Since Tyson was either in prison or had his licence revoked for over 5 and a half years of the 90's he would have found some difficulty in cleaning out the division I think,not that anyone here ever claimed he had done so! In the time remaining, under 4 and a half years , Tyson fought 7 ranked contenders including 2 holders of titles, and the number 1 contender in 98. I don't know you Fella, but your argument is beyond misguided!
Ali was a special breed. Taking on Ellis as his first fight after FOTC was also a gutsy move. Most would have chosen a Tillman level of fighter to look good against after a defeat. But, it should also be said that Ali was out on appeal which probably influenced his decision making. He could lose the appeal and go to jail at any moment and probably wanted to make as much money as possible before that could happen. That meant better opposition and bigger risks. Tyson didn't have anything like that hanging over him and could take his time in a way Ali didn't know if he could afford. It should also be said that taking on Quarry almost backfired, according to Ali. He was much more tired after 3 rds than he expected to be and said that he didn't know what would have happened if not for the cut. And let's not forget that Bonavena had Ali in all kinds of trouble in the 9th round. So it certainly is a risk taking on a high quality opponent directly after a long lay-off, so a couple of easy touches to start with isn't a bad idea.
I would say that going to prison, not the Douglas fight, was the turning point. After that he picks his fights somewhat more carefully.
To me, the consensus here is because other guys were cherry picking, Mike Tyson was only doing what others were. Just doing what everyone else was doing does not make him innocent. That's the same argument the guy gives when getting a speeding ticket going 77 in a 55. The first thing he says is traffic was passing me by for his defense. Sure doesn't mean you were not speeding. Just the guy that got stopped is all. Same with this argument. The other heavies around at the time did the same thing. Everyone was looking for soft touches and easy fights. If the title of the thread was Foreman and Bowe were fighting soft touches in the 90's the answer is the same---of course.
Happy Mother's day to all the mothers out there. I'm saying the the entire 1990's he didn't face anyone who good outside of Holyfield. Anyone aside from Herol who has been banned yet again want to play my game? 1 ) Please give me your top 10 heavyweight in the 1990’s. 2 ) How many people on that list did Tyson beat in the 1990’s? 3) How many people didn’t Tyson fight on your list? All are invited to play. Who’s first? All I ask is to stay on track. No excuses or calling out other fighters.
This content is protected If I were to make a top list of heavies in the 1990's, judging them on who they beat, here's what it might look like this. I'm not saying it's perfect or going to argue every spot. 1. Lewis - Clearly 2. Bowe - You could argue Holyfield, no issues 3. Holyfield - You could argue Bowe, no issues 4. Tua - Beat Rahman, Ruiz, Maskeav, Izon 5. McCall - beat Lewis, Maskev, and Holmes 6. Ibeabuchi - beat Tua and Byrd Undefeated 7. Moorer - Beat Holyfield and Schultz 8. Morrison - Beat Ruddock and Foreman 9. Tyson - Beat Ruddock and Bruno on his last fight 10. Foreman - Beat Moorer, Schultz Honorable mention Mercer - beat Morrison, Witherspoon, Damiani gave Lewis a tough fight and Holmes for beating Mercer 1 ) List is above 2 ) Tyson beat zero men on the list, he was 0-2 vs. men fought. He could have had bigger matches as other noted he had two belts, but cherry picked his share and avoided the ten best on the list, and quite a few other punchers. Don't we all agree Tyson could have picked better opponents? 3 ) Tyson only fought Holyfield on the list and was badly out classed. Ruddock? He only beat one to beat one man in the top ten during the entire decade ( early 1990 over Dokes ) and was Ko'd quickly by Lewis and beaten in 5 by Morrison. Tyson took him out later and went the distance. That's Mikes best win in the 1990's. Not enough to rate. Who else wants to play?!
Vitlai Klitschko who took four years off and was in his later 30's and went straight for the number one guy without facing McNeely or Mathis jr types.
I will answer those question if you post them in a different thread under the title "How many of the top 10 HWs of the 90's did Tyson face and how many did he beat?" But to answer them in this thread - namely "Was Mike Tyson a cherry picker in the 1990's?" - would be going off topic. Since he was banned from boxing for half of the decade you have to look at the years he was active and see how the options were viewed at the time and what choices he made, to answer the actual question of the thread. That's something quite different from these questions you ask now. But of course you are fully aware of this, but are just trying to change the topic since you have been utterly owned on the actual topic of this thread. A thread you started just to bash one of the many, many fighters you dislike. This is how you usually conduct yourself and is why you are the least respected of the regular posters on this forum. I will once more answer the question that actually pertains to the thread and once more ask you the question you so far has refused to answer: Bruno had just beat the guy who had stopped Lewis, so short of Bowe I can't think of anyone who was seen as a clearly bigger threat at the time, no. Same with Seldon when he faced him. Mercer had put in a good losing effort against Lewis but hadn't beat anyone of note for five years and lost several times during that time. Foreman stayed away from anyone with a pulse and looked crap when he managed to come across one by mistake (Schultz). Bowe had just looked **** against Golota. Guys like Tua, Ike and Briggs hadn't truly come of age yet. In hindsight, after Seldon's shameful display against Tyson and considering what several of the guys would do it seems clear they were bigger threats, but at the time not really. Lewis, yes probably, even though his chin still was in serious question after McCall and though he hadn't looked good at all against Mercer. But not much in it considering just that. And he held no major title And why should Tyson ignore someone holding a title just because there could have been someone more dangerous out there without a major title? How is it cherry picking to go after the major titles? Should he have said "Sorry guys, I won't take the opportunity to once more become unified champ since you're not strong enough title holders to take the titles from."? Is that the alternative to being a cherry picker in your universe? You've been asked that several times by several posters. Please respond or stay out. You've also been asked to name where you see the opportunities for all these fights. I reposted the timeline for you to do it and now once again below, so please do or stay out. 1990: The best challenge out there was Holy and he was scheduled to face him, but the Douglas loss derailed it. Instead he had a decent comeback, beating Stewart who gave both Holy and Foreman tough fights. 1991: Was again scheduled to face Holy after two fights against the feared top contender Ruddock, but was sent to prison. 1995: Two meaningless tune up fights. My thinking at the time was that he could have faced better opponents but that he was still just shaking off rust and would soon step up in competition. Turned out to be true. 1996: Won two of the main titles. Can't really argue with that. Holy was seen as a gimme at the time, though, but he was a contender and meant big money. Bowe was the fight everyone wanted going into the year, but Golota soon made him irrelevant. And Lewis held no major title at the time. So two title holders and Holy have to be seen as a good year all in all. 1997: Holy was the natural fight to make and after that he was suspended for the rest of the year. 1999: Two pretty non-descript opponents. Botha was near the top 10, I suppose. So he faced a good level of competition every year he was active except 1995 and 1999, when he was coming back from lay-offs. There really isn't much room to pencil in the guys you mention above. But please try and prove me wrong.
The main argument from what I have seen it is that it isn't cherry picking to go after the holders of the major titles like Tyson did in 1996 just because there are fighters out there seen as bigger threats. Do you disagree with this?
Why can't you do it here? Tyson was a star draw, he could have fought anyone he wanted to! Excuses don't count.
As I've said: Since he was banned from boxing for half of the decade you have to look at the years he was active and see how the options were viewed at the time and what choices he made, to answer the actual question of the thread. Namely if he was a cherry picker. For the third or fourth time I will post the years he was active dunring the 90's and who he faced. If you think he was cherry picking you must logically make a case for which fighters he should have faced instead. Why do you and @zadfrak refuse to do this if it's so clear to you? 1990: The best challenge out there was Holy and he was scheduled to face him, but the Douglas loss derailed it. Instead he had a decent comeback, beating Stewart who gave both Holy and Foreman tough fights. 1991: Was again scheduled to face Holy after two fights against the feared top contender Ruddock, but was sent to prison. 1995: Two meaningless tune up fights. My thinking at the time was that he could have faced better opponents but that he was still just shaking off rust and would soon step up in competition. Turned out to be true. 1996: Won two of the main titles. Can't really argue with that. Holy was seen as a gimme at the time, though, but he was a contender and meant big money. Bowe was the fight everyone wanted going into the year, but Golota soon made him irrelevant. And Lewis held no major title at the time. So two title holders and Holy have to be seen as a good year all in all. 1997: Holy was the natural fight to make and after that he was suspended for the rest of the year. 1999: Two pretty non-descript opponents. Botha was near the top 10, I suppose. So he faced a good level of competition every year he was active except 1995 and 1999, when he was coming back from lay-offs. There really isn't much room to pencil in the guys you mention above. But please try and prove me wrong. Otherwise admit that you were wrong. Also answer this question that you and @zadfrak so far has refused to answer: Why should Tyson ignore someone holding a title just because there could have been someone more dangerous out there without a major title? How is it cherry picking to go after the major titles? Should he have said "Sorry guys, I won't take the opportunity to once more become unified champ since you're not strong enough title holders to take the titles from."? Is that the alternative to being a cherry picker in your universe? You've been asked that several times by several posters. Please respond or stay out.
Well , Mike came out of the Jessop where he had no access to training like Vitali had during his downtime. Vitali was prepped to re-enter the ring two years later and would have if Peter had not been named challenger mandatory to Maskaev. In 99 , Tyson stopped Botha who was as good if not better than Sam Peter. Since you mention Vitali , look at the cherry picking during his comeback? Swanoski, unranked Briggs , Chisora instead of big punching Helieenius who had beaten Chisora.
You can't answer my questions, but I'll reply to some of yours. It was a combination of taking safe fights and not fighting ANY of the top ten talents of the decade outside of Holy. That is what I call cherry picking. Douglas badly exposed Tyson. Stewart wasn't very good. He has a glass jaw and modest skills. Show me Stewart's his best win in the 1990's if you dare. He was a line up guy, Ko'd five times in the 1990s. While this is true, Ruddock didn't beat a single top contender for the decade aside from Dokes who he fought in 1990. We agree here. Peter McNeeley? Really Tyson sparring partners would have made short work of him! Buster Mathis jr was a chery pick too. The guys was short, fat and had the punch of a middle weight. These were set ups. Seldon vs. an old Tucker for the WBA belt with Tyson facing the winner. I agree Holyfield was a good choice and he badly lost that one, and DQ' himself with disgrace before disaster hit in the re-match. Some cherry picking here, there were much better than Botha and Norris, wouldn't you agree? Botha was a slow guy without power. Made to orde,r and Tyson flirted with a DQ here. The fight was close on the cards until the ending. Why not face better than McNelley and Mathis and Botha and Norris? These are four easy fights, while much better competition was left out. You know it, and so do I. Hence he cherry picked four times, See my above statement, why not face better than McNelley and Mathis and Botha and Norris? The WBA title fight was a pure set up vs a glass jaws and limited nerve type of opponent in Seldon. I spelled out four cherry picking fights. Tyson had Don King maneuver him, otherwise he would not get the winner of Seldon vs Old Tucker for the vacant WBA title. The Seldon fight stunk. It could have been Tyson's easiest professional win... And don't go too over board on Burno. He was old, and barely had enough energy to raise his arms in victory against a disinterested Oliver MCcall on that night. Now please answer my questions: This content is protected
Vitali beat several top ten opponents on his come back. Peter, Arreola, Johnson, Solis and Adamek were all rated in the top ten when Vitali beat them. So if you really want to get down to it, on his comeback when he was far older he was 5-0 vs his top ten. Tyson 1-2. I think Vitali could have picked better than Sonoswki for sure, but he beat Williams, Drew with Piñata ( Who would later get a title shot ) and beat Vidoz, so he was on a roll of sorts. Helinus would not win a round, its a mis-match and to be honest Chisora was shafted on the card when they fought. Botha as good as Peter who was ranked #1 or #2 in the world when Vitali beat him???!!. Please think a bit before you type. I really wanted to keep this thread on Tyson. Feel free to answer the questions I posted.
The rankings were pretty bad around that time. Peter was ranked #2 , but so was Bermane Stiverne when he fought Wilder. The eye test shows me Botha was in the same league as Sam Peter and a shot to pieces Tyson slept Botha in 5 Ranked guys or not , Vitali missed a lot of the top guys around at the time. Chambers , Helienus , Valuev , Haye , Chagaev, Povetkin , Pulev , Ustinov. Adamak was a farce and Briggs shouldn't have been sanction as a title defense. Ruddock , Stewart , Seldon , Botha , Golota , Bruno and 62-1-0 Brian Neilson was an equal if not better run of opponents.
