Why do people keep calling Tyson's opponents "bums and Holmes leftovers"

People can be morans.

Tyson beat a rather deep bench of players in his prime, comparable or better than many other greats.

 

Tyson was a great champion.

 

They weren’t bums... And while some of them WERE remnants of the Larry Holmes era, many were now seasoned contenders or belt holders where as they were aspiring prospects when they fought Holmes. Mike Tyson is often sold short for the fighters he beat in first career and he shouldn’t be. They were solid opponents of reasonable age, size and record. Most lost in one side fashion. Unfortunately his defeat to James Douglas prompted some to roll back his achievements and devalue them.

 

Holmes fought younger and better versions of the guys that they both fought simple like that. Anyway styles makes fights

 

The pendulum has swung in all directions, for me, on the Tyson's pre-prison career assessmnet.

I wouldn't call his opponents, during this period, bums - But, they weren't a collective murderer's row, either.

They were a mixed bag, ranging from the average to the very good, with one of them, at least, that I would consider as having been damaged goods; another a bit old and rusty - and, there are a couple of Tyson's scalps in the bag, which to my mind, resulted from the opponents just showing up for the paycheck.

Either way, it wasn't a bad run, overall...

Berbick - was a lunatic, who I don't think actually knew what he was getting into so, he doesn't fit the Paycheck Collector description. But, he wasn't a world-beater, either. That said, this was a solidly legit win for Tyson, over an inconsistent performer, but who was half-decent when he had his moments.

Smith - was just a long, hard night all-round; for Smith himself; for Tyson and for the spectators - awful fight - not much else one can say.

Thomas - is a case of "If only...". What a fighter that guy could have been. I have to say that I think he was pretty much halfway to being a burnout by the time he faced Tyson. Never looked like making and didn't make an impression, after that fight.

Tucker - Exemplary fighter and probably Tyson's best win, after Holmes.

Biggs - I said it at the time and I have said it countless times since, Olympic Gold Medal or no, he was put in with Tyson way too early. Hadn't fought anyone of note and in his 17th pro fight gets put in the ring with a killer. It ended him, in my opinion. Two more losses followed, in slow succession, with his meaningful career pretty much over.

Holmes - Yes, Holmes was aged and he was ring-rusty but I still see the punch Tyson planted on him without the need for video, recollection. That one had a way of engraving itself on the memory. Would he have had the same success with a prime Holmes. Who knows? And, I feel like it's been talked to death so, who cares? Tyson did his job and did it well, in what was an exciting fight, while it lasted. His best win, in my opinion.

Tubbs - for me, fits the description of the Paycheck Collector. Woefully out of shape, in my opinion. So, didn't look like he was there to win, despite the display of some fast hands for the first several minutes or so.

Spinks - Another Paycheck Collector, in my view. Fair play to him for going through the motions and risking himself against a Tyson, who looked in murderous mood. But, Spinks did get very well paid for 91 seconds of work... $13.5M
Good man!!

Bruno - Was definitely there to win. Strong as an ox and a powerful puncher. Solid win for Tyson, in my book. And, achieved in an efficient manner.

Williams - Classic Tyson. Not his best win, but dispatched quick-style, nonetheless.

Like I suggest. Not bad, but not great. Though, to be honest, not many could have plowed through that list in the fashion Tyson did. Much of that is a styles thing, combined with Tyson's ability to combine speed and power with a ferocious desire for an early night.

There was a point during which Tyson the boxer came with a Health Warning to any that faced him.

 

I think it’s possible that Trevor Berbick might have been better when he fought Holmes. But I don’t see how Marvis Frazier, Carl Williams or Bonecrusher Smith could have been. Those guys were green as grass. And it’s debatable if Holmes even beat Williams in the first place. Spinks was probably better in 1985 than he was in 1988 but I think the fact that he beat Holmes and lost to Tyson in 91 seconds makes that issue moot.

 

It's definitely a gross exaggeration. Tyson beat quite a reasonable lot and he didn't have the filler Holmes did. Imagine Tyson against the likes of Evangelista, Ocasio, Jones, LeDoux, Spinks, Snipes, Rodriguez and Frank. They would have been roadkill.

 

Those that want to trash someone will always find a way. FULL STOP. That being said Tyson fought seven current or former world champions in his first thirty five fights as a heavyweight. Show me other heavyweights with those numbers in their first thirty five fights.

 

yep and if we’re honest Ali, Louis and Klitschko had quite a few lesser men on their list too

 

This content is protected

 

He was a great heavyweight, number 10 on my ATGs.

I do however think he was sandwiched between fighters who were greater than him: Foreman/Ali/Holmes and then Holyfield/Lewis.

 

Both of these are underrated ko's. I think people try to hate on spinx because of how incredibly 1 sided the fight was and his lack of effort/crippling fear. Critics have the benefit of hindsight and run with the idea Holmes was past his prime and spinks' only other significant heavyweight win (Cooney) wasn't all that to devalue spinks as a credible opponent despite being an undefeated prime lineal champion. Even if he knocked out tomato cans that is still a good win.

Holmes vs Smith was competitive but against Tyson, Smith became "Boneclutcher" and just held to stink up the joint, waiting way too long to finally open up. The part the critics can't get past is that none of this Tyson's fault.

Agree. It was a solid win and right up there with Liston vs Patterson or Rocky vs Walcott as incredible all time great title winning efforts. Berbick was a good, strong, rugged champion who had gone the distance with many good fighters and Tyson just brutalized him with superb speed, head movement, timing, and an assassin's execution. There is no logical argument that can be made to make this look like a bad win.

Agreed. Thomas was a good opponent and Tyson showed he could make adjustments to solve the puzzle of a guy with good fundamentals who wouldn't just fold from the first blow. Thomas was dealing with drug issues so people use that to completely discredit the win.

Had Biggs turned out to be something great this win would have aged better. People had high expectations of him after his amateur career but he soon began to fall apart after this beat down. Perhaps Tyson ruined him. Either way, he was still a good opponent on paper and in reality. A prime, tall, skilled athletic opponent. What happens after the fight shouldn't be held against Tyson.

Bowe didn't always look good with this sort of opponent so im bit sure if this is the best comparison. I certainly don't remember Bowe "almost being KO'd". You have to knock someone down and have them on wobbly legs to do that.

To be fair, Tucker wasn't in the best condition against Tyson either. He allegedly broke his hand in sparring 10 days before the fight. It's not like Tyson battered him from pillar to post, it was a competitive fight. Additionally, Lennox dropped Tucker twice.

This is an entirely different subject, but this gist of it is:

-Tubbs wasn't really there to win against Tyson. He showed up overweight out spite even though he was offered a cash bonus. He practically dove to the canvas and made zero attempts to get up.

-tubbs was not robbed against Bowe. He had a good strategy but he simply did not throw enough punches to win rounds convincingly.

-he was not that old. He was 33 and won 5 fights in a row before Bowe. If he was old at 33 then he was old at 31 when he fought Tyson.

-Bowe was in horrible shape against Golota and his nuts probably became peanut butter after these beatings.

Agreed. Tyson showed that he wasnt just a hard hitter but a good finisher too.

 

I and not saying that Tyson would have not beaten the younger version of these guys only saying the truth, Holmes was a matture guy facing these younger guys and Tyson was the young boy facing these same guys.but saying that smith was green in 1984 at 31 please..

 

Age is just one part of the equation.

He was 31 but the man didn't turn pro until he was 28. He'd been pro 3 years and had 15 pro fights and his only respectable opponent was Bruno right before he fought Holmes. Bruno, the heavy favorite, was outpointing him easily before getting caught in the last round and folding. Smith also had a short amateur career of less than 40 fights.

Smith lost 3 of his next 4 after Larry.

Holmes was most certainly green himself if you look at where he was either 3 years into his career of 15 fights deep.

Bonecrusher was at his best when he fought Tyson and was coming off wins over Weaver, Fergusan, Bey and Witherspoon, his best win and best run ever.

Foreman 3 years in had twice as many fights racked up and also had an extensive amateur career which led to him being way past where Smith was . However at 15 fights in he was certainly still somewhat green. He hadn't been exposed to the big time much at all. Experience is a big thing for a late starter with a shallow base. Sure he didn't turn into a world beater and i'd most certainly back Holmes to beat the version Tyson beat as well but saying Crusher was green as such is certainly no leap.