Mike Tysons resume was rubbish in a weak era.

One More;

I'm starting to think there should be a prerequisite here; for any poster that starts a thread claiming an era is weak, should counter it by claiming which era was great.

So we can tear it down!

 

This. For about 2-3 years Mike ruled the heavyweight division with an iron fist. Nobody since has come close to accomplishing what Tyson did. It took both the Klitschko Brothers to dominate the heavyweight division and they would avenge each other's losses, since Vitali couldn't beat Byrd and Wlad couldn't beat Corrie Sanders.

 

A little embellishment there about Vitali.

 

38 yr old sanders being the kind of guy tyson at 19 killed in seconds before breakfast.

 

based on him being beat by byrd, agreed.

 

Tell us about all the other guys from Mike Tyson's "weak era" who were able to beat Spinks & stop Holmes.

Should be easy to do - Holmes fought on another 24 times after being stopped by Iron Mike. Including well into the "golden age" of the 1990s.

As for that era, Tyson, almost a decade past his prime, dethroned the reigning WBC & WBA champs in less than 4 rounds combined.

A decade earlier, when in his prime, it took him 14 rounds (& another 12 to get the IBF belt).

Those cream-puff heavyweights of the 1990s had it easy by comparison.

I mean, 45 year old George Foreman won the Lineal, WBA & IBF championships in the 1990s. That's how soft it was.

Anyone who tried to put Big George in a boxing ring with Mike Tyson in the 1980s got locked up for conspiracy to commit murder.

As for "blown-up" light heavies, in the 1980s, Tyson beats one of the greatest of all time in 91 seconds. In the 1990s, Holyfield gets dethroned by one.

 

Tyson's the most over rated boxer in history

His fanboys remind me of Bruce Lee fanboys

.... only Lee never lost to a Buster Douglas level opponent

 

Tyson is probably the only pro athlete in the history of the world who was past his prime at 23 years old.

Imagine if you tried using that excuse for literally any other athlete ever. Imagine how ridiculous that would sound.

 

Tucker was a talent, so that was a very good win.

Dismissing the Spinks win by labelling him as a LHW is disrespectful. Even if you don't agree with his decisions over Larry, he proved in those fights that he was a credible HW. Despite being past his peak, we know that Larry still had something left in the tank at that stage. We know that because he went on into the 90's, where he beat Mercer and pushed Evander, even though he was in his 40's. So anybody who could push him hard in 85 and 86 had to be a credible HW. Spinks also had a decent win over Cooney. The version of Spinks who fought Mike, wasn't merely a blown up LHW, and he'd certainly be a top 10 HW of today.

As above, even the version of Larry who fought Mike would be top 10 today.

Bruno would definitely be a top 10 HW today. There is no 'might' about it. Guys like Whyte, Stiverne and Brazeale etc, are in most people's top 10 rankings.

 

It's not ridiculous though is it?

It happened.

We saw it.

I don't know if you follow football, but Paul 'Gazza' Gascoigne was also past his best by 24.

A man has to take responsibility for his own actions. But Mike went from being a student of the sport to a womaniser who liked to party. Instead of spending hours in Cus's attic, analysing reels of Jack Dempsey, he was in clubs chasing girls. He then had a disastrous marriage. His life was in chaos even at 23/24. He didn't prepare for Douglas as he should have done and he underestimated him. Although he wasn't shot at that young age, he'd lost his focus and he was clearly a different fighter.

James Douglas was a talent, who also underachieved. But I don't think he exposed Mike, because I don't think he was on another level to guys like Spinks, Holmes and Tucker etc. And I don't think James would have beaten the versions of Mike who were focused with Rooney in the mid 80's. And the warning signs were actually there before the Douglas fight. Even though he put Bruno away the previous year, he took shots in that fight that he hadn't taken previously.

His time at the top was short lived. But it's certainly not a myth or an excuse used by his fanboys that he was past his best by just 24, because again, he was. And by the time he came out of prison at 29, he was just a shell of the fighter he'd once been.

If you've no sympathy for what happened, that's fine by me. And Evander and Lennox may have beaten any versions of Mike. But if you studied his career like I did, you'd realise that along with James Douglas, they did not fight the guy who'd blasted out Berbick and Spinks.

 

Yeah, but was Douglas in the right frame of mind also? A few weeks before, he’d just lost his mother. He too has suffered from drink problems and depression, which plagued his career.

 

In my honest opinion, that win in Tokyo came due to Mike underestimating him, and due to James having a will of iron, due to the sad loss of his mother. He was asked if he wanted to pull out of the fight, but he refused. And he used all of that emotion and chanelled it into beating Mike. He was motivated for the fight more than any other in his career, and he fought Mike without an ounce of fear. He wasn't intimidated. Facing Mike was nothing like losing his mother, who I believe he was very close to. I think that specific version of James would have been a tough nights work for any HW. I've always believed that if Evander had fought that same version that Mike did, he wouldn't have folded him in just 3 rounds. A fighter's mindset plays a huge role in the outcome of a fight.