How much of Mike tyson s potential did we see?

When someone talks about a champion " cleaning out" a division, they're generally talking about him beating all of the top fighters who "mattered." To be overly literal about beating everyone who was still alive and breathing is silly. From 1986-1989 Mike Tyson beat Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, James Smith, Tony Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, Marvis Frazier, Tony Tubbs, Michael Spinks, Frank Bruno, and Carl Williams. I'll leave Holmes out of it given that he was retired. Holyfield didn't become a solid number one until about mid 1989 and Tyson had already agreed to fight him. Douglas beat Tyson in 1990, but wasn't relevant for most of the time frame I mentioned.

 

Deleted

 

He was very relevant as he fought Douglas for the vacant IBF title.......

 

Actually, Douglas was part of that crop. Douglas's best days as a contender were from 1986 to 1989. He was in the rankings for most of that time.
Tyson's prime coincided with Douglas's best years. They fought once. Douglas won.
Douglas could argue that he should have been allowed at Tyson in 1986 (apparently Jacobs/Cayton turned that one down) and maybe Tyson would have been sidetracked earlier.

I'm not saying "cleaning out" should mean beating everyone who exists in the division, but if you positively lose to one of those guys it's pretty hard to argue you cleaned him out, isn't it ?

Even Holyfield was a direct contemporary of Tyson's. They are of the same generation. It's true that he arrived in the HW rankings about 2 years after Tyson did but he was spoken of as a potential rival from 1986 on, they turned pro around the same time, Holyfield having been an Olympian, Tyson having tried out for that same Olympics.
They fought when the were past their primes and Holyfield won.

 

Between 1985 to 1987 Douglas had lost to Jesse Ferguson and Tony Tucker - Two guys who Tyson decisively beat. Buster was ranked high by the IBF in 1987 but not by anyone else and after he lost to Tucker he fell again in the ratings. He did not ascend again as contender until he beat an aging Berbick in '89 and didn't fight Tyson until 1990. So what I said was correct.. From 1986 to 1989 Mike Tyson cleaned the division of the guys who mattered. I distinctly remember those times and by 1988 most people concured that there was no one left for Mike to fight. The fact that a cruiserweight had to jump divisions to produce a real threat pretty much says all.

 

There was nothing to warrant James Douglas having a #2 world rating in 1987 and the fact that the IBF was the only organization who had him there pretty much says all.. After losing to Tucker, Buster's rating dropped and wouldn't rise again until he beat an aging Berbick in 1989.

 

Who exactly "mattered" ? If Douglas didn't matter, why would Marvis Frazier, Frank Bruno and Tony Tubbs matter ?

Who mattered ? Tucker ? Spinks ? Berbick ? Is that it ?
Is that what cleaning out means ? Beating 3 guys ?

 

RING magazine rated Douglas in their top 10 at the end of 1986, end of 1988, end of 1989.

He wasn't rated in their top 10 at the end of 1987, but then again nor were Larry Holmes and Tony Tubbs .... who Tyson fought in his next two fights !

 

I gave you the time frame and listed all the guys who were considered top challengers at the time.. It shouldn't be that difficult. If you had asked most people say around 1988 who Buster Douglas was they would have looked at you like you came up with some new brand of Yogurt. Hell even in February of 1990 he wasn't viewed as being a serious contender but rather a stay busy opponent until the June meeting with Holy could come off. To try and build an argument that James "Buster" Douglas was viewed as a premiere contender for the duration of Tyson's reign is revisionist.

 

RING magazine had Douglas ranked at or near the bottom of their list in those years and if you're going by the annual ratings they don't reflect what he might have been ranked in the specific months that Tyson was taking on his actual challengers.. That and the fact that lets not forget Tyson had an obligation to defend his crown against the people his belt holding organizations said he had to fight... I already told you that I omitted Larry Holmes on the basis of him not being an active participant in the division anymore, but that fight was fought for different reasons anyway and was considered as more of a passing of the torch affair.

 

A bit like Carl Williams then......

 

Most of Tyson's challengers weren't viewed as serious contenders and were seen only as "stay busy" opponents too, so I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate about Buster Douglas.

Frank Bruno wasn't taken seriously, nor was Carl Williams, Tony Tubbs or Marvis Frazier.
By 1987 Tyrell Biggs wasn't considered to be much at all.
Even Bonecrusher Smith was regarded as a flukey champion, a journeyman type who'd got lucky with a pathetic version of Witherspoon. You can go through the whole list.

I'm not trying to build Douglas into a "premiere contender".
I'm simply saying: he was a contender in that era and that Tyson fought him once and lost.
It's simple enough. If a fighter reigns for just 3 years and goes 0-1 against a contender of that period you didn't clean out that division.
The argument that Tyson's loss to Douglas doesn't matter because Douglas's was even a proper contender is an absurd alibi.

I understand.
No one would have cared if Tyson hadn't fought Douglas. I get that.
But he DID fight Douglas. And he lost.

Likewise, no one would have cared really if Tyson hadn't fought Marvis Frazier, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno, Carl Williams and Tyrell Biggs. But he DID fight them, and he won.
You can't have it both ways. If beating men like that it creditable towards "cleaning out" a division, then losing to one like that should be regarded as invalidating the process of "cleaning out".

 

Marvis Frazier wasn't a title challenger but was certainly a legit contender.. He had beaten Smith, Ribalta, Tillis, Bugner, Broad, and had only lost to Holmes. He was fine for a pre-title fight. The rest of the guys were legit for one reason or another weather they were holding titles, were former champions, or had just gotten a big win.. Douglas was nobody from 1986 to 1989 and can't remember a single person going around saying " hey I think Tyson should fight that dude Douglas, I mean what's he waitn' for?" Hell I watched ESPN, Sports channel, HBO, Showtime, etc and nobody hardly ever mentioned Douglas.. Again, claiming that Douglas was part of the upper crop by fabricating this argument that " tyson's actual challengers were no better " is nothing more than building a house of cards..

 

Were they going around saying he should fight Carl Williams, Tony Tubbs and Frank Bruno instead......

 

In 1990. Not in 1986-1989.. You seem to be fixated on the hindsight matter that he eventually lost to Douglas. Has nothing to do with what Buster's value was in the late 80's or my argument supporting that Tyson DID in fact clean out his division.