribalta
-Jesse Ferguson

is not impressive.

Overall ill be honest i dont find his resume very solid at least compared to other atg heavyweights. In fact it doesn't come close to most of them? Whose Tysons best win? a 40 year old larry homes coming off a 2 year layoff and two losses? or a lhw named Michael Spinks? like cmon. He lost all his big fights and lost the buster douglas fight which a lot of people tend to make up bull**** excuses for him when in reality it was his fault he lost. The guy was a massive disappointment wether you want to admit is up to you, but your not going to convince me he was great based on his resume

his resume is very subpar.

 

I think you must have me confused with someone who actually gives a fvck about your worthless opinions.

Dickhead.

You're probably one of those fools who thought Tyson would feed Douglas his own nuts, and have never gotten over it. For someone who has just joined here and made 2 posts you have certainly got a high opinion of yourself. A legend in your own lunchtime.

 

What a story Ha Ha Ha

 

Tyson self destructed at a young age and his detractors continually act like this doesn't matter when evaluating how good he was at his best. Yes it affects his legacy because longevity is a big factor in being an ATG. He lacked mental toughness for the long haul, even his fans admit this. I've just finished reading his book and I know a fair amount about him and have seen a lot of interviews, documentaries etc and even I was surprised at just how chaotic his day to day life was once he decided to indulge in the 'fruits' of his success. As dedicated and obsessed as he was with training and achieving his goal of being youngest HW champ ever he became just as dedicated and obsessed with booze, drugs and ***. He was seriously contemplating retirement after the Spinks fight. Even for the Ruddock fights he was not well prepared. He lost something like 37lbs during the month before the 2nd fight and said he felt weak as hell. These poor performances did show something though, how TOUGH he was when he did get hit. He had an IRON chin, I've never seen him even stunned from a single shot when he still had gas in the tank. His KO loses came from primarily from exhaustion. That's another thing his detractors don't take into consideration, he NEVER tried to survive 12 rounds. He had that old school mentality that he'd rather go out on his shield and take his beating 'like a man' than try to survive. Look at the Douglas and Holyfield fights, he was still coming forward and making the fight when he was exhausted and taking a ton of punishment.
OBVIOUSLY his rep is based on more than just who he beat, it's how he beat them, the skills he displayed etc.
I can't even be bothered explaining this any further. You can argue he was unproven against prime elite fighters, didn't sustain display longevity etc but it's ridiculous to say his career is just hype\smoke and mirrors\anyone who wasn't scared of him won\all his victories were over bums blah blah blah.
Seriously, F#ck off with this sh!t.

 

I pretty much addressed this.

It is impressive when you're the youngest guy in division history challenging for a fragment title and easily dispatching the best men he's faced. There have been plenty of past and future champions who have faced less or worse prior to challenging for lineage much less a fragment.

Yes, a point that you've worked diligently on making for weeks now.

That depends on who you're taking to and what that person's criteria is.

I'll correct you on a few points. He was 38 years old...not 40.. He was off for roughly 20 months.. And his last defeat prior to facing Tyson was universally recognized as a robbery. He also proved years later that he could still be competitive even in a talent packed era during the 90's. Lastly, Tyson's legacy does not rest on the shoulders of his win over Larry Holmes. No one thought this at the time anyway.

Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Jack Johnson, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, Jack Dempsey, Floyd Patterson and several others have men who were non-indigenous to the heavy weight division on their records. The difference between those guys and Tyson is that Mike defeated only one of them.. The majority of the previously mentioned guys beat anywhere from a few to several.. Incidentally, that " light heavyweight" was 6'3", 212 lbs, undefeated in 31 fights, never floored, commonly viewed as a top three all time great light heavy, was holding the lineal heavyweight title and lost in 91 seconds. ;-)

I think winning three belts individually plus lineage and having something to the tune of 12 world title fight wins pretty eliminates the claim that he " lost all his big fights."

It definitely was his fault.. But I don't necessarily think it being his fault means that he was at his pinacle best either. But what you're doing is summing up his whole career based upon it. Do you really feel that this is a balanced view?

Not to me he wasn't. He's not my favorite fighter by any means and frankly he left some things to be desired. But during his prime, however short, he was a sensation. Very exciting to watch. Very good at what he did. And had some admirable achievements. Obviously you think differently and that's fine. Weather its because you're young and weren't around to see his career unfold, have a personal hatred towards him, or just can't see the strengths of his legacy on paper, it still doesn't change the reality that he met the standards of what a great fighter is, and his legacy was already cemented well before losing to Buster.

I don't have to admit anything... There is nothing TO admit.

His resume is fine..

 

OK, so if you are going merely by his opponents he beat before his first belt, rather than the lineal title he got against Spinks, you are essentially penalizing him for the fact that he raced to a belt in 18 months at the age of 20, something remarkable in heavyweight history and even MORE remarkable in this age of 30 year old novices. You can't have it both ways. He didn't have enough time or initial drawing power to attract and fit in the division's best in 18 months. The impressive thing is not who he defeated in that time frame, but the auspicious, prodigious talent he displayed which garnered him a deserved title shot (not a Rademacher farce) as an 18 month pro. And he DID fit these guys in immediately after getting this first belt and beat them all.

Once again, this new breed of troll bases argumentation on faulty, half baked logic and a lack of any understanding of the sport. Color me ****ing surprised.

 

I do believe your right,

Hamburger said that anybody who is fan of Tyson makes them rapists as well.

Foxy01 say that anybody who said Tyson had a good career or associated with Tyson as being great were giving oral favors to others ,called them Vermin and rapists.

Thank god I think Tyson is a cannibal , I guess anybody else on here who tries to state facts belong in prison according to Foxy01 and Hamburger. Weird ,that the mods see this as ok , looks as if that is a personel attack on people who witnessed history just by stating facts whether his opposition was strong or not. The only quality win he had was Berbick ,I have to admit Mike made Trevor look so punch drunk stupid that night. True jelly legs defintion.

 

Tyson's prime was at 2:00pm June 30th, 1988, which I believe may have been a Tuesday, although I wouldn't argue with anyone who said it was at 2:15.

 

Mr. Magoo Seamus & other rational, restrained posters here have airtight cases. The ONLY thing that I can find to correct is the trivial matter that Spinks was 6' 2". But of course the anger management cases & trolls will not even bother to contest the well-reasoned arguments.

I want to add this:

It is immature & illogical to point to extreme opinions on one side, say those who excuse Tyson's flaws & ignore his failures, then use that as an excuse, a LIE to pretend that YOU are not being that exact kind of bomb throwing reactionary-in the other direction.

Most all here DO dock Tyson for his later failures. We do blame Tyson, for example, for his loss to Douglass. But it is not an EXCUSE to say he was whoring it up, hardly training, & weight drained to look decent at the fight. That his body looked OK due to this is not a good judge of what he had. It also does not show that Douglas could have beat a dcent Mike, even though it was Tyson's fault.

It has been definitively shown how Tyson's competition was quite decent compared to other ATGs & HWs when unifying the titles, & up to his prison time.

There is tons to critique about Tyson, yet I have no idea if he raped Desiree Washington. Neither do those who are acting out their own psyhcodramas in condemning him for it. Anyway it has nothing to do with how good he was.

 

Foxy you come across as a very bitter and undesirable individual.