To a degree but mostly post prison by King as he was a very fragile billion dollar commodity .. he certainly fought guys but they were never in a rush for him to fight Too, Mercer, Lewis or Bowe ... there are lot's a convenient arguments to make to defend this but those were massive match ups the were avoided as long as possible ..
And we, the diehard boxing fans, suffer. Another cause and effect of this kind of thing is the general lack of interest in the sport over the last 5 decades, because big bouts are not made when the fire is hot. I really don't want to imagine the sport 20 or 30 years from today.
Not for a last fight, and he's done pretty well since. As I said before Sanders was often mentioned as a name for Tyson, but Tyson picked safer guys, Already said who and when, and no I'm not talking about beating Bruno in his last fight or Seldon who looks like he took a dive, but likely just froze.
it is always terrible to pick charr for a title defence, and he has done nothing except beat a 40 year old man since. Beating a 40 year old man is Mendoza's definition of "doing pretty well". Even the K bros explicitly through choice didnt face such as title fights. Your own heroes tear down your argument.
sure tyson picked the safe option of people who had been able to win titles, you utter idiot. "sanders was only avoided in your eyes, the moment he when retired, smashed out prime wlad, not beforee that moment.... but as soon as wladdie hit the floor, your mind SUDDENLY CREATED all these ducks of sanders his whole career.
Charr was not close to 40. Check his age, he was in his prime and undefeated when meeting Vitali. Duh. Since the loss to Vitali he has gone on to beat some former contenders and won the WBA World title. If you want to talk about the topic the thread, go for it. If you're going to sound like a fool by pivoting and talk about someone else, and do it incorrectly, might I suggest the lounge?
charr didnt fight himself! how can he be his own 40 year old opponent? he fought that bald 40 year. I dont get why this has to be spelled out to you. get a grip mendy.
You are saying Charr was a terrible pick for Vitali. I'm saying he was undefeated at the time and went on after words to beat other guys who got title shots to win a WBA world title belt. So in hindsight the pick was not a bad one. That's what I'm saying. I don't think Ustinov, then 30-1 was very good. Yeah he was older. If you need to post that to act like you are correct for a change, have fun.
Don King intentionally & very cleverly managed to install 2 weak titlists ready for Tyson to feast on, the IBF was out of his control if my memory serves. So after 2 gimmes in Mcneely & Mathis, which considering 4 years of total inactivity were understandable, he fought Bruno & Seldon, which is still a progressive couple of opponents. Now we move onto Holyfield who the Tyson camp felt was easy pickings for the most reward & turned out to be the fly in the ointment. We have to assume that had Tyson beaten Holyfield the big matches with Bowe et al would've been made at some point because the money would've been astronomical & King would gain more confidence with his matchmaking choices. Unfortunately Holyfield derailed that plan & tbh I'm not sure how interested Tyson was in being the best fighter he could be at this point in his career.
and you, so u destroy yourself. again. so its ok that you felt the need to run away by suddenly discussing banning instead. u keep having a go at tyson for his fading years career whilst defending prime charr for his best effort being a 40something man. its what u r best at, contradicting yourself totally.
He won the most worthless belt in all of boxing. Even with that belt he still doesn't have a ranking inside the top 100 today. Charr is and was useless , Vitali fighting him was a huge cherry pick.
So if he had fought Mercer, who was unranked and had just lost to Holy and Lewis, you wouldn't call that a cherry pick today? That would have been a more relevant fight than going after the available titles?
