Mike Tyson "weak" opposition

I think that 1988 Spinks would do a LOT better against 1978 Holmes, than 1978 Norton would do against 1988 Tyson.

But more importantly for the sake of this thread is that I think that there was good reason to say that Spinks in 1988 was about as good an opponent as Norton in 1978. He was undefeated, had twice defeated Holmes (albeit once controversially) and came off a one-sided win over Cooney despite being the underdog.

I think Berbick's run in the years leading up to Tyson was as good as any of the guys Holmes beat at the time he beat them.

 

So? I'm not getting caught up in your garbage. Same old.

Lemme ask you this...why are you on every Tyson thread saying the exact same thing every time? Research your threads. Are you saying anything positive about Tyson? Why the hate?

 

These guys certainly were not in "fabulous shape" :

Tony Tucker: Reported as having an injured hand prior to the fight.
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-07-31/sports/8702250940_1_tony-tucker-cedric-kushner-tyson-last-march[/url]

Larry Holmes: Weighed in at career heaviest weight (and it wasn't extra muscle). Had been out the ring 21 months.

Tony Tubbs: Always fat, he was 9 or 10 pounds heavier than he'd been in his best winning fights. His trainer walked out of camp citing Tubbs wasn't putting the work in.

Giachetti said: "Before I went with Tony, he called Larry (Holmes) for advice about me. Larry told him: 'If you want a yes-man for your trainer, you don't want Richie. But if you want someone who'll kick you in the butt, motivate you and force you to get in shape, you want Richie.'

"So I tried to kick him in the . . . , get him in shape, and Tony didn't like that. It's a shame. The guy has real ability. But I don't think he's in good shape; I hear he's just going through the motions in the gym."


Michael Spinks: Had been on the longest lay-off of his career. Came in heavier and less lean than he'd been 2 years before. His knee problems were no secret and had been getting progressively worse for years, resulting in him fighting with increasingly bandaged knees.

 

Certainly Holmes had career timing on his opponents too. Most champions do. I recently stated this. Not many champions beat the best versions of their best opponents. When Larry beat Ali he beat a man with no recent form too. Tyson does not have the monopoly on beating guys with no chance of winning. But can anyone dispute Larry came off the floor to win fights or was the one consistent dominating heavyweight of his era every bit as much as Tyson was?

The Holmes issue versus Superheavyweights is separate. There's nothing incorrect about any of that. This was within a debate about how Larry does with modern sized guys. And here was the case for how Larry dealt with that sized man. There is no argument Larry did not fight that sized man. He did. So I find it rather amusing you are brining this up from another thread that is in no way connected. For that thread it was justifiable and valid to use the example of Jones and Tiger Williams for stylistic reasons, and in actual fact, within that discussion nobody could dispute that unbeaten Leroy Jones in the same shape as he was with Larry would not be a serious threat to Joseph Parker Today! This was backed up by the point hat 5 men in the same condition as Jones contested for the title in the last 12 months, one of them (Ruiz Jnr) being fatter than Jones whilst still proving the equal to Parker in their fight.

This is not to mention that Jones lost to Larry the same day Weaver beat Tate. So the guy Jones already beat became the WBA champion that same day. I bet Jones wished he challenged Tate that day rather than Larry!

 

You're asking me the same stuff every time on every Tyson thread, that's why !
You're a joke. You're obssessed with my posts about Tyson.

I'm really not that interested in yours. I get it, you rate Tyson way higher than I do. That's cool.

Why does it mean so much to you if I rate him lower ?
That's the thing I don't get.

 

You're full of ****.

I say positive things about Tyson all the time. It's just I don't have to repeat them a million times because you're not stalking me looking for positives. You're looking to pick up on where I don't rate him as high as you (which is unrealistically high, IN MY OPINION), and then make me explain and repeat myself.
Then, invariably you get confused and ask me why I'm posting the same stuff every time in Tyson threads. Or you accuse me of something.

Like I've said before, we both share an interest in 1980s heavyweights, we both rate Tyson as the best of the decade, so why you're surprised I'm in the threads, I don't know.

MY thread (no sign of Sangria) :

[url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/top-10-heavyweights-of-the-1980s.582571/[/url]

 

..try answering the post...

 

How did prime Trevor Berbick (whilst #4 WBC contender) lose to 20lb lighter cruiserweight S.T Gordon?

This content is protected

 

By decision, but my feeling is that you already know this.

So are you trying to make a point that he had a less than impressive loss three years before he met Tyson? Big whoop. Most titlist/contenders have those. So no surprises there. His run from that loss to the one against Tyson was still a good one. Feel free to name Holmes victims that had clearly better before they met him.

 

because cruiser and heavy are the same, and you neglect to add tat Grdon was recently lineal CW champion. why did you miss that out?

 

Berbick had a good run of beating Bey, Mitch green and pinklon Thomas. That's it. He still lost to S.T and Renaldo Snipes at the start of that run. The green win was a M.D. And the other guys he beat after losing to S.T. Gordon and Renaldo Snipes were the guys everyone beat. Ken Lacuster. Walter santemore. Frank Bruno beat them quicker than Berbick did.

Over the same 1983 -1986 period Larry Holmes has a loss to Spinks but was knocking out Marvis Frazier, scot Frank, bonecrusher smith and David Bey and outpointing Witherspoon and truth Williams. I think that's better.

Altogether Berbick indeed has better wins than the vast majority of paper champions. He beat Tate, Page, Thomas and Ali and that's why he is Mike Tysons best win. Remember though, we must not forget beforehand, within those wins, Berbick also lost to S.T Gordon, Renaldo Snipes, Larry Holmes and was knocked out hard by Bernardo Mercado too.

 

So you can't name any of Holmes's victims that had clearly better runs prior to meeting him, I take it?

And, of course, you know of the losses that Norton, that has been mentioned as Holmes's best win, had? That he, for example, was KO'd by 188 lbs Jose Luis Garcia?

My guess is that this kind of double standards is what annoys @JohnThomas1

 

Yes but Holmes beat a lot of guys like Berbick, including Berbick himself. And all of them had recent relevant wins of some kind. Ocasio beat Young. Jones beat Weaver. Shavers beat Norton, Cobb beat Shavers. Berbick beat Tate. Leon beat Mercardo. Snipes beat Coetzee. Smith beat Bruno. Bey beat Page. Even Scott Frank drew with Snipes. And so on and so forth. Ali was coming off no wins which is the same as a lot of Tysons challengers. We can scrutinise the losses too but in the end more of them had actual recent form.

None of this prevents Tyson from not being a great champion in his own right. It just must be recognised that some of Tysons defences deserve to be relegated to the kind relevance of Holmes beating Ali.

I see no double standard. Let's highlight Larrys bad challengers like Rodriguez by all means. I accept that. Joe Louis fought Jack Roper. Ali fought Coopman. Frazier fought Daniels and Foreman fought Roman. I get that.

Nobody excuses Ali for Holmes. Why is Holmes excused for Tyson?

 

You seemed to take issue with my statement "I think Berbick's run in the years leading up to Tyson was as good as any of the guys Holmes beat at the time he beat them." by posting a clip of one of Berbick's losses.

I responded: "So are you trying to make a point that he had a less than impressive loss three years before he met Tyson? Big whoop. Most titlist/contenders have those. So no surprises there. His run from that loss to the one against Tyson was still a good one. Feel free to name Holmes victims that had clearly better before they met him."

Nothing in your post above even remotely addresses this. I'm starting to get annoyed now, because you are just wasting my time.

 

Well yes Berbick had a good run. You are correct, it's as good a run as any of the guys Larry fought. I don't have issue with that.

I thought you were saying Berbick was doing better than Holmes during that run, but you have since clarified that it was more to do with Berbicks form going against Tyson in relation to the form of Larrys challengers.

I posted the S.T Gordon fight only because it is an unusual fight and a loss during a time where Berbick was rated high. He had already beat good guys like Tate and Page and had a close match with Snipes. At this time Berbick was about as good as any man not called Larry Holmes. S.T Gordon was his first convincing loss since Holmes beat him. A while back superman1986 was dismissive of cruiserweights so I think this bout is interesting on that count.

I'm not saying Berbick is terrible. I'm just saying, what a strange loss. Gordon never won another fight. Berbick came back from it.

A lot of those guys that were around really we're no better than each other. At least the ones with recent form against good opposition have value. Perhaps that's the best way to rate them as challengers. Berbick was certainly good for Tyson.