When exactly was Tyson's prime?

How does one establish as the best among peers by not beating all their peers?? Its certainly not because a magazine publication says so. If a fighter splits wins and losses with all the fighters on that level wouldnt that establish him as about the same? Were talking about fighters who maybe got through one defense before losing their title to one of these other fighters discussed.
Why cant you just say it was your opinion that Witherspoon was heads above the rest? Most of us would disagree with you, but your entitled to your opinion. Its my opinion Tubbs had the most skills of these three fighters mentioned, but thats just my opinion. He was slick, had a decent jab, and was pretty quick for a round guy. His first loss was a close fight to WItherspoon, his second loss was a blowout by Tyson, but his third loss was a very competitive loss to Bowe, who by the way, had 22 wins and had surely proved himself as a seasoned pro by knocking out guys like Tyrell Biggs, Bert Cooper and Pinklon Thomas.

 

I gotta agree with Magoo here. Spoon was no ATG but was a slight step up from Dokes, Thomas etc. None of the other Alphabet titlists had a resume nearly as deep as Spoons.

Wins over Bruno, Tillis, Page, Bonecrusher, Tubbs, Snipes is a pretty nice and under rated set of wins. You can throw in guys like Ribalta, Carl Williams, and James Broad as well. Tubbs by comparison only has two noteworthy wins, over Page and Bonecrusher. Two guys Spoon also beat. I think Pinkie Thomas had the skills to pay the bills, but he really only had one noteworthy win, the close decision over Spoon. Two if you want to count the win over Quick Tillis, and he had the draw with Coatzee if you want to give him credit for that.

No one is saying that Spoon is the face of the 80s Heavyweight division. But it's fair to say that when it was all said and done, he was the best of the alphabet titlists and probably the number 3 of the decade behind Holmes and Tyson.

 

Who cares what the Ring says? Its a magazine publication. It is the same as your opinion or mine. I think most people would have a problem with the first four fighters listed in that order.

 

Let's compare some of the 80s Alphabet titlists with each other in terms of wins and losses against quality opposition.

Witherspoon has wins over Snipes, Page, Tillis, Smith, Tubbs, and Bruno and losses against Holmes, Thomas, and Smith. That's a record of 6-3 with the close loss to Holmes probably helping his standing.

Tubbs has wins over Smith and Page and losses to Tyson, Witherspoon, and Bowe with the close loss to a young Bowe probably helping his standing. That's a record of 2-3, although if you wanted to stretch it you could argue his wins over Seldon and Ferguson are quality, which pushes his record to 4-3. But if you do this then you have to fault him for his loss to Lionel Butler, which puts his record at 4-4

Thomas has wins over Tillis, and Spoon and the losses to Tyson and Berbick, as well as the draw with Coatzee. I'll forgive everything that happened post Tyson for obvious reasons. That puts Pinkys record at 2-2-1.

So in conclusion, it's fairly easy to see why we are arguing that Spoon is a slight step above the rest of the 80's Alphabet champs. Head to Head, they were all fairly close to each other when at their best. But just looking through their respective records one can see that Spoon has the best resume of the group and the right to be called the best of the alphabet champions of the 80s.

 

We can all put our personal spins on it but why is Tillis and Snipes any better than Norris Seldon or Zolkin? Also take into consideration Tubbs never fought Bruno, but fought someone far better in Bowe and fought competitively. Tubbs also fought to what could have been called a win or a loss against Witherspoon.
The fact that all of these fighters we are discussing, and the point Ive been trying to make all along is that they have lost to each other and beat each other with no fighter dominating the group, and that puts them all in the same category as far as Im concerned. Another point is that all these fighters held and defended their titles in the same way, poorly (against each other I might add), with Pinklon Thomas having the most title defenses of the group.
A magazine publication that has Evander Holyfield ranked third amongst all heavyweights holds little merit in this discussion.

 

No one is arguing that Spoon dominated the group!!! To say that they are all the same because Spoon didn't run over everyone in the 80s is wrong and a foolish way of looking at it imo.

We're both just saying that he is a step above the rest because of his resume which is proved in my previous posts.

 

If you followed this thread it started with Mr Magoo stating that Witherspoon fought better fighters than Thomas and Tubbs combined. Thats not true and the point I made. Would you agree with that? I also pointed out that their records indicated that given their respective competition wins and losses, they all fall into the same category as short term titleists with decent skills. Would you agree with that?
If you believe that Renaldo Snipes and James Tillis are significant wins for Witherspoon I would disagree with that. I would also say fighting competitively against a fighter of Riddick Bowe's stature is a pretty signifcant part of Tubbs resume. Getting knocked out by James Smith in one round doesnt help Spoons case much either as being a step above the rest.

 

Boy, I'm glad you're taking this one over Muchmore....

 

It really is that simple... I don't know why some have made such a project out of this...

 

The Norris fight doesn't count.. The Zolkin match was a robbery and Tubbs victory over Seldon was average at best.. Why do you keep bringing up debunked points?? We went through this already, yet you chose to ignore it..

And Witherspoon fought Holmes with only 15 pro fights to a near standstill. What's your point?

According to who?

When debating on who is the best of a bunch, you have to look at all factors and all angles. You are making broad generalizations about a group of fighters and throwing them all into the same basket, and that's not how analysis works..

Wrong again.. Thomas had one succusful title defense, as did Witherspoon. Mike Weaver defended his title twice against Tillis and Coetzee. Dokes had a draw against Weaver which counts as a defense. So Thomas doesn't stand out at all.. Witherspoon at least has the claim to having won three title fights by derthroning Tubbs, beating Page for the vacant WBC title, and a defense against Bruno after Tubbs...

Common sense and the ability to do a simple search is all it takes.. Simple math really.

The only reason I mentioned the RING ratings, is not because I care for them, but because I was trying to make a point to SuzieQ who lives and dies by them..

 

This thread is getting heated. Good thing it's not just me causing a rawkus on the Classic section lol.

 

Wasnt the discussion of who fought the better competition between Thomas Tubbs and Witherspoon, noone else? Wasnt your statement that Witherspoon fought better fighters than Tubbs and Thomas combined? Now its wins? Your changing it to cover your arse. My statement which I called you out on was that was not true, and its not.

 

Im out of this. God forbid you tell the guy he made a mistake. What started as me saying two simple things has turned into an in depth breakdown on the entire 1980's heavyweight division.
I will leave it at this. All of these fighters were Don King controlled promoted fighters. They all fought each other for the most part. Not one with exception to Mike Tyson, established their dominance over each other, and IN MY OPINION, all had about the same level of skills, taking into consideration how their careers played out, and your right they all coudlnt hold onto the title for more than one defense against the same level of fighter. That speaks volumes in itself to prove my point I would think. Magoo if you think Witherspoon was the best figher of the 80's so be it. :dead