Mike Tyson "weak" opposition

Pffft. Typical. Weak compared to who? Make a list pud.

 

My point wasn't Tyson, it was the writing off of some of his opposition vs banging on about lesser fighters who fought a more personally favored champ by chok.

 

I personally think Ali's decline made the 70s guys look better. Joe Frazier, Ali and Quarry were 1960s fighters campaigning outside of their own era. They were products of the 1960s.

The new crop, the actual 1970s fighters were Foreman, Lyle, Bugner, Norton, Young and Shavers and they were not good enough to beat the best of the old generation. That was kind of unprecedented.

I've never been convinced the 1970 heavyweight scene was the best era with the most talent. I just think it was the first decade that everyone had a colour TV whilst boxing was still a mainstream sport. And It was the last decade before titles were permanently split by governing bodies.

If you search through boxrec and YouTube there is no reason why with the same exposure earlier or later decades did not produce as good fighters or fights.

Contenders like Norton, Young and Shavers would not necessarily become undisputed champions in any other decade. It's a fallacy to say they would. I see them lose fights in the 1920s,30s,40s,50s,60s,80s and 90s. And vice versa for contenders of all of other decades campaigning in the wrong decade.

It's different for champions. Tyson would have been a champ in any decade. But so would most champions too.

 

were they fcuk you utter nutter.

possible worst post of the month you made there.

 

You make the list. Exercise your brain.
Try to think of some heavyweights in history whose best wins were better than Berbick and Tucker ......

I'll say Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield, Louis .... just for starters.

 

Geale was worse than Bruce Seldon and Lemieux was on the same level as Clifford Eeitnne.

Shot Tyson destroyed both those guys

 

I was drawing attention to facts. These facts help establish the worth of a challenger going into a World title fight. You cannot dismiss facts, you can only accept or acknowledge facts. You may dismiss my opinion but you cannot dismiss facts. That's why I was careful to stick to fact and probably why you did not dispute anything I have to say about Holmes, Tubbs, Thomas, Bruno and Biggs or agree with factual assessment of Berbick, Tucker, Smith and Douglas recent form as challengers.

As unforgiven says, recent form and proven ability are always meaningful when we assess quality of opposition.

If I was "banging on about lesser fighters" please let me know which ones?

 

Oh, yes, Certainly there are some double standards there as well. Tyson is a polarizing fighter. Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holy and Lewis had better top wins, but many that regularly feature in the top 10 didn't. Liston, for example, doesn't have better top wins than Tyson, only fewer of them. Holmes didn't have better top wins either, really. Neither did Wlad. Nor Dempsey or Marciano etc.

 

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

 

Geale and Lemieux were both top 5 ranked when Golovkin beat them. And both of them actually gave it go, instead of diving at the first opportunity like Seldon. Was Etienne even in the top 10?

And Tyson's wasn't shot when he beat Seldon.

 

Who did Tyson beat who was arguably as good as 1978 Norton ?

 

And that's it in a nutshell. I am about to expand on the first sentence.

 

Berbick and Spinks were perhaps slightly below Norton, but not by as much that I think it's anything to make any noise about. Norton was aging and would get smashed the very next year by Shavers.

It was also a very close victory that could have gone the other way without it being a scandal. Hard to argue with Tyson's wins over Berbick and Spinks on the other hand.

I think Tyson victories over Berbick and Spinks definitely were more impressive than Holme's over Norton, considering how extremely empathic they were.