Why do people keep calling Tyson's opponents "bums and Holmes leftovers"

That's up for a spirited debate!

 

Give me Dempsey's 5 best pelts. Something like this...

1. Old Semi-Retired Willard who had fought 10 rounds in 4 years
2. Jack Sharkey, a middling but not great heavyweight
3. Um... um...
4. Yeah, that guy.
5. And that guy that Rickard told everyone was really great.

Compare and Contrast...

1. 48-2 Holmes by KO. Never KO'd before or since as a pro.
2. 31-0 Spinks by KO .Never KO'd a
3. 34-0 Tony Tucker
4. 29-1 Pinky Thomas
5. 25-1 Razor Ruddock

 

3. Um... um...
4. Yeah, that guy.
5. And that guy that Rickard told everyone was really great.

That made LOL for real AND spit my breakfast cereal out damn it.

 

Willard was a giant who rivaled AJ in skill, even at the time when Dempsey fought him
Jack Sharkey was very skilled and would even rival a fighter like Floyd Patterson
He beat Billy Miske who was a very great heavy
Georgies Carpentier may have been better than Michael Spinks. In fact, H2H Carpentier was more dangerous than Spinks at light heavy.

 

I see a fork in the road. It says Stupid or Troll.

Stay safe, mate.

 

That's a false dilemma, a logical fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Dilemma

 

If Rickard said it then it must be gospel!

 

Great posts by everyone. Still waiting for the ever faithful Unforgiven to pop up and discredit everything Tyson did in his career.

Most of the pre prison group that Tyson blitzed were coming off their best wins:

Ferguson had the 1 loss to Truth Williams but decked him twice.
Green had 1 loss by MD to Berbick.
Frazier had wins over Tillis, Ribalta and Bonecrusher after his only loss to Holmes.
Berbick decisioned undefeated Pink Thomas.
Bonecrusher KO1 Witherspoon.
Thomas had only the 1 loss to Berbick and was never even knocked off his feet.
Tucker had been undefeated and hadn't lost since his amateur days in 1978.
Biggs was the undefeated Olympic Gold Medalist.
Holmes wanted to prove his losses to Spinks were flukes.
Tubbs had only 1 loss, a split decision to Witherspoon.
Spinks was the undefeated "lineal" champ.
Bruno had gotten into position after knocking out Tillis and Bugner.
Carl Williams had beaten Cooper and Berbick.
Alex Stewart had the 1 loss due to cuts against Holyfield.
Ruddock had KO's over Bonecrusher and Dokes.

 

Comedy gold .....

 

He forgot to add Leroy Jones in that mix...

 

When you consider either the record of those they fought, or how good they were in absolute terms-Dempsey's guys being tiny in comparison, with the exception of a soft & for years inactive Willard-who did not even start boxing until very late in life...

I cannot see how Dempsey's opponents were nearly as good as Tyson's.

 

This content is protected

 

BTW, I am not slamming Holmes either .. post Cooney Holmes was 33 and on the start off the downward slide of his career .. he edged a very tough Tim Witherspoon .. yes Tim only had 15 fighter but he was a comer in the division, he was in possibly the best physical shape of his career , he had beaten Snipes, beaten Ratliff and in nine months after the Holmes fight would beat Greg Paqe. He beat Smith, also in terrific shape and Smirth had just come from behind to destroy Frank Bruno on national TV .. He then beat David Bey who had just beaten Greg Page and then edged a huge Carl Williams .. my point is yes there were the Marvis Fraziers and the Scott Franks but Holmes still defeated some huge, athletic , gifted and dangerous future champs ..

 

HAHAHAHA!! Now THAT is going too far. But am I right? You still haven't said anything good about Iron Mike.

 

Dominant champions almost always get the criticism that they are only dominant because their opponents are rubbish. Also more hardcore boxing fans often dislike fighters that are popular with casual boxing fans.