Why is the Pinklon Thomas performance not rated higher for Tyson?

I just put my breakdowns of three key Pinky fights in scoring thread if interested.

 

Of course and I was not singling you out but making a macro point ...

 

Some of Roy’s title opposition did suck though (that guy Kelly rings a bell), whereas none of Tyson’s did.

 

I don’t think they were all mandatories though.

Kelly, Brennan, Byrd, Harmon, Frazier, Grant and Paz couldn’t have all been forced.

That’s even cutting slack to Telesco and Hall, who were tough but raw.

 

For me Tyson basically cleaned up the leftovers from Holmes's era. And I'm not saying to discredit Tyson its more of a compliment actually.

Tyson destroyed guys like Thomas who Holmes didn't fight, and beat guys like Berbick, Williams, easily who went the full 15 with Holmes. And of course dismantled Spinks who beat Holmes twice.

 

They cashed Thomas out.

A smart move as far as I can see. He did not look good at all against the 2 C grade heavies after the Berbick loss.
and that Berbick fight was supposed to be a gimme. Before that was a tough fight with Weaver. So his best effort and A result was quite a few years earlier against Witherspoon.

But I think Thomas loses other fights in that timeframe for a lot less money. Tucker is a tough fight. Biggs would have been tough. Carl Williams and Bruno are hardly automatic wins either. And these bouts would have been for about 1/4 the money he got for Tyson. I think it was a good move at the time for a guy that was not going to win.

 

What exactly makes it a cash out? It was a former champ turned number 1 contender who was a shade past his peak. He was overqualified for a title shot.

 

A few posters seem to be putting a lot of stock in Pinky being rated number 1 contender, as far as I have read boxing rating in 80s heavyweight boxing were a load of rigged cr*pola with Don King being the puppet master and basically whatever he said goes (irrelevant if he actually managed a specific fighter). There seems a wonderfully naive faith in the ranking system that I find quite quaint

 

How were Narcisco Maldonado, William Hosea, Danny Sutton, Pinkon's next three wins after sleepwalking through his loss to Berbick ranked out of interest to make him overqualified for his shot? I am not being a d*ck by the way, I just remember them being rather weak fighters and Pinky less than impressive.

I should add I like Thomas a fighter! I am just stirring some debate as I find it very interesting.

 

I rewatched Tubbs vs Tyson and I thought Tony looked pretty good actually...for one round lol! Btw I think you can face a weaker opponent and look and be a better fighter if you see what I mean, I don't think that is that unusual.

Out of interest where do you rate Mike in your ATG heavyweights? I am always interested to see what other posters think to put their posts in context?

 

He was ring rated #4 i believe when they met.

 

Were any of these guys more qualified in 87? (Not counting Tucker who beat Douglas on the undercard of Pink against Tyson.)

1. Tim Witherspoon
   
2. Tony Tubbs
3. Trevor Berbick
4. James (Buster) Douglas
5. Tony Tucker
6. Frank Bruno
7. Tyrell Biggs

 

For those who’ve claimed there was no “lost generation.” The evidence provided by Tucker, Tate, Thomas, and so many others would seem to demonstrate that the loss was due to a generation that had more money than sense. The lack of restraint cost many up and coming fighters their futures. The benefit Tyson had was a trainer/manager/father figure that was able to encourage some restraint.
That being said, the Thomas fight deserves to be in a highlight reel. Both fights came into ring with bad intentions toward the other; both also had their strategies set. Thomas’s worked until his physical body could no longer keep pace. A few years younger and who knows? Something similar to an Ali Frazier fest?