Did you live the days of prime Mike Tyson ?? What was it like ?

Very exciting time as a teenager . In the 80s he seemed invincible to me and my mates like something from a film . I had his greatest hits video and must of watching hundreds of times .having watched the fights on you tube etc he looked more human . His defeat was a massive shock

 

I had that greatest hits vid too.
Lol it was played so many times. We had nothing else back in 88 - 89 like it.

 

He was bigger than Bird, yes. Bigger than Kareem. Many will disagree but I contend he was almost bigger than Jordan until he lost to Buster Douglas (although not in the same league as the marketer of a product) and then when he went to prison for rapeseed. That will inevitably dim one's star power. But you can't compare boxing to NBA basketball because one is a team sport with an 82-game schedule. At the height of his fame Tyson fought infrequently and each fight was a big event.

 

Tyson from 1985-88 was a FORCE--he was something back then! I'll never forget watching the title fight against Michael Spinks on closed circuit TV at Laurel racetrack. (Yes, closed circuit TV was still around then LOL!!)

Tyson came out of his dressing room like a lion going for the kill! Spinks was scared stiff. I remember going with my brother to that fight and when we saw how Tyson and Spinks entered the ring we both KNEW it wouldn't last more than 2 rounds TOPS!!

That was Tyson's peak--sadly it slid downhill from there. A real shame--he could have been an all-time top-5 HW if he stayed focused and avoided folks like Don King and Robin Givens. They were instrumental in dragging him down and ruining his potential for greatness!!

 

Can you be less predictable or flawed response (not to mention not funny) if you tried ?

 

Ive always been consistent on this issue. What’s the confusion?

 

Well I follow the lineage, not the belts. Of course there are & have been exceptions to the rule here & there, but Tyson’s is a clear-cut case. He became champion upon beating Spinks. He was a partial belt holder until then, no matter how great the consensus on him. The champ was there & active, so had to be beaten.

 

There is no confusion. It's just foolish jiggerish that can be twisted in so many ways it lacks substance. It also discounts legitimate achievement which makes you a victim of the same alphabets you claim to ignore.

 

It’s foolish to follow the lineage, is it? Okay.

& nobody said not being the champion equates to winning a belt being meaningless.

 

If you follow the line, in 1996 Tyson's fight with Holyfield was a fight for the alphabet belt and Grimsley's fight with Foreman was a real championship fight. If you follow the line, we can throw AJ and Klitschko into the dustbin of history and talk about the Fury-Seferi fight because it was important. I understand your point of view, but it has been proven many times that it can be a dead end and you cannot ignore it.

 

I won’t get into those fights as it’ll distract the conversation, but did what was going on there apply to the Tyson & Spinks situation?

 

it didn't have. Since defeating Berbick, Tyson was considered the best HW fighter and in each subsequent fight he confirmed it by fighting the best rivals. Spinks was just another one of them.

 

Well this is the thing specifically I take issue with. That the champion can be crowned on perception alone. I don’t see the logic in it. Why should anyone be considered the champion until they beat the champion? As long as the champ is around & defending, I don’t see any logical reason why or how he can lose his status just on the expectation a challenger would beat him.

 

that is, Tyson's fight with Holyfield was not a championship fight, Grimsley's fight with Foreman was, and Lewis, defending his title against Briggs, was actually a contender. Why do people blame Holmes for fighting Alim in 1980 when he fought against the champion?

 

Beating Tyson is far more impressive than beating Grimsley regardless of lineage. Ali was no longer champ in 1980