When exactly was Mike Tyson's prime?

I know, it's pretty ridiculous. You mean to tell me that none of the 50 people he beat "stood up to him"?

You also need to have the right skills, talent, and game plan. Peter McNeeley stood up to him and fought fearlessly. Unfortunately, he was a journeyman level fighter, despite a glossy record. Trevor Berbick stood up to him and fought fearlessly. But his game plan wasn't right, he was in fact rather reckless, and he was a modest talent on the world class level. A middle-of-the-road contender who won the title against a far more talented fighter in Pinklon Thomas, whom I'm guessing spent far too much time partying and doing drugs when he should have been training hard and taking the sport seriously.

The HW division he dominated was not a strong division talent-wise. Actually I think the HW division in general throughout history is usually weak in talent. Or it's just perceived that way. Other than the 70s and some of the 90s, it seems to always be a weak era. I look at Tyson's wins from 86-91 and I'm not overly impressed with the guys he beat. Then I look at the fighters Lewis beat and it's not totally impressive either. I look at Marciano and his best names were great fighters on the downside, who were also better at LHW. Wlad is the most accomplished HW after Lewis by leaps and bounds, but his opposition sucks. Louis is criticized for his "bum of the month" club.

How often is the talent at heavyweight actually good?

I think this is common though. Look at all the heavyweights in history and it's rare that they beat great fighters at their best.

Tyson's lack of longevity hurts him. If your era isn't strong, then all you can do is beat the best guys around. He didn't do that for a long enough time and it hurts his all-time standing. Then when the division was strong, he was in prison, and then he lost to a supposedly shot Holyfield.

 

Its true that Tyson never really defeated a "great" fighter who was prime. But I feel that a lot of the men he DID beat were good fighters whom in a different era without a multiple belt system would have been solid contenders. Does anyone really think that Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, James Smith, Carl Williams, Frank Bruno, Michael Spinks, Razor Ruddock, and Marvis Frazier would have gone through most periods totally unranked? My guess is probably not. They were decent sized men, of reasonable age, experience, amateur pedigree, etc.. And few champions would have dispatched those guys in the fashion that Tyson did. I don't even know if Lennox Lewis looked much better at beating a 35 year old tucker than Tyson did a 28 year old one.. Larry Holmes was shot in 1988, but look at the success he had in the 90's.. How easy did Riddick Bowe find Tony Tubbs? Tyson's resume is solid. His opposition was neither the best nor the worst. The fact is, few heavyweight champions ever defeated a "great" fighter at his best. Sullivan was shot when Corbett beat him.. Jeffries was finished when Johnson took him apart.. Dempsey was past it against Tunney. Louis was green against Schmeling and washed up against Charles. Liston was fading against Ali.. Ali was coming off a layoff against Frazier. Frazier was slipping against Foreman.. The list goes on and on..

 

So, the mythical Ali of the 60's beat an old alcoholic, a shot powerpuncher with bullet holes in him and a couple underserving Euro trash.... See? This is easy.

The fact remains that Tyson cleaned out the division in perhaps the most emphatic fashion this had ever been done.

 

Obviously it's not so easy for you though, is it? I don't believe anyone ever tried to portray Ali as the " Baddest Man On The Planet " ,,,, " A destructive force of nature " ,,,or any of those other pathetic plaudits Tyson was given.

Nice try though, keep it up.

 

No.. He's just regularly haled as " The greatest heavyweight of all time."

 

1988 was Tyson at his very best. He could have maintained that peak a few years longer had he been more disciplined.

 

"The Greatest"... who picks no hopers like Brian London and a shot-to-**** Williams to prove it against... and who quite likely got at least one title fight thrown his way.

No, Tyson was more analogous to Dempsey and was a much better fulfillment of the Dempsey savagery myth... which old Jack chose to prove against invalids and victims of Harry Greb rather than prove against Wills.

Keep trying, Chief.

 

My main man Chuck Wepner put Ali on ***** street :good

 

Greatness isn't judged off a boxrec page.

All you have to do is watch him perform during his prime to see that he was a great boxer.

 

What?

 

A title more befitting than the crap that is claimed about Tyson.

 

OP is a troll, i thought it would have become obvious after a few of his posts.

People mock Tysons prime, but i feel Tysons pre-prison opposition was just as good, if not better than Alis. However, what Ali did AFTER his exile (and what Tyson couldnt do) seperates the 2 of them.

How long was Holyfields heavyweight prime? Douglas (one hit wonder) Cooper (crackhead), Holmes (old man) and Foreman (old man) and then gets dethrowned by Bowe, who essentially was a slightly better managed Buster Douglas.

What about Lennox? picks the belt from the bin, after beating Tysons leftovers in Ruddock, then defends it against Tucker (Tyson leftover), Bruno (Tyson leftover), Butler and then gets Kod by Tysons sparring partner?

Im not dissing Holy or Lewis, im just playing devils advocate here. Tysons title reign was very good, his opposition was not the best, but then he righfully wiped the floor with most of these guys.

 

Lets talk about junkies, and alcoholics.

In fact lets try and find ANYONE the little ****** beat that didn't either have booze, drugs, or mental health issues, and was in fact in their prime. ( Dont bother mentioning garbage like Seldon, McNeeley, Bruno, that wouldn't qualify as sparring partners for Ali. )

Nice try though, again.


Drawing comparisons between Ali, and Tyson. Priceless.

 

If the OP is a troll where does that leave you?

Ali, never got beaten the **** out of then KTFO by a huge underdog, at the age of 23.

Thats all you need to know when trying to draw an analogy between those two.

 

Anybody who questions his greatness of Tyson doesn't know how hard it is to beat guys coming forward with a huge physical disadvantage like Mike had.

Combining defense and offence while tracking guys down and cutting them off , slipping and countering requires a hell of a lot more talent and skill than just standing there popping a jab and right hand behind a huge physical advantage.

Tyson was one of the greatest talents in boxing history. The people who claim otherwise are the same people who claim Wladimir Klitschko is a top 10 ATG when he can't even beat guys with clean boxing with a massive size advantage while just standing in the centre of the ring pawing and fouling repeatedly before he feels brave enough to actually box