Mike Tyson "weak" opposition

How does one classify weak opposition?

In a sense Tyson is blessed that he shared the era with other greats and they had a lot of mutual opponents.

Lennox Lewis is though to have a great resume, a large number of these guys were the same guys Tyson beat and they both had comparable results.

Same with Bowe, a lot of them were Tyson leftovers.

If you look at Tysons opposition and how they fared vs the other greats of that era, then you realise his opposition was a little bit better than people say.

Example, no other ATG would have a problem demolishing Tony Tubbs, when in reality...Tubbs arguably beat Riddick Bowe, one of the two best heavyweights of the 90s.

Alex Stewart, a top ten fighter who Tyson demolished in one round, gave Foreman and Holyfield all sorts of trouble. In fact Holyfield had to give him a rematch.

Bruno/Lewis is another example. Lewis had trouble with Bruno whereas Tyson destroyed him,twice.

So when these guys are putting on respectable performances against other ATGs is it right to question Tysons opposition as weak?

 

I think the cliche about the 80's generation being talented but inconsistent and undisciplined holds pretty true. They were quite big compared to earlier eras but were still well schooled and skilled boxers in many cases. At nights when it all came together, I think several of them could have been a handful for many ATG:s.

The 90's generation was even bigger, but more oriented toward big punchers than good all around boxers, I'd say.

 

I don't know but I'm pretty sure you were confidently saying Vitali's opposition was a pile of ****.
That's your call and I understand what you mean, but it's all relative.

I don't think Lewis had a great quality of opposition either. But he had good longevity. I suppose the wins over Holyfield might boost his resume over Tyson's, it's arguable. Some will say beating Vitali boosts his resume too. I don't know.

Yeah but that's just singling out results.
Tubbs was demolished by Lionel Butler not too longer after "arguably beating" Bowe.
Bowe's reputation certainly never rested on the Tubbs fight, any more than Tyson's does on the Tillis fight.

Yeah, and Buster Douglas who beat Tyson was knocked out in 3 by Holyfield.

What you wrote isn't accurate anyway. Holyfield's "rematch" with Stewart happened almost 4 years later and was considered a safe comeback fight.

Yes, these are good wins for Tyson.

Yes, Tubbs, Bruno and Stewart are relatively weak.

No one says Holyfield is great for having two wins over Stewart.
Bowe isn't remembered for having a disputable decision win against Tubbs, his only historically significant wins are over Holyfield.
And Lewis's win against Bruno isn't really one of his best either.

 

When talking about weak and strong opposition, the main criteria for me is if the fighter in question beat the best avaliable out there.

Only then might I do a judgement as to whether that generation of fighters was weak or strong.

But it is pretty rare for me to put great emphasis on that, since it is hard to know for sure. For example was the 70's really one of the great eras or was it just that a depleted former great, Ali, made fighters like Frazier and Norton look better than they were and thereby also the one who beat them, Foreman?

Was Bowe really that good or did he just beat a champ with a pretty mediocre reign who later would build a lot of his reputation on beating a past it Tyson? And if Bowe wasn't that good to start with, Holyfield 's stock falls in turn.

These are questions that it is difficult to answer with any absolut certainity. But you can say with a fair degree of certainity if a champion beat most of the best or not.

 

But what if they put on respectable losing performances against ATGS?

Guys Tyson demolished did well against some of the greats of that era, surely that equates to Tysons opposition being a bit stronger than people like to believe.

Granted Bruno aint no Ali, but should that matter when Bruno gave a very good losing performance vs Lennox lewis?

 

In that case you should perhaps factor in longevity too.
Tyson seems to get a lot of credit for running through most the available best, but for 3 years only.
That's great in itself but it seems obvious to me that at any 3 year period there's probably going to be less quality around than in a 10 or 15 year period. His schedule deserves to be credited but most of the opposition were rising up the rankings by default. And then he lost to a guy who'd been more or less ranked throughout his reign anyway.

So, yeah, beating most of the top 10 for 3 years is an exceptional feat. For that period he didn't really miss anyone.
But compare it to Muhammad Ali, a 1960 Olympic gold medallist, beating great fighters in he 1970s who'd been 1964 and 1968 Olympians (actually dethroning Foreman), and beating several 'waves' of contenders.
And Ali was often beating highly-ranked contenders who'd had to beat other highly-ranked contenders to make a case.

People forget than Evander Holyfield was actually Tyson's direct contemporary and only 24 months or so behind in a campaign for heavyweight titles. The likes of Bowe, Mercer and Lewis were the next crop.

 

Yeah, if you rate Lewis as an ATG, it means Bruno isn't a "bum".
Which he wasn't.

But people need to have a balanced view. Tyson had a lot of good wins and beat some decent and good fighters. He dominated or demolished a lot of those and should be credited for that too. But they weren't great fighters, nor were they near-greats. They were standard ranked heavyweights and a former great about 8 years past his prime. And the man who dethroned Tyson wasn't great either.
That's the story.

 

exactly. It's hard to find one champion who only defended or met the next best possible challenger in title fights. I do think it's important to separate fights that were really deciding who was the best in the world at that time. Two of the best coming together kinds of fights. Frazier vs Ali. Louis v Schmeling. Patterson v ingo.

yes. I believe this is exactly what happened.

yes.I believe this is exactly how history should remember it. Factors flattered Bowe and his legacy didn't pan out great. He beat a small man twice and also lost to him. Holyfields stock should be based on where Bowe and Tyson were at the point he met them both. He should be remembered as a guy who did well for his size.

great point.

 

Holyfield was the undefeated undisputed champion of the world.
Bowe deserves credit for beating him in a great fight.
Only casual fans would insist that Holyfield's value rests on the Tyson fights.

It's not too difficult to assess Tyson and Holyfield.
Tyson and Holyfield were contemporaries. Tyson lost to Douglas. Holyfield beat Douglas. Years later, when they were both somewhat past it, Holyfield beat Tyson twice.

Bowe was part of the next wave. He came along when Holyfield's prime was ending (and arguably caused it to end or decline too). However, he lost to an ageing Holyfield once too, before winning the trilogy. He did very little of significance beyond that. His contemporary was Lewis, who he never fought. Bowe's prime ended abruptly and dramatically.
Bowe's perhaps more difficult to assess.

 

That I have Ali and Louis as more or less interchangeable in the top 2 with Holmes behind is because I put great stock in being dominant for a long time.

I was playing the Devil's advocate there a bit.

Frazier had proven himself as it was by plowing through Bonavena, Quarry and Ellis among others - and beating Ali proved he truly was an ATG. With that said, I think things would be very different if Ali never was exiled. In that case, Frazier might never have been more than a tough contender for Ali, and Foreman even less so.

Similarily I think Holy was great. But Bowe's legacy rests very heavily on beating him and his rests to some degree on beating Bowe.

 

Basically we've come to the conclusion that no matter how great you think a fighter is there's always someone out there that can beat them........

 

Do something about it! Pud.

I'm not on these forums to get approval from anyone. I'm responding to you!

 

Ok, so the exact request from myself was -

Name your list who would have went thru them so convincingly? We are talking a helluva lot of devastating early ko's here.

Lets look at your list. We are talking 10 opponents here. 8 were stopped inside 7 rounds. 4 inside 2 rounds.

Lennox Lewis - No. In his first incarnation Lennox struggled some with Bruno and he was not as likely to get the quickie ko's Tyson did against guys not inclined to mix it up. In peak form he was a bit less aggressive and wouldn't have blown them out as quickly on the whole. Tyson is the faster starter and Lennox wouldn't have as many emphatic early ko's.

Vitali - No. More of a clubbing ponderous puncher who would take longer than Tyson with most opponents and not have many dynamic early ko's of these guys. He certainly wouldn't have got Spinks out of there so early if at all. Some in here might even back some of these ten to beat him.

Riddick Bowe - No. Struggled a bit as it was with a couple of common opponents. He would get a couple of quickie ko's but overall he wouldn't be as fast and emphatic.

Joe Frazier - A better shout but he was a slower starter. I don't think he'd get them out as early and as impressive but he'd pound a lot of them down.

Larry Holmes - Silly shout. Larry was more of a clubbing puncher and accumulation man on the whole. A young Berbick cruised 15 with him and he was dropped by the likes of Snipes who Tyson would have obliterated. Holmes is a completely different fighter than Tyson and would not get many out early and emphatically at all. He would beat them all but also have some troubles along the way.

Rocky Marciano - Rocky would pound most of them into submission but not as early and convincingly with quite a few.

Jack Dempsey - Hard to judge given lack of film and time differences. Not a bad shout.

Joe Louis - Excellent shout. At his peak he was lethal and often early. I wonder if he would have copped a KD or two is all.

Liston - Probably a little slow of foot to get as many as early as Tyson. Tyson could corner an intimidated opponent and get him out of there in no time. I think on the whole these last longer with Sonny. On the flip side he'd probably knock out Tucker and Smith with his superior infighting skills to Tyson.

Ali - He'd school them all but you said yourself he won't be knocking them over like Tyson whcih is the entire point!

Foreman - Excellent shout. I think Foreman prior to Ali would go thru this lot very convincingly.

I'd give two of those some sort of chance and maybe toss a third up. Maybe. The bottom line is that in all likelihood no heavyweight is as destructive and efficient as Tyson when fighting fighters lesser than himself.

 

Common sense and balance really.