An unbiased evaluation of Tyson.

Retired Holmes boxed exhibitions in Vegas after the Spinks fights and looked good doing it. He was not done with boxing after Spinks. Holmes was still as good as Thomas or Tubbs were for their shot at Tyson (What did those two do to earn their shot?) Even if it was an old Holmes it took a great fighter to dispense with old Larry the way Mike did.

Tucker, Williams, Bruno and Biggs were excelent wins. Under 1980s events these were relevant contenders and would be champions yet Tyson turned them away. Holyfeild did not overcome chalengers like this as a defending champion. Prime Holmes struggled more with comparable foes during his reign also. Foreman? And so on...

As chalengers to TYsons throne Htolmes, Tubbs and Thomas were not actually relevent to the current scene and should not be seen as better opponents than Biggs, Tucker, Williams, Smith and Bruno were at that time.

 

Never said it was Tyson's best win, but a good win nonetheless. Underrated even. At least by the few disputing that Holmes was rusty.

Look at Holmes' physique! He certainly looked in shape. If he was sitting on his ass for 2 years doing nothing and then had "a few weeks" to prepare I'm sure he wouldn't look the way he did. I mean, did he even look that bad fighting wise?

Watch the end of the Tyson-Biggs fight. Barry Tompkins said Holmes looked very good in sparring and the exhibitions. Like I said before, a fight between Tyson and Holmes almost came off in 1986. Cayton and Jacobs had a deal to fight Holmes. Larry knew he'd face Tyson eventually.

I think it had more to do with Tyson being prime than Holmes being "rusty".

 

I acturally would rate his opposition better than anyone's pre Ali, better than Holmes, better than Wlads. I didn't used to think this but after watching more of their fights I realise they were of a pretty high standard.

His weakness obviously is he doesn't have a top 10 ATG in their prime on his ledger.

I read this too and 1 of my hero's became a disappointing figure for me. I'm not sure how honest it was either, I think he did **** Washington, he makes too many excuses for poor performances and I think he amps up certain aspects a little. But we all stretch the truth.

 

Michael Spinks
*Mike Tyson
James (Bonecrusher) Smith
Pinklon Thomas
Tim Witherspoon
Tony Tubbs
Trevor Berbick
James (Buster) Douglas
Tony Tucker
Frank Bruno
Tyrell Biggs

that's the ring ratings for 1986. Tyson fought 9 of the ten and beat 8, all within 3 years.

 

It has to do with both.

 

Fair enough.
Larry Holmes was such a great fighter that even at a diminished level he brought something to the table. As much as a Tubbs or Smith etc.

 

Tyson ducked Tim Witherspoon.

Just kidding.

Mike Tyson was the Elvis Presley of boxing. For the first few years of his career, as a young man, he was untouchable. Then he softened up a bit. He didn't work as hard. He was distracted by negative influences. As a result he had off nights and poor performances. But he was still damn good and capable of looking great until the very last years. I'm glad he, unlike Presley, is still with us.

 

How many other fighters since there was the WBC, IBF, WBA titles available beat 3 separate defending champions and then made 7 defences of the unified titles?

Thats wiping out the whole division.

Then there is the Holmes win.

Holmes was retired?

How long was Mayweather retired when he signed to fight Marquez?

How did Mercer, McCall and Holyfield do with an even older Holyfield off a second retirement?

 

hmm that's an interesting perspective. :good

 

It will be interesting to see just how many good sub-6' heavyweights emerge in the modern era of giants. I'm guessing precious, precious few. It takes a unique combination of qualities to regularly beat tall, strong athletic men as Tyson did.

In time, Tyson's accomplishments as a short, sub-6' heavyweight may be come to be appreciated more. Since him, how many have we had? Off the top of my head, basically Tua and Chagaev, and Buster Mathis jnr. (at an extreme stretch) and none were anywhere near as successful as Tyson.

 

there will never be another fighter like Tyson ever, in any division.

Tyson was the most brutal, most merciless fighter ever.

as Sugar Ray once said, Tyson in his prime was a killing machine.

 

:good

Watch the Tyson vs. Biggs fight post fight interview and you will see that Larry Holmes was already in preparation for a Tyson fight. I personally don't think anything changes if Mike fought a 1979-1983 version of Holmes; he'd still beat him. The "the fight was about the money" excuse was plugged in afterwards. Larry said several times that he's rich and he didn't need the money. He wanted to prove a point.

As for Michael Spinks? Beating Larry Holmes isn't an inditement of how low Holmes had sunk. Throughout history LHW's have come up in weight and have been able to make a mark of the Heavyweight division.

Gene Tunney former LHW beat Jack Dempsey. Twice

Billy Conn gave Joe Louis all he could handle.

Archie Moore dropped Rocky Maricano and remained a relevant heavyweight despite his LHW roots.

Micheal Moorer beat Evander Holyfield in his prime.

Roy Jones Jr. came up and took a belt from John Ruiz

Tomasz Adamek beat Cris Arreola.

The point is that LHW has nothing to do with it especially since Spinks beat a version of Larry Holmes that would, 7 years later, beat a prime Ray Mercer more convincingly than Evander Holyfield and Lennox would to an older Mercer. I should remind you that Evander struggled with Holmes a lot more than Tyson did on the basis that styles makes fights.

Holmes was prepared. I don't know how old you are or how well you remember that time period but nobody undertrained for Tyson; especially not a esteemed champion who reigned for 7 years and recorded 20 title defenses. Keep in mind it wasn't just a question of pride and legacy as it was a question of safety. People saw what he was doing to opponents. Holmes wasn't undertrained or poorly prepared, he was just beaten by a man who at that time period was the embodiment of 'the baddest man on the planet.'

Holmes wasn't better prepared at 42, he was just better matched. If he fought Tyson in 1991 or 1992 the result would have been a Tyson KO. Holmes matched up better with Holyfield and Mercer than he did with Tyson.

Larry Holmes had more in the tank at 38 than Lewis, Holyfield, Ali, Tyson did at that same age. His style relied on fundamentals more so than youth which is why he was able to fight for so long without ever suffering a KO.


As for Tyson's reign? Well simply put he cleaned out the division and brought major clarification by unifying the titles at a time where the splintered belts was about to chaos to the HW hierarchy. He wouldn't just beat the champions, he'd also beat those guys beat to win the belt to show that it's around the waist of the right man.

You can scrutinize and undermine the fact that he doesn't have a ATG in his prime but often throughout history more HW Champions don't have that natural rival. What Tyson does have is depth. His wins over ranked opponents due to his activity is quite impressive. His ability to remain relevant in the division given his size and stature show that even as a 'swarmer' he outlasted Frazier and Marciano in that department as he was there longer than both.

Truly an ATG Champion and worthy or his HOF credential and has earned a spot in my TOP 10 ATG Heavyweight Rankings.

 

I liked the Tucker fight a lot with regards to Tyson's accomplishments. It was a measured performance against a pretty dangerous fighter and he did not get rattled one tiny bit when Tucker landed that decent uppercut in round one, he just walked through it like it didn't happen. That was the difference between pre and post prison Tyson, he was a lot less discouraged pre prison, and he was hit more than people think, he just never showed the effects. Even in his book he mentioned he was hurting all over after Tillis.

Against Tucker he didn't get ratted, he just carried out a decent 12 round decision pretty much confident he was going to win. People mention Tucker's broken hand a lot but would it have made much difference? With more attacks from Tucker he probably would have put himself in harms way so would have held anyway.

I also like the Ruddock re match. People often miss the proof that Tyson didn't fold after getting hit back. In some way this fight does show Mike continuing to persevere even though he was taking heavy shots that would have taken out most heavyweights, maybe even Hoyfield? That smash punch of Ruddock's landed plenty on Tyson, whereas others where out cold. Tyson even looked hurt a couple of times but he fought through it, there was no folding in sight. He wasn't even at his best here in terms of his elusive skills.

Personally I think there is clear proof that Tyson was a handful for any heavyweight ever. I'm not of the belief that he would beat them all but he is in my top ten easy. His main weakness was getting caught in the material world of being champ, it was a disappointing attitude as he really chose that over his legacy.

 

Grat post. I think this is spot on.

 

I don't know how old you are but you can have any opinion you want. Spinks wasn't that great and did nothing after Tyson. Yes, losing to Spinks showed how low Holmes had sunk. 1980 Holmes would have ko'd Spinks with no problem. Holmes was not ready for Tyson and was rusty. Tyson wouldn't have fought a top of his game Holmes anyway. Tyson was at his peak and Holmes was nowhere close. I remember that time period. I don't know how well you remember that time period.