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

November 1984 at 31 smith to me was in a perfect stage of his career. Not old and not too green

 

Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Bruno, Williams, Stewart and Ruddock were all good prime opponents.

Thomas was good and came to fight but his lifestyle had taken its toll. Tubbs had quality but didn't really show up. Holmes was old and rusty but would still be a handful for anyone else at the time, I reckon. A bit hard to know just what state Spinks was in, but Tyson's destruction of him didn't really leave any significant questions unanswered.

 

Too few fights and not enough boxing experience. If someone started boxing at 38 would they be at their peak at 31? 15 fights with little amateur action = not enough experience. He was decent tho but did improve a little.

 

If a fighter is one of the best contenders in the world, then that makes them a very tangible opponent, whatever you think of the era!

 

Pinklon Thomas was imo just as credible as Greg Page (certainly more credible than 2-years-without-fighting grandpa Larry). Like Biggs, he had a more than decent chance against Iron Mike. Thomas failed because he let himself get hit too much, whereas Biggs got hit and threw away his (really good) game plan.

And yeah, I think both of those opponents were ruined after Iron Mike. They were legitimately good opponents (shoot, Thomas was a former champ and Biggs an exceptional amateur...both had the tools, they just couldn't take Mike's hand speed and natural power).

 

Thomas didn't "let himself get hit too much" he simply couldn't stop Tyson from hitting him that much. If he could stop it he sure would have wouldn't he? Tyson was simply too good for him and there's no wriggle room at all.

 

You put it way better than I did, @JohnThomas1

 

You're a good man!! We have to give credit where it's due.

 

You have to think of it like this, his résumé was about on par with Larry Holmes although I think Holmes edges it, the thing that stands out though is didn't get sparked out by one of his challengers whilst in his prime. That sort of thing tarnishes one's legacy and rightly so.

 

I agree. Should be said that Tyson's wins were more dominant, though. Even in his prime, Larry just edged Norton in a fight that could have gone the other way. Shavers, Snipes and Weaver also had a prime Holmes in pretty bad trouble.

That's what's a bit special with Tyson: when he won he really won and when he lost he really lost. No "that was close" "the judges got it wrong" - every result is super clear.

Edit: With the exception of the Tillis fight.

 

The boxing writers of the day were overly critical of most of the 80s heavyweights. A lot of the criticisms you read online are probably from certain 55-75 year-old fans who shared those writers' views and never bothered reassessing them with the benefits of hindsight.

 

Good post. Yeah the age you talk about had just came through the Era Of Ali, Frazier, Foreman the “golden 70’s”.

Me being in my 40’s I was obsessed with that next group of guys. I grew up with them.

Holmes, Page, Thomas, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Coetzee, Dokes, Berbick, Bonecrusher, Bey, Weaver, Tillis, Snipes, Tucker, Biggs, Bruno, Williams, Spinks, Cooney, Tate, Douglas, Mercado

I could go on and on, so many of them, and then when we got to Tyson. I was at that point a seasoned watcher and the way he just blew them all away was quite impressive. I knew all those guys inside and out they all fought and beat each other. They were definitely inconsistent let’s say but some when they were good were pretty damn good. Tyson ran through all the ones he faced basically unscathed, to me his run was very impressive.

 

Very fair post.

 

Dude the guy was about as inexperienced as a fighter could be going into a world title fight. The only thing you’re looking at is calendar dates which doesn’t even begin to explain it.

 

If he was given the chance for fighting the title against Larry Holmes was because he had the experience enough