The myth about Tyson's weak opposition

He had a weak resume no doubt about it.

You can't just say he beat Holmes. Say he beat him past his prime.

 

In Tyson's defence,there are n't many heavyweight champs that have beaten an all time great in their primes. Muhammad Ali's the first exception that comes to mind.

 

The same Holmes who earned a title shot 4 years later and put up a valiant effort against Holyfield. In historical perspective it was a better win than Johnson over Jeffries, Dempsey over Willard and Marciano over Louis… all three of the losers here being older and/or more inactive than Holmes and none making a future dent in the division.

 

Joe Louis in 1951 was more active and younger than Larry Holmes in 1988.
Jess Willard did actually come back and beat contender Floyd Johnson 4 years after his loss to Dempsey.
"valiant" is a generous adjective to describe Holmes's effort against Holyfield.

 

Holmes rest peorid helped him , not hindered him against Tyson.

He lost to Spinks first time out because he was fighting to often and without enough rest.

He took a break and arguebly beat Spinks second time around.

After his break against Tyson , he came back and gave Mercer a boxing lesson. A fight he should of became WBA champion.

Holmes was a atg win for Tyson and the way he destroyed him doesn't make much of a case for any version of Larry Holmes.

 

Yeah, the fact that Tyson obliterated him in 4 rounds, and no one else knocked Holmes out even in his 1990s comeback, does make it a great win for Tyson.

 

Ive been in this debate before....sure your point is a fair one on paper...but Thomas was shot due to drug abuse,Berbick wasnt that good anyway but fought the dumbest fight standing and trading,Holmes took the fight at short notice due to Dk (its true,please no arguments on that one)Smith was scared to death and did nothing but hold,Tucker claimed he had a bust hand and after clobering Mike in round 1 and looking like he had all the tools to do a 'Buster Douglas' then decided not too...Biggs outboxed Tyson in round 1 until Tyson elbowed and fouled him to death, Spinks 'froze' , Tubbs was in the middle of a period of drug abuse and Big Frank..well he did what Big Frank did when facing top level opposition...
Yes Tyson was awesome but he didnt meet many fighters at their best.. some others were just plain terrified..which was down to the aura that Tyson had earned...
First time he met someone who put it all together he lost.
The debate is a little tired...yes he was a wrecking ball... but he somewhat took advantage of some fragile buildings...until he hit Busters brick wall.

 

Makes sense - IF you know nothing about the QUALITY of those beltholders, all of whom, outside of Holmes and Spinks, are among the most mediocre fighters to have held titles in the HW division.

I'll give you Holmes, because of they WAY Tyson destroyed him, and what Holmes went on to do afterward - although let's be clear, Larry was clearly past his best when Tyson destroyed him.

Same with Spinks, that's a very credible scalp to have on one's record. But let's be clear that, although Spinks was a great fighter, that greatness was achieved as LHW, which diminishes this victory somewhat.

All this said, let me also be clear that I think Tyson was a great fighter, who is actually somewhat underrated by hardcore fans.

 

The 37 year old Louis was far more gone than the 38 year old Holmes. I have quoted reports on his Bivins fight, which just like in his Marciano effort, he had NO right hand. He simply could not throw it and batted around Bivins with his left all night. Holmes still had his full arsenal of punches to go along with his guile as late as the early 90's, half a decade after meeting Tyson. Holmes was simply a much tougher match than the vastly depleted Louis.

Willard got most of his post Dempsey prestige by whining for a rematch with Dempsey. The Johnson victory was a decent one but he was in turn embarrassed by an embarrassingly bad Firpo and quit the sport. In contrast, Holmes beat Mercer who was on the fast track to title shot. And Holmes got two title shots in 90's. I would say there is a bit of difference.

As far as his effort against Holyfield, Holmes did alright. It wasn't a blow out on the cards and certainly not to the extent the Tyson match was. No one, not Shavers or Snipes who had him down, nor such beastly punchers as Cooney or Bonecrusher, ever did to Holmes what Tyson did.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Holmes had looked pretty bad in 1985 against Williams and Spinks. He was suspected to be on the downslide since about '83. In 1992 it's plausible that he was sharper than in 1988 due to his sensible programme of having several tune-up fights, then Mercer, then Holyfield.

Well, Holmes was better than Willard any day of the week and at any stage, so I'm not inclined to argue about the two.
My only point is that Willard came back after 4 years and beat a young contender, which I would say qualifies as making an impact on the division.

& If multi-alphabet-titles existed in 1923, Willard probably gets a shot at one.

I agree.
It's a great performance from Tyson.

 

. great reply! that is not just what he said reread! __He had 10 wins in a row in title fights, 8 ko's against these opponents:
3 current beltholders - Berbick, Smith, Tucker
4 former world champions and beltholders - Holmes, Spinks, Thomas, Tubbs
1 future beltholder - Bruno
undefeated prospect Biggs and top-contender Williams, who lost razor-thin decision

 

first, if the fouls were so flagrant against biggs, why did not the ref takes points away? using an Ali comparison(def.one of the greatest),Frazier was half blind,foreman could not box a lick,stamina problems,Patterson was a crusier weight,Moore was ancient,foster was a light heavy(still went 8 rds)! bonavena did not train,like to party,or know how to box,norton,Alfredo Evangelista,Richard Dunn,Jimmy Young,Jean-Pierre Coopman,Chuck Wepner,Karl Mildenberger all very average opponents.i would have loved to have seen mike fight bowe,holyfield and lewis(in mike's prime) but it did not happen,i feel he had a great chance with any of them.against buster the same argument you use for pinklon thomas applies to mike,he was drinking and drugging and def. did not taking him seriously.berbick was good enough to give a prime holmes 15 rds of trouble.and holmes, years later, beat a very tough, hard punching mercer.bone hugger smith? just a testament to mike's scary power.what's your point? tuckers "claim" is unproven.your actually praising biggs for out boxing mike(i saw the fight) believe me it was HALF a round?? till he felt mike's power.again, the ref and commentators made no mention of excessive fouling by mike.you can pick any great champ and for the most part,degrade their opponents,no one is perfect,mike crushed the opposition, was youngest champ, and i believe in his prime, AND MOTIVATED, would have beaten any one.his combination of two handed power awesome hand speed, very good chin,stamina and defense,was awesome.

 

In general I agree with the OP. Tyson's first title reign is not the problem with his resume. That isn't what costs him historical standing.

Rather, Tyson really suffers because he so badly squandered his post-prison years with inactivity and mismatches. While is true he had lost the fearsome edge of his prime, he was still a deadly, world class fighter capable of winning at an elite level with his speed, power, and chin.

Imagine if you switched out some McNeely's, Mathis Jrs., Julius Francis', and Orlin Norris', and instead swapped in guys like Ray Mercer, Hasim Rahman, Shannon Briggs, and Michael Moorer.

Imagine if, on top of that, he was fighting 3 times a year, every year, filling out his schedule with solid guys like Axel Schultz, Derrick Jefferson, Oleg Maskaev, and Michael Grant.

His standing would be radically different, even if he retained all of his losses from that era.