Honest Mike Tyson Question

Could not be further from the truth.

Spinks beat Holmes whose title can be traced logically back to Sullivan. Spinks and only Spinks was the champion. ALL others were contenders who happen to win political titles during a time where many held political titles.

 

Again, meh. This strict adherence to "lineal" titles should only be taken so far. This is a prime example. People usually know who The Man is in a given division. Common sense has to start taking over at some point.

 

I agree. Credit is obviously given to the man who beat the man...but at the same time there is a point where it is clear that one man is truly the champ, despite the historical line of who beat who. This applies to the Tyson/Spinks situation. Spinks may have been the lineal champ, but Tyson was clearly THE champ from 1986 until the time he lost the title.

 

Foreman and only Foreman was the HW champion from November 1994 - November 1997. Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson were only contenders who happened to win political titles during a time where many held political titles. (And of course, the real HW title was then passed on to Shannon 'The Cannon' Buchanan)

Mitchell and only Mitchell was the super FW champion from September 1986 - January 1992. Azumah Nelson, Jeff Fenech, John John Molina were only contenders who happened to win political titles during a time where many held political titles.

Michalczewski and only Michalczewski was the LHW champion from June 1997 - October 2003. Roy Jones Jr. was only a contender...........

 

There was only three world champions in the 1980s. Holmes, Spinks and Tyson. They were the real champions.

Unfortunately during their decade they handed out belts to the contenders beneath the champions. Not one of them were created for legitimate reasons. Not one of them were considered champions.

Tate And Coetzee were selected by the WBA as the best two heavyweights in the world for absolutely no reason at all. Larry Holmes had beat Norton, Shavers, Weaver and Ocasio who had better credentials. Then Weaver beat the winner of their crazy selection right after being knocked out by Holmes. Until Tyson unified, the WBA line of “champions” begun and ended with men Larry stopped.

The WBC later did the exact same thing. They selected page and Witherspoon as the best two heavyweights in the world for absolutely no reason at all. Page had lost to Berbick and Witherspoon had lost to Holmes. Larry had already beat both guys. There was absolutely no reason for the WBC to insist on page as the mandatory, he had not done enough. Until Tyson unified, just like the WBA, the WBC line of “champions” begun and ended with men Larry beat.

The IBF did the exact same thing to Spinks. They basically took recognition from him and had two guys fight for their strap that were worthy only of fighting for the USBA belt. Both were beneath many more legitimate contenders at that time.

So when these belts passed to other guys, it stemmed from these ridiculous pairings. Nobody beat a legitimate contender. From then on, None of these fights decided who the best in the world was.

Tyson and Holmes really cleaned out. Spinks was a link between the two but he was more legitimate than any of the contenders given those straps.

 

Many of Tysons opponents were beat before they even stepped in the ring. It says a lot about the man.

 

They certainly were beat or half-beat before they got into the ring with Tyson. The landscape at the time was that the champ, Tyson, was the most active heavyweight in the division. It wasn’t like the old days where the contenders all fought each other to determine who challenged the champion. There were no gate keepers. There was a remarkable situation where once a fighter made the top ten he waited until the champion got around to fighting him!

Here is a run down of the title opponents as Tyson got them.

Berbick. Had two fights that year. One world class. Tyson fought 12 times (already that year. Perhaps one was a world class opponent.

Bonecrusher. Smith had faced 4 opponents in the last 12 months. 3 were world class and he had lost one of them. Smith was the only world title opponent Tyson met who had fought more recently than he had.

Thomas had fought on the undercard of Tyson’s last two fights but he had not won a fight against a rated fighter for two whole years. Pinklon was 3-1 Over a period where Tyson had 26 fights and beaten 3 world class opponents.

Tucker had fought on Tyson’s last show. In the past year Tyson had 4 fights, 3 world class opponents to Tuckers 2 fights in that time with one being world level.

Biggs has fought twice that year. His best opponent was a faded David Bey who lost 3 of his last four fights. Over the same time Tyson had beat 2 reigning world champions and one ex champ.

Holmes had not won a fight for almost 3 years. Since Larry last won a fight Tyson had amassed 30-0 run of a 32-0 career, winning 5 world title fights.

Tubbs had not beat a world class opponent since weeks after Tyson started his professional career some three years and 31 fights earlier. The last rated Guy Tubbs fought beat him some two years earlier. Since then he’d been ticking over in 3 low grade wins. whilst Tyson was winning 4 title fights.

Spinks. Since Spinks became a heavyweight Tyson had fought 26 times to Michaels 4 fights. Tyson had won 7 championship fights and beat 6 heavyweight champions. Spinks had only fought one. Since Spinks was last in a ring Tyson had fought 4 times.

Bruno. Since Frank last Fought Tyson had defended his title 3 times. Frank had been inactive for over a year. Bruno had not fought at World level for 3 years.

Carl Williams Fought once in 1986 compared to 13 times Tyson fought. He fought 2 times in 1987 compared to 4 times Tyson had. in 1988 Williams fought the same number of fights as Tyson, 3 times. Among his 5 wins over the time Tyson had been a 20-0 fighter, Williams had only beat one guy good enough to fight for the title. Trevor Berbick. Which was more recent than most of the challengers Tyson met.

Buster Douglas had fought on the last 3 cards Tyson had and his opponents on paper were pretty good. McCall, Berbick and Mike Williams were good enough to fight the last three men Tyson fought, and in meeting them Douglas had clocked up 27 meaningful rounds to Tyson’s 7 mostly one way traffic rounds.

So it turns out that Douglas was the best prepared. Tucker, Williams and Smith were the next best prepared and both Tucker and Smith went the distance.

Most of them would have needed to be a lot better prepared to fight for the title than they were. lack of comparable opposition is a huge disadvantage.

 

That is some thorough information you collected and analysed choklab.

An interesting point Tyson made in his book was the benefits of being the champ. He wouldn't be fit whereas his opponents had got into peak condition. Tyson would then cancel or postpone the fight. In this time his opponents would burn out and he would burst his training to get in good shape.

It backs up what you say in that he wanted his opponents not at their best.

Similar to how Floyd announces his opponents or even Sugar Ray Leonard back in the day.

 

Well, every fighters has their doubters / haters, Mike is no different. If Mike fights went pass few rounds, people say he's putting bad performance but if he beat someone quick, those guys being considered as bums.

Think about fighters like Tony Tubbs who almost beat Bowe on decision , he was being called tough former champ but when he lost to Tyson, people would just think he's nobody. Alex Stewart went to distance against Holyfield and made Foreman face looks unrecognizeable but when Mike beat him quick, people say he's nobody. Tucker, Spinks and Biggs were unbeaten fighters when they fought MIke, but when Mike beat those guys , people would still say Mike never really beat great figthers. Holmes had many more fights after fighting Tyson, yet people only say he's old when he fought Tyson lol; that just how haters judge Tyson's career.

 

Most old school fans are going to put the 70s era of heavyweight boxing as the runaway stand out that not only trumps but is the yardstick to be measured by all eras.

The fact is that both Holmes and Tyson beat everyone they had to (sorry folks, Holmes didn't avoid Page, he just whomped the **** out of the guy that beat Greg).

 

Tyson beat Spinks...HUGE win. It wouldn't have been such if Michael was just coming into the light heavies. Michael beat a pre-grandfather Holmes (in the first fight), was at the time already considered one of the great light-heavies, etc.

Mike walked right through MS, basically forced him to retire. Besides Holmes' victory over Norton, it might have been the biggest victory in a decade for that division.

Mike fought the ranking heavyweights of the time and either blew them out or hopelessly dominated them. Actually so did Holmes, the difference is that Larry didn't mind a tomato can every now and then (Zanon, Frazier, Frank). But then Larry held the title much longer...hell, even Joe Louis had his bum of the month club, and Joe was better than any of the names above imo.

Au fond, Tyson was the MAN in the later 80s and there's no taking that away from him. He and Holmes (mostly Holmes, who had more time) ruled the heavyweight 8os. Page, Witherspoon, Coetzee, Dokes, and Thomas were all clowns compared to the two of them.

It still would have been nice to see Mike fight Weaver...it would have especially been nice to see Weaver-Holmes 2, especially after Mike's bull**** draw with Dokes. Mike had heart and though inconsistent, he could be a really good fighter imo.

 

There is no getting away from it Mike Tyson is a great champion. Without any alphabet recognition, had he beat all those same guys, he was still the best in the world.

Tubbs really was fortunate to be languishing in the rankings without facing ranked fighters though. He especially should only go down as a marking time defence. Tubbs had his trainer walk out on him during camp because he was in no condition to fight. Then he was given a new trainer and offered a cash insensitive to get in shape and make an acceptable fighting weight within the remaining limit of fight night. He failed miserably and came in overweight.

But even at his best Tubbs never was a great fighter. Tubbs was never regarded a real world champion in that at no point was he ever regarded the best heavyweight in the world.

Going the rounds with Bowe dosnt mean anything because Bowe And Holyfield were a level below Tyson in his heyday.They were not dominating champions.

Tyson was still about the best heavyweight in the world then. His win over Stewart really demonstrates the gulf between himself Foreman and even Holyfield at that time. Like I say he was the best out there but he still benefited from his challengers not facing comparable opposition while he was champion.

yes Tyson could not do anymore than he did in establishing his greatness by beating these guys. That’s who he had to beat to look great and he ticks that box in doing so. But you don’t have to beat great fighters to become a great fighter. You only have to beat the best there is at that time as well as he did.

What Tyson did to Larry goes down as what he should have done to a guy like that with such poor preparation. You cannot blame Tyson, but you can blame whoever was responsible for allowing a retired champion who had not won a fight for so long to contest for the title.

Holmes had not won a fight for almost 3 years. Since Larry last won a fight Tyson had amassed 30-0 run of a 32-0 career, winning 5 world title fights.

An impossible task.

 

You made a lot of great points there, many of which I agree . That's pretty much the overall situation for Mike . Remember that Tyson peaked at very young age and the likes of Holyfield and Lennox were still cruiserweight and amateur fighters respectively while Tyson already started to demolished all current and former champs and all top contenders at the time. Tyson defended his belt 9 times which mean he won 10 consecutive championship bouts during those 3 1/2 years.

Holmes who just came out from retirement certainly not in condition to face Mike who's at his very peak but even if he never retire for 2 years, that version of Mike would still beat him in later rounds. The thing is, Holmes visibly scared just like Spinks and majority of Mike opponents. Once you're scared, you dont fight with your plan A .

However, when Tyson fought Holyfield for intense, people never considered the fact that Tyson only had like 7 rounds prior to that after spending 4 years in jail. Meanwhile Holyfield was very active fighters during Mike prison years. Tommy Brooks said he was actually surprised that Tyson went to distance 11 round against that version of Holyfield which I'd consider as Holyfield "second peak period".

Lot of Mike haters also claimed Tyson was only able to win the belt at 20 because Berbrick wasnt great fighter, yet even 3 years later, an aging Berbrick still went 12 round against Douglas.

Tony Tubbs was never an elite level champ but he only had one decision lost before fighting Tyson. So that's still says alot about Mike dominance during his peak.

 

Talking about Tyson, one thing should be kept in mind:

There are as far as I know only four HWs who brought a KO-run like that: George Foreman, Mike Tyson, Joe Louis and Deontay Wilder in their prime.

Tyson 35-0 (31)
Foreman 40-0 (37)
Louis 58-1 (50)
Wilder 41-0 (40)

The last two had more stoppage wins late (keep in mind the chance of a stoppage rises with fight time more power independent, so there´s some corr. with puching quality and fight duration). I´ll exclude Liston, because he didn´t show the punchers pattern in numbers and comparison.
So in therms of dominant agression, Foreman and Tyson were more unique.
In fact Foreman was a good amount bigger than his late 60s and early 70s victims, as far as I know the median opponents weight shows that too.
If you keep weightclass in mind, Tysons median opp. weight was 219 I think, making his vactims at least the same size as him.

And thats really unique about Tyson: As far as I know nobody put a KO-run like that together against HWs his own size. I´m talking about Rooney Tyson here.
If you blind out the KO-result and just check for dominace in therms of won/lost rounds, or check the compubox data for landed punches/punches taken, it again gets very tough finding another HW showing that pattern: Louis, Ali, Foreman come to mind. As we checked, Foreman was just a good amount bigger than his opp. In fact Ali was against his 60s victims too (prob. not as much as Foreman), which lefts Louis here.

Common sense alone tells, the things this guy did in his prime were extremely rare. Also I don´t think alot of Tyson threads lately turn into a rumble. Rightly (and pretty easy argumentatively) the so called Tyson haters are put into their place. As long as you talk about H2H-potential. Criticizing a resume is complete different debate.