What made Tyson vs Spinks Interesting?

You know if tyson had lost or struggled against spinks or holmes, alot of people would be calling them legacy fights. And if tyson had knocked holyfield out in the first round, the victory would be minimized by the detractors.

 

Spinks maybe but not Holmes. Larry had already been beaten and shown to be way past his best. In some ways Spinks is a legacy fight, many rate it Tysons peak performance and blowing out a respected opponent the way he did added much to the noise.

Tyson was actually expected to make an easy meal of the Real Deal. It would have been an expected victory tho many notable figures were picking Holyfield. The hindsight of Holyfield whooping Tyson would be null and void obviously. Looking at the actual fight tho Tyson was never going to win it.

 

Is Wlad not a legacy fight for Joshua? What about Walcott and Louis for Marciano? They had lost before and were shown to be past their best

 

While the jury is still out on Joshua Wlad showed he was still extremely good. I'd back him to be a much more formidable opponent than Holmes was at the time. Joshua came back from the dead so it's definitely a great fight for him. It's basically all he has so far but the sky might be the limit.

Louis is more seen as a passing of the torch fight like Ali - Holmes etc.

 

Spinks could have done better against say a Liston or an Ali. Tyson just had the combination of speed, power and skill that allowed for a quick blowout

 

I've always said this. Tyson beats Holyfield in 1990-1991 then "Holyfield was just a blown up cruiser weight". Had he beat him in 1996-1997 then "Holyfield was old AND a blown up cruiser weight" so therefore it wouldn't count.

 

Well, he lost to him so that doesn’t much matter.

But it’s a nice strawman you’ve created there: any criticism of Tyson is automatically invalid. Why? Because you have ‘always said’ if things happened this way or that, people would react as you predict. And if you’ve always said it, well, it must be fact.

 

Bingo. If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.

 

It's based on the fact that people actually do say those things....not that I just pulled it out of thin air. I've lost count of the times that Spinks was "a blown up light heavy". But is he a "blown up light heavy" just because Tyson beat him? To be honest, no other fighter's resume (that I've seen) gets more criticism than Tyson's. So based on what I've seen, it's very likely that the above would be said. Could I be wrong? Yes. Would I likely be wrong? No.

 

Mayweather’s resume gets at least as much as Tyson’s.

What you’re seeing IMO is that Tyson is the dominant heavyweight and probaby the dominant persona in boxing for the era of when a lot of internet-age people were beginning to watch boxing (many of them doing so because of Tyson, ironically). So of course his resume gets more scrutiny from posters in recent years as compared to Floyd Patterson’s or Jack Dempsey’s or even Ai’s.

You don’t see a lot of people on football posters championing Johnny Unitas or YA Tittle as best passer ever for the same reasons.

I was at the Tyson-Spinks fight live. There was a lot of thought at the time that Spinks and his herky-jerky style might trouble Tyson if he got Iron Mike into the middle and later rounds, but there was also (fair) criticism that Spinks wasn’t a true heavyweight and wouldn’t be able to hold Tyson off. (Which proved to be true.)

Just because there’s criticism and debate over Tyson’s resume (or anyone else’s) doesn’t mean it’s a product of it being that fighter because of something innate about him — it could be that more people discuss it because they are familiar with the guy, grew up forming opinions about him and feel comfortable in their position because. It’s in their wheelhouse.

Now I ask: what is fair criticism of Tyson in your opinion?

 

Spinks was often referred to as a "blown up light heavy" from 1985 onwards.
For obvious reasons.

He had a 27-0 record as a light-heavy, boxing in that division for over 8 years, since turning professional age 20.

His first fight at heavyweight he was 29 years old.
He boxed 5 times as a heavyweight, spanning less than 3 years. He went 4-1 at heavyweight (and many insist it should be seen as 3-2, since he was lucky to get the decision in the Holmes rematch.)


I don't believe in calling anyone a "blown up" anything, necessarily. But it's pretty obvious why Spinks was often called it. It has nothing to do with discrediting Mike Tyson.

 

I’ve always said this: Holyfield has too much will power and self-confidence to lose to any version of Tyson. If they fought 100 times, Tyson would lose all 100 times.

 

Berbick was shitting his pants and anyone who saw a different thing need a glasses urgently

 

I mentioned this in another thread. the fact Spinks couldn't do one thing with Tyson at least says something. yeah he was blown up, bad knees etc, but a man of that experience, two fights with Holmes couldn't even make it out of a round with Tyson. I knew he would lose but at the time it was astonishing he lost so quickly.

 

The way he blew him out was impressive for sure, regardless of intangibles.

As i've said many times i don't think i've ever seen a heavyweight better equipped to get smaller men moving up in weight out of there - fast.