Give each of Mike Tyson's title opponents a letter grade

This. Foreman has bigger names at the top of his list but Tyson runs deeper. I give Tyson the edge.

Looking better against the same opposition isn't a big concern with my criteria for greatness, but how are more established versions of Berbick, Smith and Williams that Tyson fought worse than the inexperienced versions Holmes fought? Berbick just beat Thomas while Bonecrusher just beat Witherspoon before facing Tyson.

I also give Tyson credit for dismantling Thomas, Holmes and Spinks. Thomas and Holmes came to fight and I disagree with those who claim Holmes only fought for a paycheck. This is a bull**** excuse only because Larry got his head handed to him. Holmes is an all time great who cares about his legacy and his place in heavyweight history. He was a seasoned veteran champion who knew 3 full months in advance he was going to face Tyson. The match was even talked about in 1986.

Holmes simply never matched up well with Tyson and because Mike beat him easy his detractors tend to undermine the quality of the win. I find it hard to believe at the age of 42 Holmes was somehow better. I don't care how many tune ups Holmes had, beating the likes of Tim Anderson and Eddie Gonzalez doesn't prepare you any more for a title shot. The only reason Holmes fought these jobbers was because he took the Foreman route to get a shot at the title. You're not getting better 4 years later at the age of 42.

Holmes has longevity on Tyson but didn't face the amount of #1 contenders Tyson did. And how can Holmes have the better win (Mercer) when Tyson beat a better, younger version of Holmes? Tyson TKO4 Holmes is better than a 42 year old Holmes UD 12 Mercer.

I have Holmes and Tyson's opposition even. Holmes has longevity, Tyson has the more destructive wins.

 

Assuming an "A" would be a prime Muhammad Ali or Joe Louis, and a "B" a prime Lennox Lewis perhaps, here's mine ..

Trevor Berbick : D .... tough, strong, well-conditioned fighter.
Boncrusher Smith : D ... good puncher, strong, good chin.
Pinklon Thomas : D ... good, VERY durable, good jab, bit faded.
Tony Tucker : D ... good boxer, untested, tall.
Tyrell Biggs : E ... decent skills, gutsy, unconvincing as a pro, struggled against fringe contenders.
Holmes : D .... had seen better days, took the fight for the payday.
Tubbs : D ... a fancy dan, cute boxer. Fat, out of shape.
Spinks : D ... good fighter, looking towards retirement, untested against live young HWs
Bruno : D ... big, strong, powerful manufactured fighter.
Williams : D ... good boxer, suspect chin.

 

cocaine jack !

 

.
.

 

Theres something funny about your grading....
: D

 

Tyson haters are a joke

He cleaned out the division and exploded to the top fighting the best available

If you're going to nitpick then nobody has a good resume

Trevor Berbick 1986: Grade: B+ ... Berbick was on a winning streak and just "upset" Pinklon Thomas and Tyson completely and thoroughly destroyed him

Bonecrusher Smith 1987: Grade: B+ ... Came off KOing Tim Witherspoon in 1 round ... would've been KOed if he didn't hold on the entire fight, disgracefully. Was an older guy though.

Pinklon Thomas 1987: Grade: B ... Was never KOed prior to Tyson ... did lose to Berbick recently in a decision ... Iron chin but was KOed by Mike.

Tony Tucker 1987: Grade: A- ... probably the toughest fight for Mike out of this list ... Tucker was undefeated and was clearly the best heavyweight besides Mike and was in his prime ... he continued to win even after losing to Mike and only lost a decision to Lewis many years later ... this was Mike's best win

Tyrell Biggs 1987: Grade: B ... Average ... not much to say

Larry Holmes 1988: Grade: B+ ... Holmes was still very good even after losing to Spinks and taking a 2 year layoff ... his record after Tyson proves that ... and was never KOed before fighting Mike

Tony Tubbs 1988: Grade: B+ ... Never been stopped before Tyson and had a great chin but Tyson cracked it ... good fighter, despite being overweight

Michael Spinks 1988: Grade: A- ... Undefeated and just came off beating Cooney and Holmes twice ... but was completely vanquished in the biggest fight of his career ... again never KOed before Mike

Frank Bruno 1989: Grade: B+ ... Hard hitter and a dangerous opponent

vs Carl Williams 1989: Grade: B

 

vs Trevor Berbick 1986: Grade: B+
Who the hell else was Tyson supposed to fight. Berbick owned the bauble. The same people who give Berbick a D will give Tommy Burns an A for Jack Johnson. But the story is the same. The road to the title ran through these fighters.

vs Bonecrusher Smith 1987: Grade: B
Huge puncher, physically imposing, decent skills. Learned under fire. On a roll when he met Mike.

Pinklon Thomas 1987: Grade: A
Crafty, strong, great jab. Oh, but some will say he liked to party. So did Tyson, so did Jack Johnson, so did Joe Louis, so did Liston... So what?

vs Tony Tucker 1987: Grade: A
Tall, strong well-groomed product of a great amateur system. Coming off excellent wins over Broad and Douglas.

vs Tyrell Biggs 1987: Grade: B+
Here Tyson nips a future threat in the bud. An up and comer who Tyson destroyed and cocaine buried.

vs Larry Holmes 1988: Grade: A
Hubris on Larry's part but he would come back to defeat prime timers half a decade later. Great changing of the guard win which is de rigueur for any great champ.

vs Tony Tubbs 1988: Grade: A
One of the fastest, slickest heavyweights to ever grace a ring. Annihilated.

vs Michael Spinks 1988: Grade: A+
In custom of Carpentier, Ketchel, Foster, Conn... Tyson utterly destroys a great light heavy... but this time one was good enough to have the title!

vs Frank Bruno 1989: Grade: A
Powerful, game fighter who would have been a factor in any era. Great, hard jab. Pulverizing right hand. A bit stiff but many of the giants of the ring have been.

vs Carl Williams 1989: Grade: B+
Top level athlete. I believe he did the decathlon in track. Got robbed against Holmes. A dangerous opponent at the time.

 

I don't understand some of these grade systems being used.

How the **** can Frank Bruno be an "A" opponent ?
An A opponent would be a primed all-time great surely, or something close to it.

If Bruno's an A, what would a prime Ali be ?

 

I did think this. Seamus' rating of Spinks as an A+ seems ridiculous, as it would appear to suggest he's up their as a H2H ATG at heavyweight. However if you look at Suzie's criteria it can easily be justified. We're not talking about grading them as a heavyweight in the grand scheme of boxings history, but merely comparing to the best available opposition at the time and how they were perceived before they fought Tyson

 

man when i see that anybody ranked pinklon thomas or Biggy as a c fighter...thats make me crasy
look the fight biggs vs Stevenson and youre see his class

 

Perhaps a bit overboard but I think you see where I am coming from.

 

So prime Ali would dominate these opponents better than Tyson? I dont think so. Surely these would be B level opponents for Ali as well. Certainly not D and E like your post.

 

I'm not saying prime Ali would do better than Tyson.

I'm saying an A (or maybe an A+ if you like) would be the best possible quality of opponent a champion could face ever.

Ali in his prime would be an A.
Ali post-prime would drop to a B.
By the time he faces Leon Spinks he'd be a D or an E himself !

Muhammad Ali probably only beat 1 or 2 A opponents himself, Foreman and Liston. Perhaps Frazier was an A- or a B when Ali beat him.

The men Tyson beat were a couple of notches below a prime Foreman, imo.

 

Where not talking about grades in terms of their H2H ability or level of win compared to the greatest heavyweights of all time. Did you even read my post or more importantly the OP?

 

I read your post and I re-checked the OP.

SuzieQ explicitly included h2h ability and listed 5 criteria in total.

Four of those five criteria can only easily be measured against the high standard.
Those were - h2h ability, accomplishments leading into fight, reputation at time of fight, and accomplishments after fight.
Those 4 criteria suggest we are rating h2h and "career accomplishment" and "reputation" .... there's no easy way to grade those things unless you are rating against an all-time standard or an absolute standard.

The fifth critera was "world rating" and is self-explanatory.