Tougher opponents throughout there career. Tyson or Marciano

True. Rex Layne was a highly regarded fighter at the time and a good win for Marciano.

 

-The men Tyson beat on average were bigger, but I would stop at younger. On average, the age of their opponents is roughly going to break even.

-I didn't include any prospect showings. If that was the case, you could put Tillis in there.
I just tried to limit it to to the best men they beat.

-Well, Seldon, Golota, and Botha are actually some of the few guys he faced that were younger or a comparable age at the time of the fight I believe..not sure the Foul Pole but Seldon and Botha for sure.

-I don't get that at all. Tyson's youthful fire was a big part of him blitzing through the division like he did in such a short period of time. HIs style was taylored for it. Berbick, Bonecrusher, Spinks, and Holmes were overwhelmed by the speed, energy, and activity from a man nearly a decade or more younger than them. And guys like the 29 year old Thomas and Tucker were already getting messed up physically from not taking care of themselves. Tyson had the skills but he was also a physical dynamo we had not seen before.

-I think a case can be made for Walcott being his best win.

-I'm aware of how those work but Frank and had not been ranked by RING since getting stopped by Spoon in 87. And rightfully so, he really didn't do anything since than but beat a washed up Bugner. He may have had a WBA ranking. Better than 96? Not sure, he fought a little smarter and was using the uppercut, though he had no answer for Tyson's new straight right.

-I stopped the listing at 11 to keep it even, you could include Williams in there. Doesn't make a huge difference unforunately.

 

I guess we can leave it at this. Both men fought washed up opponents and both fought a few who were younger. Tyson tuned pro at 18 years of age, and was a champion by age 20. So inevitably he's going to be younger than a fair share of his opponents, but that doesn't mean that a good number of them weren't prime. Once again, it depends on what one puts stock in..

 

That's why I tried to do as fair as possible breakdown in my initial post. I think Louis and Holmes for instance are comparable scalps. As well as Walcott II and Spinks being comparable, both seem to get equal credit for perhaps beating their opponent mentally before the bell even rung or at least after getting hit the first time. I think Walcott and Spinks would have done much better against anyone else but the monsters they were facing those nights

I just don't think Tyson has any wins that can contrast with Moore, Walcott I, and the Charles series. Holyfield in 96 and Lewis could have been those wins I guess.

 

He didn't face that many guys who were legitimately past it in my eyes. But you mentioned Spinks and I do think he was past it. Spinks prime was at 175. By 1988, he was pushing 32 years old, had been off for a year and fighting above his best weight. He was also in the last fight of his career and one that he wanted nothing to do with, outside of the money. Spinks was finished.

 

Holmes layoff going into the Tyson fight was actually 21 months, which is just under two years. But it was long enough for some rust to form, on top of being 38 years of age.

 

The argument would be Holmes came back years later and beat Mercer and nearly upset McCall. I value the Louis win a little more though for that reason, he had an active year that saw him beat a few contenders and KO the a top HW in Savold, but I can see an argument either way.

 

Holmes prime weight ranged anywhere from 210 to about 215. By 1983 however, he was hitting the 220 mark on a more and more frequent basis. Against Tyson he was 225. He no longer had the ability to stay in good condition and his reflexes and timing were way off.

 

I only watched it once. :good

Old Louis also gave a good go at Charles too, busted him up with his jab.