Mike Tyson "weak" opposition

And if Foreman landed the shots on Tyson that he did on Holyfield Mikey would be left searching for his gumshield again, not that Tyson could fight anything like Evander did against George.

 

He gave him big trouble.

 

You are making up your own mostly meaningless stats and placing great importance on them. Only you could dream up such stuff, it's Twilight Zone stuff.

It's flabberghasting and more than a little embarrassing that you can somehow find a (fantasy) way to write off guys. Other fighters who you obviously like are held to utterly different standards and you find wild flipsides to champion their cause. Stands out like dog balls.

 

if any one the champions of that time were facing a 21 year old midget then they would be deemed making weak defences....

bizarre that someone is trying to work it then other way.

 

You are making up your own mostly meaningless stats and placing great importance on them. Only you could dream up such stuff, it's Twilight Zone stuff.

It's flabberghasting and more than a little embarrassing that you can somehow find a (fantasy) way to write off guys. Other fighters who you obviously like are held to utterly different standards and you find wild flipsides to champion their cause. Stands out like dog balls.

 

guys like Tubbs at his best you mean.

again you make no differentiation between Tubbs when he was a relevant boxer and the guy who had not won at contender level for three years and ate himself out of a bonus.

Winning the WBA title made Tubbs a fair contender three years earlier but he never maintained that. These guys could never win more than one competitive fight. Don King just kept him winning at a much lower level so he could feed Tubbs to Tyson.

And Tubbs knew what was going on. That's why he didn't try to earn that $50,000 bonus.

 

The only thing that stands out is that you cannot disagree with me. You cannot disagree that Holmes was on a two year retirement. That Larry was on a two fight loss streak. That Thomas, Tubbs and Bruno had not beat actual contender between them for YEARS. That Biggs never ever beat a contender.

You cannot disagree That Tubbs had his coach walk out on him and deliberately ate his way out of a $50,000 bonus.

You at least cannot agree with me that Berbick, Smith, Tucker and Spinks were the genuine great wins Tyson had.

Instead you start being rude. That's what stands out.

 

The problem with a lot of the "Tyson logic" is that people who want to bring forth a zillion reasons and excuses for Tyson's loss to Douglas being regarded as a special case that doesn't count as "prime Tyson" are VERY OFTEN THE SAME PEOPLE who minimize or ignore all the circumstances and issues around the recent form of his challengers.

I mean, come on, Tony Tubbs was pathetic in his conditioning. Pinklon Thomas had serious woes over the proceeding years. Michael Spinks is strongly rumoured to have been KO'd in sparring. Tony Tucker had an injury. Holmes was just plain old and coming off a 21-month lay-off. Tyrell Biggs was being cashed in by management who had lost belief in him. Everyone has problems.
It's never been answered as to why Tyson's problems mean so much when he loses, but that rule rarely applies to men he beat (some of whom had no recent proven in-the-ring form coming in to the fights).

 

I'll admit I haven't read much of choklab's posts on this thread but he does seem to be highlighting the meaningful facts of recent form and proven ability of Tyson's opponents coming into the fights.

Perhaps you're refering to something else he's written as being "meaningless" because I'm sure recent form and proven ability are always meaningful when we assess quality of opposition.

 

What's rude is you obnoxiously holding the challengers of fighters you don't like to entirely different standards of those you do like. It stands out like the proverbial. All of a sudden great lengths are gone to in efforts to discredit, somehow, anyhow.

What sort of record did George Foreman have vs top tenner's before utterly obliterating Frazier

 

He's talking about Tyson's title challengers, very few were in the prime of their life and in top condition.

 

In all honestly don't dislike any champion. All champions have a good story, achieved their goals And are worthy of a great deal of merit. Even unpopular champions.

I tend not to like it when people get carried away with certain things that don't stand up so well. I feel the need to point important things out, if only to put things into perspective. It's not against the champion only the perception or an aspect of what is being said about him.

I have a great many positive things to say about Tyson, Liston and George Foreman. It does not mean I should not point certain things out when others get far too carried away with them. It's not against them to say so. Especially when the points brought up are factual, documented stuff that can be backed up.

 

I think at the end of the day tyson was a special talent or was moulded into a special talent anyway. He could have and should have went undefeated and ruled that division for years. But the truth is he went off the rails spectacularly. Made the wrong decisions lost the guys that made him great and then threw it all away. For the lifestyle he choose to live...it was actually testament to his teaching under cus that he was allowed to still be semi successful as he got older. He stopped training like a professional athlete after he left jacobs. It was always gonna end in tears.

Great fan of the heavyweights of the 70,s best heavyweight division of all time for me...but i think tyson would have caused hell in that division. And every division since it started maybe till the super heavys came along anyway. They ve lost the skill completely in comparison to the 70,s but there probably harder to beat due to their sheer size etc for a guy so small.

Just a combination of a guy that had nothing in life but boxing... really his only way out of the streets. With a freakish natural power. A guy that was basically a genius in terms of boxing in cus. Getting him at the right age...training him like a profession from about 14. Cus concentating all his efforts on him to the point of obsession. His experience etc. And thats what went together to make tyson great. You ve very rarelly had circumstances like that in the heavyweight division. The ones that have had that usually do turn out great. Mike was destined to be great he just didnt have the basic life skills to not throw it all away. Tragic tale. But from what he came from he is actually a success story. A ****** as well mind due. He was just too far gone mentally to not have threw it all away and end up disgracing himself. He obviously should take a good part of the blame. But his enviroment/background mental health all played a part in his downfall