Did Mike Tyson in his prime only beat bums and over the hill fighters?

Berbick and Smith were probably the ones truly at their peak, but they were limited fighters that managed to take advantage of more talented opponents' inconsistency. Thomas was on the slide but he showed up to fight, Tubbs was also on the slide and didn't really show up. Biggs had talent, but never lived up to it.

Tucker, Williams and Bruno were all good fighters in their prime that showed up but fell short. Tucker did carry an injury, but that is not uncommon. My feeling is that Spinks came to fight as well, but just got overwhelmed.

Holmes was old and rusty, but I still give Mike credit for that performance.

Douglas was very talented and put it all together for one night.

It's like it is with most reigns. Some are rising, some are sliding, some underperform and some fight the fight of their lives.

 

Spinks had been inactive and one of his legs or ankles was not what it once was due to an injury

 

Holmes fight looked like Don's business project. Pure cherry picking.

However Mike was damn very good, if he continued to train like in 1987 th also in 1990 th, then he had reached damn a lot.
1988th: he changes his team to Yes Sir mans and there.

 

it's a odd myth said for years mutiple people he fought gave good matches to others

 

No he fought some good challengers and like previous champs ,[Marciano] could only beat who was around.

 

Are there any competitive eras where the majority of the heavyweight contenders *don't* suffer from small size, age, substance abuse issues, weight problems, loss of focus, and/or stylistic disadvantages to the reigning champion? Not all at once in one fighter, obviously, but those are pretty common problems.

I can't think of many times where the contenders were all young, clean-living superheavyweights.

 

Alfonso Ratliff was an underrated win.
Or was it Ribalta?

 

People hate Tyson so much... Only attacking Tyson, and saying that everything that defends his reputation is just an excuse, but when it's any other fighter then it's a valid reason.

People act as if Tyson was a veteran when fighting Tillis when in reality it was his 19th fight. He was going against a veteran who had 39 fights. Tyson was injured before the fight when he fell off his pigeon coop but wait no I can't say that since that is an "excuse". He also dominated Tillis a couple of months after fighting him in an exhibition. This showed how much Tyson improves in a short amount of time.

Everyone has so many expectations for Tyson only and acting like he should have only fought good fighters before he became champion. They fail to realize Tyson was so young and accomplished so much in 3 years. Name me one heavyweight who accomplished more than Tyson in their first 3 years, wait you can't. Tysons opposition improved so much after he became champion, I also have one more point left.

Holmes was not ****ing so washed as people believe. He went to beat a prime Ray Mercer who had just annihilated Tommy Morrison. Then he went on to go 12 competitive rounds with Holyfield, and in his last fight, he beat Butterbean at 52 years old!!

 

I agree strongly with almost everything-Tyson's ascent & championship competition were definitely better than the average.
And done so young is such a concentrated time.
People who critique him should cherry-pick say ANY OTHER HW: let's go check both their record, *opposition's record*, busyness , results, fight for fight-let us see if they can find anyone who did better in gaining & defending their title.

I would say 19 fights is not such a novic, & given the dismal record of Tillis the last few fights, we have to hold it somewhat against Tyson.
But unlike some others it was a close but not a gift decision.

I would like to hear any tale about that exhibition though!

 

Tyson somehow attracted "great" bums and "garbage" contenders.
Like seriously tho, I know he beat Smith, Bruno, Tubbs, Spinks, etc.. They're all great fighters, but were garbage against Tyson. Spinks was scared to death, just like Bruno, Bonehugger Smith, Fat Tubbs, etc...

BUT! they're so many boxers with 2 digit loses on their records who somehow perform very well against Tyson. It's just bizarre, becuz they should be fighters who Tyson was expect to steamroll them. There are 3 of those fighters,

James Tilis - The first guy to went the distance against Tyson
Jose Ribalta - The most fearless motherf*cker in boxing history
Buster Douglas - The first guy who beat Tyson

 

Ratliff was 6'5 too.

 

Douglas never even got beyond 8 losses in his whole career, but fair point overall.
The answer is in part the circumstances of each fight, where Tyson was in his career-& that these were still World Class fighters.
Douglas when focussed & motivated was really top notch.