And you don't think Toney was past his prime at 35, fighting 50lbs above his natural weight class, and already very punch drunk? What a ridiculous argument to make. In any case, Mike looked incredible in the second Bruno fight. Easily the best he had looked since Spinks.
What while he was punching the **** out of Evander? He looked fine. Plus Toney competed competently against Peter and Rahman subsequently. Oh yeah and never ever got stopped. Bruno fought a less than half hearted fight. Then Seldon fell over from a punch that missed and then a supposed washed up Holyfield destroyed Tyson. Was this Tyson at his best then? Get the Tyson fan girl glasses off. He was still reasonable in 1996 but he sure as hell wasn’t the fighter he was in 1986. Toney could conceivably compete with this 3 round fighter no sweat. People really struggle to seperate the two careers of Tyson. It’s laughable the faith they place in him.
Holyfield was 40 ****ing years old when he fought Toney. You don't think 96 Mike could have ran over that version of Holyfield?
Who knows? Maybe he would’ve. The question is if he’d have ran over 2003 Toney, which considering no one ever did, I’m not so sure. See people automatically think Tyson in a fight is automatically the fighter he was at his peak and he simply wasn’t. Comeback Tyson had a couple of iffy wins, one or two good displays (Bruno 2 being one of them but Bruno was **** that fight anyway) and a lot of disappointing displays that get glossed over because it doesn’t fit the Tyson/destroyer narrative. Tysons second career was by and large ordinary. But because it’s Tyson he gets a pass and gets the benefit of the doubt far too much. My original answer was facetious but the more I ponder it the more I think Toney could win it. Deal with it.