****yzing Mike Tyson's title defenses

Tyson could have and possibly should have been disqualified for the low blows, no way in hell were they accidental. Tyson was fighting for his life in that bout and gave everything, he had to low blow to keep Ruddock off him. It was a great fight and showed both were warriors on that night.

 

To be fair, even the commentators were mentioning that ruddock would wear his shorts so high up to his chest that some low blows were natural and even accidental.

 

Some were of course but in the latter stages of the fight Tyson was throwing them intentionally out of desperation when hurt. Go and watch the fight again, great fight.

 

yep that was a great fight :bbb

 

Tyson had solid opposition & fought pretty FREQUENTLY.
Yet compared to most HWs, it vwas even better than that.
I agree only Holyfield might have taken him in the eraly '90's. Though Evander was at his peak then, he was not as strong, nay have been before the PEDS, & without the extra muscle, energy, & clinching I would still favor a PAK Tyson.

Bowe was very goodbut he would brawl a lot & could be hit. So his excellent infighting skills would not be enough I feel.

 

People should not judge the guys Tyson fought in the 80's based on how their overall career's turned out in the end, the focus should be on who these guys were at the time Tyson faced them and how good they were at that time.

Obviously when one considers the overall career of Holyfield, Lewis over the guys in the 80's, it will appear they were of lower quality.

IMO the guys in the 80's were a talented bunch who underachieved but it could also be argued that Tyson prevented them from becoming solid fighters.

 

One thing i will say, the fighters in the 80's had better legs compared to a lot of guys in the 90's.

 

But that's not really true, because in most cases the men Tyson fought in the 1980s were already on the decline or were struggling already.

 

if you put tyson from ruddock fights vs bowe from holyfield fight i think mike loses.

 

Generally I don't have a problem with fighters fouling as long as they give and take ( the typical things, low blows, follow up elbows, use of the head, hitting on the break ) and Tyson was as good as anyone at these infringements. I just can't ignore him whining like a schoolgirl to Mills Lane about Holy using his head.

 

Tubbs went on to get robbed by Rid**** Bowe a few years after this fight and was used as a Klitscko sparring partner until a few years ago. I feel this is an underrated win.

Lewis fought Tucker 6 years afer the Tyson fight, Tucker was coming from drug problems and still went the distance with Lewis (something which Tyson gets criticised for alot). I think the scorecards for the Tyson fight were much wider than the Lewis fight too.

And out of those 9 guys, 6 had never been stopped before (5 of them were eventually stopped by Tyson).

Williams and Bruno fought a whole host of other very good/great heavyweights, yet Tyson was the only one that stopped Williams in the first round and stopped Bruno twice,both times quicker than anyone else (including Spoon and Lewis).

Overall agood attempt though.

 

In Tysons defence, post prison Tyson fought very cleanly up until the Holyfield fight.

Infact, i dont think Tyson even threw an elbow against Holyfield.

 

Post prison he had no need to foul. 8 rounds against 4 stiffs, before Holyfield. Prior to going to prison Tyson was just as adept at fouling as any other fighter.

And to answer your point in the other post Tyson scored 1 more point overall ( 18 ) than Lewis ( 17 ) in their fights with Tucker. Hardly a much wider margin.

 

Tyson fought a much better version.

 

A well balanced list which addresses both the positives and negatives of the challengers. Overall a decent group of capable heavyweights and solid performances over just about all of them.