Why is Tysons competition poo pooed

He's lacking a signature win but so is Larry Holmes, Wlad and some other atg's. He dominated some very good fighters and didn't avoid anyone. Even a few of his post prison wins like Bruno and Golota are decent names.

 

No anger, just contempt.

I've merged what now? Never said they were at the same time (and was fully aware that they weren't), but you think a heroine addiction won't age you prematurely? Which his body testifies to if you compare it to how it looked against 'Spoon three years earlier.

And trying a music career and being a manager at the same time that you're a world level boxer isn't exactly the best example of dedication.

Maybe he would have even if Witherspoon wasn't as inconsistent as he was. And maybe Douglas would have KO'd Tyson even if he had kept his dedication of his first years as a champion.

My simple point is that there are several of the top guys of the mid 80's that you could do contra factuals about. This was an era with good talent, even apart from Holmes and Tyson, but also a lot of poor discipline. That's why a fairly average fighter like Berbick actually have one of the better resumes of that era of HWs. He wasn't very impressive, but he showed up.

Tyson gets a lots of excuses from his fanboys, like yourself, but saying that very much the same applied to a fair amount of the best HWs of the 80's and that Tyson in all likelihood would have faced stiffer competition if it didn't, gets the whole loud mouth contingent of you going.

So with that said, enough time wasted on you as well.

 

Please waste some more time. Direct me to the heavyweight era in which every boxer remained in peak condition without injuries, bad habits, or other distractions?

 

Good point. A heroine addiction is absolutely disastrous for your health. You're always quarreling with the heroine, and saving her from dragons, and generally encountering all sorts of dangerous villains and obstacles with her.

 

Thomas didn't start looking bad until he shaved his head for Holyfield. Even against Berbick he looked solid but overconfident. I'm sure Berbick didn't infuse fear in Thomas the way Tyson did.

I mean fighters whipped themselves into shape and were training to their best ability in fear of getting killed by Tyson!! Beating Mike Tyson was far more profitable and credible than winning the title.

 

It is his fault however that by age 23 when he should have been ready to take on all the fighters in their primes, he either became exposed or declined and got knocked out in Tokyo.

Even by age 29-30 he still should have been good enough to beat a declining Holyfield if he was such an all time great.

And since he did lose to Douglas, do you really like his chances against Holyfield in 1991? Way it looks is, Tyson would have been remembered as the guy that never beat anyone in their prime no matter what. That is his fault.

 

Usually when posters claim he lacked a signature win I tell them to look at his overall opposition, how deep it was and how he consistently steamrolled world ranked guys who hadn't even been knocked down! These fighters had an extensive amateur background and came up during the best era of heavyweight prospects the sport had ever seen.

It's difficult to have other ATG's in your era when you're constantly drubbing them. It's almost as if they lost hope and desire to even stay competitive in the division. This extremely young dynamo was discombobulating everyone with no end in sight, and it was disheartening.

It's funny how Tyson's opposition gets poo pooed: Mike demolishes guys and they're called bums. But then you take someone like Evander Holyfield who goes to war with the same guy and gets the warrior stamp of approval by coming back from the brink of disaster!

 

Yes.

And that don't mean I think Thomas was a bad opponent when he met Tyson. He still had skills and was game and durable as hell, even though he visibly tired fairly quickly. But the issues and distractions he had surely didn't help and I think his body looked prematurely aged.

 

Not as funny as how the Tyson brigade always has an excuse for his losses.

 

To answer the thread question, I don't think Tyson's 80's opposition was bad. Tucker (if we very technically count Douglas as 90's opposition) was probably the best, taking his condition at the time in consideration. And personally I tend to accept what Leonard said in the commentary about such injuries as his hand, that you don't really feel it in the moment because of the adrenalin. But again, I'd like some consistency from Tyson fans who usually highlight the injuries of other champions' opposition.

But Williams was also a good fighter and Biggs certainly had some tools even though he didn't look like he could put it together tactically on the night. Berbick was game and there to fight, same with Smith who had tons of chin and power even though limited overall. Thomas was past his best I think, but still good and also very game. Tubbs still had quality even though he didn't look properly prepared neither physically or mentally. Bruno had underrated skills and also of course big and strong as hell, and you can never count out such a great pro as Holmes.

Tyson truly did the business with these guys and that is no mean feat, far from it.

If we take Tyson's first reign as a whole, also counting Douglas, I feel confident in saying that Tucker and Douglas was the two best opponents looking at their condition at the time of the fight. I think Tucker was competitive throughout, even though it was a clear points win for Tyson, and Tyson of course lost to Douglas.

 

Spinks was a signature win.

 

But would you say the same thing to Benitez, Fernando Vargas, David Reid, Riddick Bowe, etc.?

A lot of the guys with early success don’t last. You can’t say what they should be doing at 30+ like they’re getting their first title shot at that age.

 

Tyson losing to Buster — getting battered and dominated — in his physical prime is one that’s impossible to work around while assessing him.

 

He almost won.

The Douglas fight and to a lesser extent Holyfield fights keep him from being in the top 2 or having a case for the 1 spot all time. The case for top 5 remains alive and well, much to your disdain.