Tyson's resume up to pre prison

Spinks wouldn't have had to beat Tucker, he would have fought Smith or Berbick or a washed-up Thomas in the unification final, and very probably would have won.

Ruddock and Bruno don't even come into it.

I don't think that at all. Spinks would have probably retired in '87, as undefeated undisputed champion.

 

The early 80s was no better, (except for a primed Holmes), but there was talent coming through, hopefuls, fighters who by 1986 had proven to be a bunch of inconsistent slackers.

And you all know it. The only reason people are arguing with me about it must be because they don't like hearing the truth, and prefer to construct some new version of history through rose-tinted glasses. Or something.

 

I think that was the case all the way through to 2000, but the talent amongst the fighters went down. Lets face it, Bowe and Holyfield spent most of the early 90's fighting each other and the rest was just nothing much at all. I dont know whats better, consistent **** fighters or inconsistent good fighters? At least guys didnt come into fights with Tyson hungover or strung out on drugs. I think he got pretty good fit and readly versions of most of his title challengers, because of his stature.

 

Yes, the heavyweight ranks certainly haven't become any better.

 

I agree. You can make an argument that most of these guys were at their best when facing Tyson. He represented more than just a title and a win over him meant huge $$$.

His resume consists of a who's who of 80's heavyweight boxing. And it's not just who he beat but how he beat them.

 

Spinks would never have beaten Tucker, one of the reasons he pulled out of the tournament was because he didnt want to face Tucker, Spinks was then stripped of the IBF title which Tucker and Douglas fought for, hence why he was called the peoples champ because he hadnt officially lost his title in the ring.

He then went on to fight old man Cooney so Butch Lewis kept him in the publics eye as a genuine threat to Tyson

 

So if this era was such a weak era, which previous eras had better 2nd tier fighters? The late 60's and 70's were. But before that i dont think any others are as strong as the 80's

 

Agreed 100%

 

This Tyson "era" we are talking about is a short period of 3-4 years, 5 tops (and that includes the loss to Douglas).

I don't think it's too difficult to find other 3 year periods, in other less-than-great eras, where the top fighters were at least active and performing or winning at a higher level.

Tyson fought mostly Don King re-treads, many of whom who were just sitting around waiting for the call.
And other fighters who were similarly inactive or uninspired. Men who's careers had stalled or regressed.

Guys like ..... Tyrell Biggs, a 16-fight pro who had barely gotten past David Bey. He was being cashed in before he lost to some fringe contender.

Tubbs - hadn't produced a good performance or beaten a ranked fighter in 3 years. Hadn't spent much time in gym either.

Bruno - hadn't fought in 16 months, his managers preferred him inactive and sitting on a phony alphabet ranking, than risk him even against another has-been or journeyman. He'd done two pantomime seasons since he last fought though !

Holmes - hadn't fought in almost 2 years, hadn't had a clear win over a ranked fighter in almost 3. Was several years past his prime. Was an old man with a recognizable name.

Thomas - had not beat a ranked fighter in 2 years. Had looked progressively more washed-up since then.

Spinks - hadn't fought in a year, hadn't genuinely beat a top heavyweight in almost 3 years. Had NEVER beat or fought even a mediocre "live" YOUNG genuine contender, not that there were many.

For those guys to have somehow risen or remained at the top, suggests a serious slump in the division.

 

The Tyson years were from 85-91. In that period Tyson had 40 fights. I dont think they were really having trouble finding qualified opponents for Tyson. He was one of the most active champions ever. You conveniently left out Tucker and Smith who was on a four win streak with a shock KO win over Witherspoon. Additionally Tubbs was more than competitive in his razor close decision loss to Spoon in his most recent ranked fight. Thomas had never been off his feet and had only lost one close decision to Berbick. Tubbs had never been knocked out, Holmes never knocked out. Spinks never off his feet let alone knocked out.

The division wasnt slumping, but there were certainly veterans still in and younger guys coming up, typical, but certainly fighters wanted a shot at Tyson, and ranked opponents like Bruno who had fights already cancelled with Tyson due to injury didnt want to risk losing their shot at him.

 

I didn't "conveniently leave off" Tucker and Smith. They had decent recent results, I'm not arguing that they didn't.
I named six guys who are rated up there with them at the time, who simply hadn't done anything much at all recently - suggesting a sluggish era, a slump.

Tubbs was a fat 244 pound joke against Witherspoon in 1986. A close fight, yes, but a pretty awful one too. One that prompted many observers to remark on what a shitty era for heavyweight we are in !
And that was over 2 years prior to Tyson.

Thomas had looked washed-up in his last 3 - 4 fights.
Tubbs had been floored by Mike Jameson a couple of fights back - hardly a stamp of good form or durability.
Spinks had never been floored, but had fought all but 4 of his fights at 175 !

Was knocking these guys out an achievement ? Sure.
But doesn't change the fact that it was a weak period in the division's history.

The division WAS slumping. How else can guys who effectively do nothing of importance for 2 - 3 years or go life-and-death with journeyman remain among the "cream" of the division ?
If the division is experiencing a strong or competitive period at all, then that doesn't happen.

 

I was thinking about this last night and almost made a thread myself. The thing is with tyson, imo, is that I think the cycle has moved to the other extreme and he now sometimes gets underrated.

His prime resume pre prison is nigh on perfect. Maybe through in tim spoon, comeback foreman and contender holyfield and it would have been perfect.

He destroyed a lot of the top ranked heavyweights of his time.

His comeback career was also impressive losing only to holyfield and lewis (i hope noone takes anything after the lewis beating seriously)

I have him number 12 all time. The only thing stopping him rising higher is the lack of an inform marquee name. But considering his era, I can't think of much he didn't do.

 

:huh:huh:huhatsch

Compared to the competition of whom? The ELITE 3 of Ali, Lewis, Holyfield??

NOW go compare his level of comp/opp to Johnson, Dempsey, Liston, Marciano, Louis, Holmes, Waldo and Vitali Klit...:think

OK Mike Tyson did not beat Prime ATG Heavies, But he did beat [in a dominant ferocious way] lots of decent skilled Grade B/B+ comp as good and more valuable then the comp of MOST top Heavies. :deal

 

If you put it that way, it's a resume fit for the reigns of Johnson, Dempsey and Marciano.

Seriously, you can spin this our of control. Biggs was touted and undefeated with victories over Bey, Snipes and Tillis. This, along with his Olympian status made him a factor that needed to be addressed, that had public appeal. Spinks beat the man who had been "The Man" in the division for a good 7 years. Beating any version of a CHAMPION Holmes qualifies high above beating a "live" young contender. Bruno was a future belt-holder, a dangerous entity and offered a cross-pond revenue situation. Thomas, ex-belt holder, was a legit challenger, as much as Floyd Patterson was to Ali, Corbett to Jeffries... et al.. He was not that far removed from his prime, but his drubbing against Tyson precipitated a steep and quickening decline.

Were I to apply the same standard of accomplishment to Louis' reign that you have applied here it would make him appear as a total hack.

 

Biggs' fight with Bey proved beyond any doubt that he wasn't anywhere near ready for Tyson, or anyone else good for that matter. Hey, it may even have been a sign that Biggs had started to go back, a mere 15 fights into his pro career ! Biggs was a lamb to the slaughter, being cashed in by a management who knew he was going to lose to someone soon anyway - it may as well be Tyson.
That's not "spin", that's an accurate account of the situation. The only thing that made Biggs a "hope" against Tyson was these mysterious qualities of "talent" and "potential" than he supposedly possessed.

The very fact that Spinks did come straight up from 175 and beat Holmes in his heavyweight debut should be enough to indicate that Holmes had declined quite far from his prime .... or the division was weak .... or there was some clever/fortunate matchmaking afoot .... or all three.
As a rule of thumb, it's safe to say it's probably a weak and sluggish heavyweight scene when a light-heavy can be amongst the top 2 HWs in the world of a 3-year period on the back of only 4 heavyweights fights of mixed quality.

Bruno was a joke. He'd failed miserably to be anything more than a "gallant loser" against Witherspoon in his previous attempt, and 'spoon hadn't even bothered to train for the fight, coming in at a blubbery 234 pounds.#
Bruno "Future belt-holder", yes, after getting 4 chances he managed to beat Oliver McCall, who was a glorified sparring partner.

Thomas was considered washed-up.

Yes, these guys were legitimate contenders. That's the point. The fact that they were the best of the bunch shows how mediocre the bunch was.

And no amount of revisionist white-washing of history will change that.

Key differences include Louis' reign stretched for almost 12 years ........ in which time he made 25 successful defences ......... and retired undefeated as champion at age 35.