What was Tyson's first fight that was on PPV?

The "money" issue is another thing I hold against Tyson that has also caused me to reduce his ranking down to # 9..... So the dude grossed more money from 1986 to 1992 than Jimmy Carter ever had peanuts on his farm down in Georgia, fact is, Tyson and his home-boys all went through the bankroll like Hitler's army running through and taking over Poland back in 1942.... Christ, even after huge paydays in 1996 and 1997 in them title fights he had then, the poor ******* was virtually bankrupt by 2000.... WTF?
atsch:huh:shock::roll::|

MR.BILL:good

 

That has more to do with Mike Tyson the person not Mike Tyson the fighter

 

Its always fun to watch these people with 20/20 hindsight come out of the woodwork AFTER an event and say "I knew blah blah blah" Bull****! In 88 Tyson-Spinks was the biggest most intriguing and most competetive HW championship matchup since Ali-Frazier 1 and anyone who doesnt believe that can find a plethora of media from old video footage coverage, to newspapers, to magazines which back that up.

 

It may have been a huge event pre-fight... it certainly pittered into insignificance. Much the same as 99% of fellows ATTACHED to Tyson's coat tails. The scum that bled him. I wonder how many of these Tyson still considers friends?

 

Spinks, HBO got him early and most of fights were there until Spinks. Then the next one PPV was I think Ruddock.

 

Well, I remember the build-up perfectly, and in a way you're right. But it was more to do with the way things were built up, rather than Spinks' true value as a heavyweight fighter.

Circa 1986 Spinks was being treated with outright scepticism, just one of the three alphabet title holders, linear champion maybe, but very much unconvincing as a formidable heavyweight. He was lucky to get past Holmes, and Holmes was considered ready for pasture. Now, how did Spinks get from there to be viewed as "competitive" and "intriguing" proposition for Tyson, who in the meantime was defeating every contender out there ?

Well, that's really the answer. Tyson was cleaning out the division, and there was no one left. Butch Lewis did the right thing in taking Spinks out of the alphabet unification stakes and letting the enigma of Spinks, and the tradition of the lineage, grow into something big to play rival to Tyson.
It was a build up.

At best, Spinks would have been considered about even-money to beat Tubbs, Thomas or Witherspoon in 1986, and those guys weren't rated as killers. Yet two years later, Spinks was shrewdly left as the last man standing, and inherited an aura and prestige that made him a worthy adversary for this kid who was being hailed as the second coming. I'm not saying Spinks wasn't a good heavyweight, and he had that certain pedigree (Olympics, light-heavy undisputed, linear at heavy) and was unbeaten, but he hadn't proved **** at heavyweight really, since he beat Holmes in '85. He was really not deserving of being rated a notch above the likes of Tucker, or C.Williams, or Berbick, at heavyweight.
It was build up. It's marketing. Shrewd management. And the public's appetite for TYSON demanded a super-fight, demanded a rival.

The retirements of Hagler (permanent) and Leonard (temporary), and the need for a Tyson super-fight helped drive Michael Spinks up in "everyone's" estimation. After all, this guy was held up by the traditionalists as the real champion, so ... maybe Tyson was a "pretender" ... and Spinks was a "puzzle" and a classy boxer, just what is needed to beat a slugger.
But it was all contrived really. Spinks hadn't done anything after barely "beating" Holmes in the rematch, other than beat the inactive Cooney - Spinks had avoided the real contenders - meanwhile Tyson was beating all the big strong guys that Butch Lewis had openly said weren't worth the risk of fighting. If you read quotes and interviews in 1987, Michael Spinks didn't seem too confident of beating Tyson, but I guess that was his manner. Butch Lewis did all the real talking.

It was brilliant build up.
Both sides played it perfectly, and the timing was superb.

Not everyone was fooled.
I'll admit, at the time, then young and less cynical than I am now, I was fooled.

I review it with 20/20 hindsight now, just as we can look at the Dempsey-Carpentier fight and build-up with 20/20 hindsight.

 

Perhaps they were, but the figures prove just how much interest Tyson generated!

He got paid $22,000,000 for facing Spinks & that was 22 year ago! Some fighters don't even earn anywhere near that amount in today's world!

 

I disagree Tyson-Spinks was a rip-off. People either want to see a good fight, or a spectacular knock-out. In this case, they got the latter, and it was history making on top of that. It put Tyson in the stratosphere. A mid-round KO wouldn't have had nearly the impressive effect.

McKneely and Seldon were jokes, yes, but you can't blame Tyson for that. It just goes to show how ridiculously popular he was. Those fighters were jokes, but it was simply all about Tyson.