Mike Tyson "weak" opposition

For starters? LMFAO! I just can't take you seriously anymore.

I've said it before, head to head Tyson is even money or better than anyone. A one off. A one night battle. On paper that doesn't look so bad. I cant favor anyone over Tyson. Even money, sure. But a clear, complete favorite over a peak Mike Tyson? Nope.

Louis, Liston, Ali, Holmes and Bowe give Tyson a run for his money. But none are favored over him.

Are we talking beat win or best wins with a deeper resume?

Berbick and Tucker? It's a lot deeper than these two. As for his opposition, they weren't marquee names but they were solid. Tubbs was a good fighter with his sole loss being a majority decision to Witherspoon. Pinklon Thomas showed up for the Tyson fight, was not afraid and put together a hell of an effort but he failed. Berbick was tough, Smith could punch but was unfortunately afraid. Larry Merchant and a few others picked Tyrell Biggs to beat Mike Tyson. Ruddock was a dangerous fighter when Mike faced him. In fact both Riddick Bowe and Evander Holyfield avoided him. It was Lewis who had the balls to step up and face him. Carl Williams oddly enough was better than Douglas but couldn't avoid the left hook. We know what happened to Spinks.

The truth is, Tyson's opposition whipped themselves into fabulous shape in fear of getting murdered by the division's new savior. Beating Tyson meant more than just winning the title. These guys were all solid contenders or former title holders with extensive amateur backgrounds in America's deepest pool of heavyweight talent, riding the popularity of Ali's ascension in the 60's and 70's. Tyson made them look like shat.

Names on paper mean very little. Most aren't considered ATG heavyweights, but solid, skilled and durable contenders with championship pedigree. Tyson had to beat them in the ring, not on paper.

 

I can't rate 1988 Spinks anywhere near a 1978 Norton, to be honest.
And I'm not one of those who dismiss him entirely.

Larry Holmes beat Trevor Berbick very empatically too, imo. So that cancels that one out anyhow.
I guess it depends how much you favour Tyson for being a quick KO specialist. I'll admit he was a much 'bigger puncher' than Holmes.

 

Don't say you didn't ask for it.

So in this recent thread

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/modern-day-super-heavys-that-defeat-holmes-of-1978.589479/

You tell us at various points -

I don't know how many people here have seen the full Larry Holmes vs Roy Tiger Williams, but I believe it is an important fight worth watching before deciding how Larry copes with Super Heavyweights.

Roy Tiger Williams and LeRoy Jones (who Larry fought) really were every bit the Super Heavyweight we have nowadays. And possibly just as good.

I recently watched Holmes against the unbeaten Leroy Jones, a real 6'5" super heavyweight. Jones was quite seasoned and not the usual untested kind of challenger people tend to dismiss Larrys opponents as. The US national team coach left Amatuer boxing to groom jones into a professional champion. Today, I believe Jones would be a real handful and a major threat to the title.

I see no reason why Jones would not be seen as a serious contender today.

This content is protected

. He also won the USBA belt and was on track for better things. Too bad he came up against Holmes.

I actually see Tyson Fury v Larry Holmes becoming a repeat of Larry Holmes vs Leroy Jones.

I think we have to accept that heavyweight today has become a Leroy Jones type division.

If Leroy Jones fought now he would be a serious threat to any championship at heavyweight.

This content is protected

 

You'll admit that Tyson was a 'bigger puncher' than Holmes? You don't have to admit it, it's common knowledge pud.

Is being a quick KO specialist something to snicker at? Is that not something favorable when discussing a fighter's style and attributes? You're making it sound like that's a bad thing.

 

I can't see what the big difference between Norton in 1978 and Spinks in 1988 would be. Sure, Norton came off a good run over the last three years with wins over a past it Quarry, Ali (arguably), Bobick and Young (close), but Spinks's two wins over Holmes (one arguably a loss), Tangstad and Cooney aren't that bad either. It depends on how you score the close fights (Norton-Ali, Norton-Young, Spinks-Holmes II) really. If you go by the official verdicts, neither of which were horrible imo, I'd say that Spinks's run was the better one with his two wins over Holmes.

Anyhow, there isn't much in it any which way to me. But there's a huge difference between Tyson's total steamroll of Spinks and Holmes's very hard-fought and close win over Norton.

As for Berbick, there is an argument to be made that Tyson faced the better version, seeing how Berbick was on the best run of his career leading up to the Tyson fight.

 

I think Marciano, Holmes, Tyson, Wlad and Dempsey are all in th same bracket in that all of them are behind Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis as great champions.

Very few champions beat only the very best versions of the best guys that they beat and that's why we should differentiate between which opponents actually count as great key wins for any fighter.

If we throw out the opponents with poor recent form, less proven ability against relevant contenders Ali and Joe Louis still have a greater depth of big wins.

If one has to include Tubbs, Thomas, Holmes, Bruno and Biggs to the volume of important wins Tyson had in order to stack up to greater champions then we must scrutinise where these guys were with their careers when these fights took place. Not having beat rated opponents for years is not an asset, in fact it reflects and has huge baring on how the challenger fares in the title fight.

Level of opposition win or lose is a huge factor in boxing. A live journeyman who can take top fighters to close decisions might be losing fights but often he will be too much for an untested kid. too often the live Journeyman is never favoured over a green horn. Likewise a faded fighter kept winning at a lower level might maintain appeal but he is dropping a level further each time he is not compeating at his previous level.

 

So in this current thread you say -

The best opponents Tyson fought as a champion were Berbick, Tucker, Smith, Williams and Douglas. These were his legit wins over current fighters with decent recent form. These guys were the only challengers who could be regarded as relevant to that time zone in a way we measure champions.

If we count Tyson opponents like Larry Holmes, Tubbs, Tucker, Thomas, Biggs, Spinks and Bruno as "key fights" that would be including fighters that could not have been considered acceptable challengers to another champion under older systems of a challenger needing to have wins over current rated fighters to qualify for "most logical challenger status".

So yes, these names are good but they don't tell the real story because Tyson often had an unfair advantage. Against most of his name opponents they were inactive and lacked recent form over decent opposition.

Tyson fought 13 times in 1986 including three really good ten rounders with Tillis, Green and Ribalta. Where as Trevor Berbick had 4 fights in the last two years. Whilst this was a good legit win, I can't help thinking Berbick might have been a bit sharper if he had as much target practice as Mike had.

Who knows, maybe Frank Bruno might have gave a better account of himself against Tyson if he had he had actually beaten a live contender more recently than Gerrie Coetzee way back in 1985 some three years earlier?

Same with Ruddock. Whilst Ruddock had at least fought as many times over the last 3 years as Tyson had where as Tyson was meeting Guys like Stewart, Tillman, Douglas, Williams, Bruno and Spinks for his 5-1 on that period Ruddock was meeting but has beens like old man Dokes, Smith, James Broad and never wasers like Mike Rouse, kamel Odin and reggie Gross.

but if Tyson did not meet primed, active versions of Holmes, Tubbs, Thomas and Spinks (who when they met Tyson all had never beat relevant rated contenders for years) how can we support a theory of how these versions fare against other champs?

no who did Biggs or Bruno beat to become leading contenders or logical challenger status? If their challenge was not logical and the opponents they recently beat were not rated contenders then how can they themselves represent that status as key fights?

Bruno was 0-1 in three years against rated fighters. Biggs 0-0.

Thomas was 0-1 in two years against rated fighters.

Tony Tubbs was the most appalling challenger of all time. One win that was worth something for one year only, long ago. 0-1 in almost three years against rated fighters.

four years later with better preparation, 6 comeback fights and a win over a relevant contender (Ray Mercer) Larry did indeed prove he still could perform at the highest level. Not against Tyson. Against Tyson Larry was 0-2 in three years.

Bruno did better against Lewis than lot of fighters. Get this, the fact Bruno was beating good opponents at that time might have something to do with it.

Those guys were good guys at some point but how good were they while they were 0-1 in three years against rated opponents? Seems to me, the best time to beat those guys is when they are 0-1 or 0-2 against rated guys.

This content is protected

 

Yes, there aren't many champions with a clearly better beaten opposition than Tyson. And even fewer has been as dominant in those wins.

 

Well, you've said that before.
Then proceed to write all this ....

I know that's your opinion.
You know I don't share it.

OK.

My post was quite clear, I thought.
I already said:

Tyson had all those title fight wins but the reality is Trevor Berbick or Tony Tucker might be the best fighter he ever beat.
With that in mind it's hard to argue his opposition wasn't a bit weak.

In other words, the fact is he never passed a test beyond that level.
And, in fact, though you hate to hear it again, the first fight he lost was to a boxer at that same level.

They were okay fighters on average, yeah.
But in ATG terms it's no one outstanding there.

Now you're just making stuff up. They weren't all whipped into fabulous shape, (nor were they all well-prepared in terms of recent form). A few were, and a few were noticeably sub-par, based on all available evidence.

The truth is, 1980s heavyweights are generally regarded as an inconsisent bunch who were playing pass-the-parcel with the alphabet titles anyway, way before Tyson grabbed a belt. Tyson rose above that standard for a couple of years and deserves credit for that.

Tyson did well against that level, yeah.

 

I think you're reading a bit too much into my post there.
You're obviously so obssessed with finding "anti Tyson hate" in my posts you'll clutching at straws.

No, I don't think quick KO specialist is a bad thing. It's a great thing. I love Tyson and fighters like him for getting the job done in that style.
But I'm not going to penalize guys like Holmes or Ali for possessing a different skill set.
Larry Holmes beat Berbick emphatically too, that was my point.

 

Can you be more specific about the fighters who weren't in good shape?

 

I'm reading too much into your post? Than why say such things?

 

This content is protected

 

Okay, I disagree with most of this. (for example, I'd say a 1977 J.Young is better than the old 1985 Holmes).

...... so how well do you think Michael Spinks would do against the Holmes of 1978 ?
Don't you think Holmes diminished a lot in the 7-8 years after ?
How would a 1978 Norton do against a 1985/'86 Holmes ?

Well, there's an argument to be made that Renaldo Snipes beat the best version of Berbick.
These are marginal arguments.

The fact is Trevor Berbick wasn't much good really, in the grand scheme of things. And both Holmes and Tyson beat him clearly and emphatically. (Well, i say it's as good as fact anyway, do you disagree?)

 

What things ?
You picked up on a turn of phrase ("I'll admit ..") and ignored the point and substance of the post.