How much of Mike tyson s potential did we see?

There's some ownage taking place here, Tyson losing to someone like a Lewis or Bowe is completely different to losing to a guy that was on the scene during his reign.

 

From 1986 to 1989 Mike Tyson defeated

Trevor Berbick - WBC champion
Pinklon Thomas - Former WBC champion and #1 WBC contender
James Bonecrusher Smith - WBA champion
Tony Tucker - IBF champion
Tyrell Biggs - IBF and WBA #1 contender
Larry Holmes - ATG
Michael Spinks - ATG and lineal champ
Tony Tubbs - Former WBA champ
Frank Bruno - WBA and WBC #1 contender
Carl Williams - IBF #1 contender

So there you have it.. I just listed Mike Tyson's TEN world title fights from 1986 to 1989 featuring heavyweights who were either #1 mandatory defenses, current world title holders, former world title holders or ATG's.. Ten title fights over a three year period against men of that sort of status pretty much covers the bulk of a division and its own era.. It should also be noted that during this exact SAME time frame:
Buster Douglas was NOT a mandatory..
Buster Douglas was NOT a title holder.
Buster Douglas was NOT a former title holder.
Buster Douglas was NOT an atg.
Buster Douglas did NOT fight Tyson in the 80's.
Buster Douglas was NOT called upon to fight Tyson in the 80's..
Buster Douglas was NOT viewed as elite in the 80's.....

 

Frank Bruno had a win over Coetzee, a win over old Bugner, a win over Tills (who was coming off a loss to MIKE WILLIAMS, please note), and a loss to Witherspoon, in that period.
He also had 16 months lay-off prior to the Tyson challenge.

 

About the only half way compromise I'll make is that if you want to say that Douglas was interchangeable with someone like Frank Bruno then fine. But interchangeable is about it and its kind of a weak argument given that they were comparable and Tyson isn't obligated to face dozens of guys of that same caliber. Frank also didn't have four losses on his record at least 3 of which to mediocrities. Also the reason frank was out for 16 months was because he and Tyson were originally scheduled to fight in october of 1988 but Tyson's problems outside the ring led to it being postponed. Tyson basically flattened the best of a division over a period of 3 years and ten title fights which is plenty of time and material to qualify as an era.

 

But Douglas was ranked No. 2 by the IBF, No. 3 by the WBC and No. 4 by the WBA!!!

Does that make your list or have you conveniently forgot about that......

 

I'm going to conveniently forget about it.. Because he wasn't a mandatory nor a champion nor a former champion of notoriety. And the ratings you speak of weren't awarded to him until roughly about the time that he and Tyson signed to fight anyway which makes that argument moot.

 

So now only champions and former champions are allowed to fight the current champion.....

 

Don't you have the months and year each of these ratings were given to Douglas?????

 

Current world champions, mandatory contenders, and ATG's >>>>>>>> Fringe contenders..

 

Why nitpick? Certain people here have a set opinion that won't change.

 

Just because someone was ranked #1 by the WBC doesn't male them more "legit" than someone who wasn't.
Just because they were former alphabet title holder doesn't make them more legit.

You can't seriously argue that Tony Tubbs and Frank Bruno were more legitimate.

 

It doesn't matter. When between 1986 to 1989 should Tyson have fought Douglas? He fought in 10 world title fights in a three year period and was already pretty active as it was.. Tyrell Biggs was a #1 contender. Carl Williams was a #1 contender. Frank Bruno Was a #1 contender. Bones Smith was a title holder and part of the unification process as were Tucker and Berbick. Holmes was finished but fought Tyson for different reasons. He was an ATG and it was a fan fight and a passing of the torch. Spinks was the undefeated guy with the claim to lineage. The only one who's rating I'm not sure about is Tubbs but again he was a recent title holder with a 24-1 record, had never been stopped and who's only loss was a close defeat to Witherspoon. Certainly better than the dents in Douglas' record of having lost to Ferguson, white, and Bey.. So again at what point was Douglas more deserving than these men? At what point was he considered elite? Can you remember any particular demand for a Tyson vs Douglas fight anytime between 1986-1989 or any claims that Tyson was ducking Douglas?

 

I just got in, but are people trying to make it like Tyson ducked Douglas now? Are we getting to that point of revisionism?

Douglas would have gotten his shot at Tyson years earlier if it wasn't for the small matter of him being KO'd by Tucker, who Tyson then went on to soundly beat. But everyone knows this, surely?

 

Tyson was ferocious , violent and animalistic during his prime. I don't think it would be possible
for him to switch off outside the ring as he brought real life intensity to the ring. He was very
flawed character and those flaws led to his decline. But would he have been Tyson without them ?
Like many youngest ever champions Tyson burnt out like Wilfred Benitez. Yes Tyson did reach
his potential and not his fault that mid to late 80's the hw division was weak.

 

Actually I can. For one thing it would have been pretty ridiculous if Tyson got up in front of the press and Said " I'm ditching my titles and passing on a mandatory to face the great James "Buster" Douglas. " Had he done this your position today ( and I know this for a fact ) would be that he DUCKED a mandatory for a guy who had lost to Mike White and Jesse Ferguson. And incidentally they WERE more legit at the TIME Tyson fought them.. Douglas didn't reach the height of his ratings and potential until he beat Berbick in February of 1989 the same Month that Tyson was already beating Bruno and already signed to fight Truth next. After he beat Truth he fought Douglas... So what's your argument here? That he should have fought Douglas in 86-87 rather than try to unify the title against Berbick, Smith and Tucker? Did Douglas really have greater status in early 1987 than Pinklon Thomas ? should he have fought him then? How about facing him in June of 1988 rather than taking on the linear champion Spinks? or how about March of 1988 instead of Tubbs when the only thing Douglas had done recently was lost to Tony Tucker and rebounded by beating journeyman in Percell Davis and Donnie Long? So tell me WHEN was he more deserving than those other guys and also tell me HOW the time frames match up with this claim?