Why does Wilder dislike Mike Tyson? Says Tyson never beat anyone

Apologies for reading this late, but I could see that almost none of the statistics you posted is true.

1. "Tyson's statistics include 5 heavyweight belts won, which is a record":
Considering only 'major' titles,
Muhammad Ali won 7 belts: NYSAC, WBC and WBA beating Liston, WBA beating Terrell, WBC and WBA beating Foreman and the WBC belt by beating Spinks.
Evander Holyfield won 7 belts: WBA, WBC and IBF beating Douglas, WBA and IBF beating Bowe, IBF beating Moorer, WBA beating Tyson and the same belt beating Ruiz.
Lennox Lewis won 6 belts: WBC from the trash can and the same belt again beating McCall, WBA and IBF beating Holyfield and then IBF and WBA beating Rahman.
Anthony Joshua won 6 belts: IBF beating Martin, WBA beating Klitschko and WBO beating Parker. Then the same three belts beating Ruiz Jr.

If you mean increasing the belt count, Tyson indeed increased it 5 times. But so did Holyfield.

2. "And the unified title defended 6 times which is a record":
Joe Louis held both the NBA and NYSAC titles and defended them 20+ times. Wladimir Klitschko won the WBO title beating Ibragimov in 2008 while already holding the IBF title. He went on to defend it 14 times after that. Muhammad Ali did so 19 times.

3. "beating 6 former world champions, beating 2 ATG, beating 3 Olympic champions, winning 12 championship fights, two titles of boxer of the year according to The Ring"
I understand that this is not a record, but the reason why Tyson could beat so many champs is because there were so many alphabet titles and weak champs around in 1987. In the ten years leading up to Tyson unifying the titles (1978-1987), there were EIGHTEEN different champions who held some portion of the world heavyweight title. Of the seventeen not named Tyson, only Ali and Leon Spinks held more than one belt at a time, and Tyson faced neither guy (one was long gone, the other insignificant). The only other decade in history where we saw a repeat of this feat was 2000-2009, when there were again 18 guys (and only if we include the WBO title). Perhaps as a consequence, Wladimir Klitschko beat Byrd, Rahman, Peter, Brewster, Chagaev, Ibragimov and Haye. If we include Mercer (1990s WBO champ), the total count is eight. By the way, Tyson's count is seven - Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Tucker, Holmes, Spinks and Tubbs. As you can see, what most people would deduce out of this statistic is that the division was weak, messy and convoluted when Tyson/Wladimir started collecting their belts.

The three Olympic champions beaten by Tyson are Tillman, Biggs and Spinks. Only one of them won the gold at super-heavyweight, only one of them won when there was no boycott from the Cubans and only one of them had a title run in the professionals. More meaningful are Holyfield's wins against Mercer and Foreman. Evander also beat Tillman and drew Lewis.

 

You wrote this entire post only to totally out yourself as an agenda pusher with the comment about Holyfield getting a "draw" against Lewis.

Ali won WBA and WBC against Liston, WBA and WBC against Foreman, and WBC against Spinks. Tyson tied that as the record (until that point). NYSAC doesn't count.

Tyson was the first to unify the "big three" and defended it six times. That is a record although Wlad had a run with the WBO instead of WBC.

Larry Holmes fought in the 80s too and never unified anything. Tyson was fhe first to do it and it was a fairly strong era.

Holyfiled's win over Mercer really wasn't more meaningful than Tyson's win over Biggs, Tyson's win over Spinks is head and shoulders above Holyfield's win over Foreman, and Tillman was insignificant as a pro.

 

That's what I meant. Had he not gone to jail he would be fighting Holyfield and Lewis around 1992-1994. He ruined his career, or perhaps he saved his legacy because a loss to them with no excuses of jail would damage his reputation.

 

Did you even read the post I replied to? It said Tyson collected FIVE belts and that IS A record (not until that point). My post was a rebuttal to that. NYSAC should count, why should it not? Even if it does not, Ali gets six as he beat Terrell to regain the WBA title.

Tyson was the first to unify the big three because the IBF only came into existence in 1983. And the ONLY unification tournament happened (since then) in 1986-87. It wasn't Tyson who organized that tournament - Don King did. If Tyson didn't take part in that tournament, somebody else would have won. It is plain commonsense. But again, that was not written in the original post. Lewis did not unify the big three, because he did not have to - Holyfield carried two titles when he fought Lewis. Bowe did not unify the three titles, because it was already unified for him in 1992. You can only unify when titles are splintered - and this has happened only a few times in history. First in that 1983-87 period, then between 1994 and 1997, then again from 2002 to 2009. The last time it happened was during a brief period - 2016 to 2017. Joshua 'unified' three titles in 2018. A record is only meaningful if champions for most part of history have a fair and equal chance to create, emulate, surpass or break it, otherwise it is just a trivial statistic.

How Biggs is significant at professional level is beyond me. And saying 'beating Mercer isn't more meaningful than beating Biggs' is laughable considering that Biggs never achieved anything at the highest level. What was Biggs's best win? Ossie Ocasio? Renaldo Snipes? Biggs was a glorified journeyman who finished only twice in the top ten in Ring Magazine's rankings - at #9 and #10. Mercer on the other hand was ranked six times on Ring's list, with his highest ranking being at #4. Though inconsistent, Mercer only had one bad loss (Ferguson, a loss that he avenged) until his mid FORTIES! Biggs lost to Damiani, Mason, Hunter, Mathis, Anis and Donald. Stop hyping Tyson's opponents just to glorify him and stop calling others 'agenda pushers'.

 

Got me on Terrell (bs title). NYSAC was bound to the WBC. No heavyweight had to independently win each belt and then the WBC absorbed it officially.

Winning the three splintered belts is difficult and unique; just give Tyson his credit and move on from convoluted explanations. Lewis, Holyfield, and Bowe won all three belts and never defended them consecutively as many times as Tyson. Even if Lewis hadn't been stripped, Rahman still would have ended it for him.

Biggs was undefeated and more highly regarded when he fought Tyson than Mercer was when he fought Holyifled. If you can't accept that, it just shows how up in your feelings you are. Mercer was coming off a draw against Marion Wilson, a questionable win against Ferguson, and a loss to Ferguson a year earlier.

 

Only after you admit he was put in the place to win them in the tournament that was never held before or after him.

 

Let's throw Usyk, Crawford and Andre Ward under the bus while we're at it. They suck too. Am I right?

 

Nobody said Tyson sucks, so you're just arguing with yourself right now.

 

In case you found my explanation convoluted, let me explain again in simple terms. When Tyson 'unified' the three titles, he did it in the unification series as a compulsion. Either Tyson would walk away with all three titles, or he would go home empty handed. Michael Spinks for example, refused to defend his title against Tony Tubbs and was stripped of his title and kicked out of the tournament. So, what would Tyson do instead of unifying? Go home without a belt? Let us not forget that Tyson entered the tournament as a contender, so he was basically out of choice.

There has never been a unification tournament since then. This means that no heavyweight in history has had the chance to unify under the same conditions as Tyson. Holmes did not unify because the money wasn't good for him. Tyson did the same in 1996. He had a chance to defend his WBC title against Lewis and then go for the IBF title (held by Moorer at the time). But he simply vacated the WBC title and went after Holyfield. Reason? Money. Wladimir Klitschko deserves appreciation on this part. The dude took a pay cut to unify his title against Ibragimov. Then beat Haye to unify three titles while fulfilling his mandatory duties. He couldn't unify all titles because the WBC title was held (for the most part) by his brother Vitali. Anthony Joshua also did the same thing. He was also crippled in his desire to unify the titles by forced mandatories and the very protected Wilder. Later, he was beaten by Usyk.

Being undefeated or highly regarded at some point means very little when the wins have come against unrecognizable opposition. Luis Ortiz was undefeated (39-0) and 'highly regarded' at the time of his fight against Deontay Wilder. There have many such hypejobs in history. Biggs was one of them.

 

Luis Ortiz was also better than Mercer.

 

Tbf to Wilder, it probably really hurts to look up to an atg for so long just for him to talk smack about you. There’s so much pride and arrogance with these older fighters and a lot of the time they just belittle the new guys coming up. I seriously doubt Wilder really believes his resume is better than Mike’s.

 

You don't have to apologize, there's no deadline for a response and the question wasn't directed at you. but since you called me out, I'll answer like this:
Fact 1 Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Bruno, Seldon were the current world champions when they fought Tyson. So Tyson defeated current world champions 5 times. If you add Spinks, who was a linear champion, you have 6 of those.
Fact 2 Holmes, Thomas, Bruno, Tubbs, Ratliff, Spinks were former or future world champions
Fact 3 Biggs, Tilmann, Spinks were Olympic champions. If you take away recognition from Tilman and Biggs for titles without Cuban fighters, you have to do the same in the case of Lewis, Mercer, Whitaeker, etc. I am not accounting for this, each of them was a very talented boxer since they represented their country at a time when Olympic boxing was at a high level. Biggs was still the amateur world champion where the Cubans fought, and in LA he defeated Lenox Lewis.
Fact 4 cannot be disputed that almost all, ALMOST all of Tyson's rivals were prime or close to it. See average age. Even Jesse Ferguson, treated with contempt in the 1990s when he fought Tyson, was a young, forward-thinking and unbeaten fighter who did not yet have the mentality of a sparring partner.
Fact 5 if anyone remembers those times should remember that Rudock in 1990 was considered a much more dangerous boxer than Lennox Lewis in 1996, anyone dispute that?
Fact 6 Tyson did not win SD, MD .. most of his fights were outclasses. Class difference, level difference... Tubbs, Spinks, Ruddock, Bruno, Biggs and several others - each of them recognized Tyson in the Best in Faced series as the best rival they had fought, better than Holmes, Bowe, Lewis

 

1. I talked about this record when I said increasing the title count. The only difference between this stat and the title count is that the title count can also be increased by winning a vacant title. Then again, you can beat more champions when there are more champions. As I explained in one of my other posts, the period 1978-87 had eighteen different champs which coupled with the splintered state in the mid-90s afforded Tyson the luxury of facing so many 'champions'. No other boxer received this privilege.
By the way Holyfield beat four (Douglas, Bowe, Tyson and Moorer) and Lewis two (Holyfield and Rahman). See the next point for more details.
2. Holyfield beat Thomas, Dokes, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Ruiz and Rahman who were former or future champs. That is seven champs. If we include Mercer, the number rises to eight. Lewis beat Weaver, Tucker, Bruno, Mccall, Tyson, Briggs and Vitali. If we include Mercer and Morrison, the number is eight again. I haven't included Ocasio, since he was a champ at different weight class (so was Ratliff).
If we add all champs (current, former or future), the count is nine for Tyson, ten for Holyfield (not including Mercer) and nine for Lewis (not including Mercer and Morrison). Ocasio and Ratliff are excluded from these lists.
What can we observe from this statistic? Tyson had more wins against current champs while Holyfield and Lewis have more against past or future champs. The reason? Holyfield and Lewis arrived after Tyson in the late 80s when many 'current' champs of the 80s became former champs. They also stayed prominent until the 2000s. Hence the difference.
3. You certainly can bring the Cubans into the equation with Lewis and Mercer, but both these champs proved themselves on the professional scene. Biggs and Tillman did not.
4. This isn't a fact at all. Here are the ages of some of Tyson's rivals.
David Jaco: 32
Jesse Ferguson: 28
James Tillis: 28
Mitch Green: 29
Reggie Gross: 33
Marvis Frazier: 25
Jose Ribalta: 23
Alfonso Ratliff: 30
Trevor Berbick: 32
James Smith: 33
Pinklon Thomas: 29
Tony Tucker: 28
Tyrell Biggs: 26
Larry Holmes: 38
Tony Tubbs: 30
Michael Spinks: 31
Frank Bruno: 27
Carl Williams: 29
Buster Douglas: 29

I will stop here as Tyson's first reign ends. In his later years, he came up across old Bruno, Holyfield, Lewis, Botha, Nielsen etc. I have included nineteen rivals above and excluded the remaining as they have no meaningful credentials. Of the nineteen, EIGHT fighters were in their thirties and four were in their thirtieth year! Also, the average is 29.5 years, again close to 30. Unless you want to claim that boxers prime around thirty (in which case you need to explain why Tyson's prime should not be taken to be in the mid 90s and Ali's in the 70s) and since you used the phrase 'ALMOST all' when referring to Tyson's rivals, I must say that you made a statement contrary to the truth.
5. As I mentioned in one of my posts, just because a boxer is highly or dangerously regarded at a certain period of time, he must not be automatically rated to be of high caliber. Samuel Peter for instance, was considered to be a very deadly boxer at a certain point of time. Until he was exposed.
6. How many Tyson fights went the distance? Tillis, Green, Tucker, Smith and Ruddock. Just five! And there are only two titlists in that list, both with zero defenses!

 

I didn't understand everything, but from what I understood, in most cases you agree with me
1. Tyson has won against the most current champions, which is 5, right? that's a record... of course he had it easier because of the alphabet... just like others
2. Tyson did not win against the largest number of former champions, it seems that Lewis and Holyfield won against a larger number, but the number of 6 is still impressive. What's more, Holyfield, in order to win against a larger number, had to first lose would Bowe be current champion if Holy hadn't lost to him? Tyson won against 38-year-old Holmes, Holy against 42-year-old Holmes. Tyson outclassed Holmes, Holy did nothing to him. Would Lewis have beaten former champion McCalor or current champion Rahman if he hadn't lost to him? Context MATTERS!! Style MATTERS. Oh, Holy DID NOT WIN against Ruiz, just like he didn't draw against Lewis. This matters too.
3. It seems that most of Tyson's rivals are players around the age of 30, which is the period in which HW most often reaches his prime, of course there are exceptions, but nothing indicates that Tucker, Smith, Berbick, Spinks, Thomas, Biggs, Bruno , Ferguson, Ribalta, Stewart, Tubbs were old, broken or past prime when they fought Tyson but there are many indications that they were like that when they fought Lewis or Bowe. Biggs did not achieve success in professional sports, but one of the reasons was the defeat against Tyson. He himself claimed that after Tyson he never trained so hard again. Why not believe him if he confirmed it in the ring? If Holyfield had beaten Bowe in the first fight and then in subsequent fights, what would you say about Riddick? who is this great rival and who did he win against? with Tubbs after the booed verdict

 

Of course, context matters, which is why you should look beyond just the age of Holmes. Holmes was poorly trained, in bad shape and had no fights between 1986 and 1991 besides the one against Tyson. In contrast, Holmes had multiple tune-up fights before he took on Holyfield. He also scored a win against Mercer. Holyfield clearly defeated Ruiz in that first fight, the whole robbery thing is sham. In fact, Ruiz was the one who robbed Holyfield of that win in their third fight.
You say most heavyweights reach their prime around the age of 30, just look at when these boxers hit their thirties.
Louis - 1944.
Ali - 1972.
Tyson - 1996.
Frazier - 1974.
Foreman - 1979.
Patterson - 1965.
Dempsey - 1925.
Bowe - 1997.

Did any of the above prime near the year where they hit 30? All these seem to have been removed some five years from their respective primes. Among the super champs of the twentieth century, only Lewis (1995), Marciano (1953) and Holyfield (1992) primed close to the age of 30. Of course, this has changed in modern times due to improved medicine. But we are talking about Tyson's time here.
By the way, we can do the same for Holyfield's early career and first reign. See below:

Tillis - 31
Thomas - 30
Dokes - 30
Rodrigues - 30
Stewart - 25
McDonagh - 27
Douglas - 30
Foreman - 42
Cooper - 25
Holmes - 42
Bowe - 25

The average is 30.72. Slightly above Tyson's. I don't see too much of a difference. Btw, Holyfield is himself four years older than Tyson.

Finally, about the 'what if' parts, just as Biggs says: 'I stopped training because I lost to Tyson', Bowe could have trained more seriously if he suffered multiple defeats at the hands of Holyfield. We never know. There are stories of fighters doing better after suffering losses (Lewis, Klitschko) and also those who get devastated with such losses (Foreman, Joshua). Ultimately, it is what happened that matters, not what could have happened.