Does Tyson get enough credit for ko'ing Holmes

Id say a 37/38 year old Holmes may have beaten Leon IMO

 

So according to your logic, even if a fighter is world ranked with a winning record and highly skilled, beating them doesnt mean much unless they beat another world ranked fighter within the past year?

Those are some strange parameters!

Your own bolded statement acknowledges that they had the same pedigree as tyson, yet he crushed them. What more can you expect from a fighter?

"These guys were pretty inactive" now im gonna hold you to that.

-Thomas fought tyson may 1987. He had fought just 2 months prior in March and also fought November the previous year. Was he inactive?

- tubbs fought Tyson in March 1988. He fought THREE times in 1987.

-biggs fought TWICE in 1987 before facing Tyson that SAME YEAR.

The ONLY case you have is for Holmes who had been inactice for a
2 years and came off 2 losses. Technically bruno hadnt fought the prior year before facing tyson but he fought four times the year before that and won those fights and was in his prime.

So you are flat out WRONG saying thomas, biggs, and tubbs were "ill prepared" on the grounds that they were "inactive" because the opposite was true.

Thomas and tubbs only had 1 loss a piece. Biggs was undefeated, so no you cant use the damaged goods or wear and tear argument. They were all young, world ranked, and had previously won titles. Biggs was an oustanding amateur, tall, athletic, etc.

Id like to know who your dealer is.

 

Pinklon Thomas was the WBC #1 contender when Tyson fought him.
Frank Bruno was the WBA #1 contender when Tyson fought him.
Tyrell Biggs was the IBF #1 contender when Tyson fought him.

Should he have vacated rather than fight his mandatories?

Practically ALL of them also had much better wins on their records than Tyson did before he got his title shot with Berbick. Who did Tyson beat to qualify for a title shot?

 

They weren't fighting anyone recently because they had already acquired guaranteed title shots. Choklab is willfully ignoring that.

 

This is true. Tyson should have fought them and I am glad he did. He took care of business like a true champion should against them too.

But it dosnt hide the fact, high rating or not, that these guys were not beating rated opponents within a year/years of facing Tyson.

He should have fought them but this factor is still absolutely valid.

 

No I accept that actually. This is correct. Their stature was maintained during the period because they had to wait in line. I think Bruno had to wait for Tyson to get over a car crash and a relocation of their fight from Wembley to Vegas. Tubbs was passed over when his rematch with Witherspoon did not materialise. Pinklon was active but not against real guys and was still a name. As you say they were guaranteed. But it still favoured Tyson that they were not honing themselves on better opponents while they hung around in line.

 

It dosnt change the fact that they were inactive against NAME opponents with current ratings. Check for yourself. Some of them had not won fights against rated guys since before Tyson even turned Pro. That’s worth mentioning.

That’s all I am saying. Tyson was the tops. At that time he was the best fighter in the world.

 

Did Berbick ever get enough credit for beating Ali? Discuss ...

 

Say what you will about Choklab, but he sure doesn't treat this forum as a popularity contest.

 

Mike turned pro in 1985. Pinklon Thomas knocked out Mike Weaver in 1985. The previous year he defeated Tim Witherspoon.

It took me 2 minutes to verify this. I know youre knowledegeable about boxing, so why do you play these games?

You do realize that you dont have to beat top 10 ranked world beaters and monsters every year that youre active and in the rankings? You DO realize doing so when a potential title shot is on the horizon cam be dangerous and counterproductive to your career?

 

This content is protected

 

Yes I realise all of that. I’m just saying, that I think those guys could have been better prepared honing their skills on better quality opponents in more recent fights.

Are you suggesting this point should be erased altogether? Are you saying these guys would be as good as ever without meeting quality opposition within a year or so of challenging Tyson?

I kind of think they would have preferred to have fought better guys more recently than they did.

 

Look at the rankings in the late 80's and tell me who they could have fought to prepare them for mike tyson.

 

Agreed! Holmes actually looked better 2 to 3 years later.