86-89 , Was Tyson THAT good / or were his opponents so poor ?

Mixture really
But we can say the same about Joe Louis s reign.
He was a fantastic fighter obviously but some of the challenges were pretty poor.

 

Exactly, he litterally had a "bum of the month".

 

A bit of both.
Tyson was obviously very gifted and very well schooled and prepared to fight in a certain way. He was also matched in a certain way, and everybody does that. If you have a guy that has money making potential, you match him to advantage, to make him look good.
In that early run, Tyson brought something to the table that Frazier did not and even Louis did not. Tyson did not fight like a heavyweight. The quick movements to gain angles, the shifts and so on, he fought like a smaller fighter. Even the upper level guys that he fought during that run were not prepared for a heavyweight that fought like a lightweight. The only reason that some of those guys- Thomas and Holmes for example- lasted as long as they did because of the flaws in the system that Tyson was taught.

 

Combo of both, as it usually is.

 

Bum of the month referred to him fighting a top guy every month for 7 months not his opponents status. A very big difference between Louis and Tyson is him beating the legends of the previous era either before winning the belt or early in his reign. Not counting Johnny Davis Louis had at most 5 questionable title opponents out of 25. He was bringing in another 8 title worthy wins before getting the belt and added another 3 title wins in the 50s and the Beshore win. So Louis has his 26 title worthy wins no matter which way you slice it.

 

Chuck in Alex Stewart too. He gave Holyfield hell twice, gave Moorer a world of trouble and busted Foreman up as badly as anyone ever did. Tyson just blew him away in seconds.

Tyson just destroyed good fighters that looked okay either side of him. Berbick, Thomas, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno,Williams - all had looked fine going into the fight and all of them, apart from Spinks, went on to give other top fighters hell but Tyson blew the lot away, barely losing a round. He was that good, you were often surprised to see him lose a round.

His reign was about the same length as Ali's 60s reign and had much tougher opposition and he was far more demonstrably superior to his foes. He faced similar standard opposition to Frazier as champ for a similar length of time (apart from Ali in FotC) and was more impressive in blowing his opponents away. Not quite as shocking performances as Foreman produced in his reign but Tyson was twice as busy and reigned twice as long.

86-89 is three years. There aren't all that many reigns that lasted as long and even fewer where the gulf between champ and challenger was as clear. And he was fighting decent fighters who would go on to give ATGs tough fights. It really was a phenomenal reign.

I'll also say this. Before @RockyJim comes on and blusters about quitting ... and never getting off the floor ... to win, Tyson's reign was the same length as Marciano's and for the most part he fought younger, fresher and bigger opposition. In my opinion, the 86-89 version of Tyson goes through Rocky's opposition with ease. He'd never need to show heart and he'd be no less great for it.

 

a mix of both. He was so confident of his power and destructing guys, and yet his style always has had it's flaws and the great fighters would have exposed them. But those fighters would have had to take the early onslaught and been big enough guys to do this, and also have a great right hand and really opposition.

 

I think Tyson and Joe Louis were the only two to have such dominant runs knocking everyone out and they looked so perfect doing it. Form and speed personified.

 

Fixed it lol

 

That’s not what you think it is.