Why is the Pinklon Thomas performance not rated higher for Tyson?

Definitely a solid performance over a highly notable opponent. How good was Pinklon Thomas on that evening ? I don’t know. But Tyson went in there and performed the way he was expected to.

 

I watched a bit of Pinky vs Witherspoon and Berbick, even between those two fights he seemed to be a diminished fighter and against Tyson he looked even more deteriorated IMO. He showed lots of guts but when you see him vs Witherspoon you can see the fighter he was and should have stayed. It makes his reasonable showing vs Mike even more tragic and his career a huge what if!

 

I'm not starting an argument (I"m in no mental place to do that, right now) and I like the overall cut of your jib in the OP, but to the point of Tyson having to come from behind, it's weird, because I don't remember that at all when I think of the fight. I don't remember ever thinking Tyson wasn't on his way to crushing Thomas, so I can't recall anything that I'd phrase come-from-behind when talking about the fight. Was he actually losing on the cards or what?

 

" Thomas officially won only single rounds on two of the official cards but he made Tyson work"

From an article which has a good breakdown of the fight. For some reason wont let me link but search for Boxing Scene "Boxing Without Boxing: Mike Tyson vs. Pinklon Thomas - 05/30/87"

 

Because of Pinks poor performance against Berbick. Early life was seen to have caught up with him.

 

Because most cats have only seen the end of the fight when Thomas was getting turds punched out of him.

 

I also find hindsight frustrating, particularly if about a win of one of my favourite fighters. However I don't feel re-evaluating a match based on later history, or a simply rewatch, is a problem, after all debating this stuff is what logging onto Classic is all about. Some wins stand the test of time and others don't, irrelevant of the circumstances at the time. In the same way some wins that were underrated are now seen as significant, so it cuts both ways.

Pinklon is clearly not the same fighter he was vs Witherspoon (probably his best performance). Vs Tyson he is tired almost from the beginning, his punches lack any snap and he has limited punch variety, relying on a quick one two and then a grapple or a shove. He never once hurts Mike who after the opening barrage is patient and seems to let Thomas blow himself out. Every time Mike hits Pinky he seems to make him shudder to his boots. Obviously Witherspoon and Tyson are very different fighters and I am not saying that Mike doesn't show excellent skills in breaking Thomas down. But Thomas being clearly tired and lacking any zip is not down to Mike but to being a diminished fighter IMO. Against Tim he shows a fantastic solid jab that shakes him often, goes to the body and uses excellent combinations. He shows very good head movement and reflexes, none of which he does vs Mike. I gave Thomas 2 rounds, but only because Mike didn't do much, not because Thomas did anything spectacular.

A lot of fans feel peak Thomas would have given Holmes a good fight and possibly beaten him. But no-one watching the Tyson fight version of Thomas could imagine him beating Larry in a million years.

I also feel Thomas did not perform as well as Page did vs Ruddock, Dokes vs Holyfield or Tubbs vs Bowe in the ageing 80s champ vs younger hot shot sweep stakes. Of course there are many factors at play here and Tyson was a far better fighter than Ruddock but Greg, Mike and Tony showed a lot more in the tank in these fights than Thomas, with Page and Tubbs genuinely bamboozling Razor and Riddick while Dokes matched Evander punch for punch and showed impressive hand speed in probably his best ever showing.

Did Tyson beat a highly rated and talented fighter, absolutely, did he beat a Thomas anywhere near his best, absolutely not.

BTW I should add I was around at the time and I don't remember anyone giving Pinky a chance to win or even do well. He looked sloppy vs a faded Weaver, terrible losing to Berbick and then terrible in his next three fights against limited opposition. His peak looked to 100 years ago not 4 years ago.

 

To me that wasn't the same Thomas who beat Witherspoon; that Thomas would have lasted longer and probably won most of the rounds. He had a really good jab, probably a bit above Bowe (which is still excellent).

But even that Thomas would have met the inevitable, probably in the late rounds.

Mike was on a different level than any other heavyweight fighter of the decade besides early 80s Holmes. The only person who had a chance to beat him during that decade was the aforementioned, young Holmes imo. And that would have been a FANTASTIC fight, far exceeding Holmes-Norton...perhaps even Holy-Bowe.

 

Pinklon was washed in truth it’s amazing that he won a round or two

 

What's interesting is that there is an excuse for everyone Tyson defended against but in reality other than possibly Spinks no one was terrorfied and all came to fight until they realized they had little shot ... Thomas looked terrific against Witherspoon, very solid against Weaver and while maybe unfocused certainly still physically capable vs Berbick. He was also still a young man ... Tyson destroyed him. Monster first round. Thomas showed how much he had left by hanging tough and being competitive for a few rounds and then the highlight reel KO. So every hater claim he was on of the scared or that they know for a fact he was shooting up again when no one knows crap ... here's what happened; he had a shot at the title while still a young man and got destroyed.

Tyson was the one falling apart fight by fight after he won the title and the fact that he accomplished what he did against very tough opposition is to his credit .. Spinks may have been is biggest win but that was far from the best Tyson as his life was already a circus and his training not the same.

 

I find this entire viewpoint bizarre.

First, Pinklon Thomas threw a lot of jabs, the occasional one-two, then grappled and shoved ... in every fight ... that's what he ALWAYS DID 99 percent of the time

In fights going back to his early pro career, he could look lazy. His punches could look like they lack snap, and then they'd have snap, then they look like they don't have snap.

I get the impression you guys have seen like one or two of his fights.

Your description of how he fought in that first line above IS HOW HE FOUGHT from when he began his career all the way up to the Mike Tyson fight.

He could look tired, then he'd wake up. He could look good one round, lazy the next. Punch sharp, then look uninterested.

Watch his early fights. It's a lot of one-twos. It's a lot of jabs. And its the round here and there where it looks like he's tired and his punches look like they lack snap.

Second, why would you say he didn't perform as well as Tubbs against Bowe, when Tubbs fought a young Mike Tyson, too. How did Tubbs do against a surging Mike Tyson? He didn't last two rounds, that's how he did. Was Tubbs a shell against Tyson, too?

And it's difficult to look at your best when you are fighting an all-time great and you get knocked out.

Of course, Thomas looked better against Witherspoon than he did Mike Tyson. He was fighting TIM WITHERSPOON.

Witherspoon wasn't as good as Mike Tyson.

Frank Bruno looked better against Tim Witherspoon than he did against Mike Tyson. Carl Williams looked better against Tim Witherspoon than he did against Mike Tyson. Ribalta looked better against Witherspoon than he did against Mike Tyson. Bonecrusher Smith stopped Witherspoon in one round. He kind looked better that night than he did against Tyson. Golota looked better against Witherspoon than he looked against Mike Tyson. Lou Savarese, Brian Nielsen and Tony Tubbs looked better against Tim Witherspoon than they did against Mike Tyson.

Most people looked better against Tim Witherspoon than they did Mike Tyson.

People who hold up the Witherspoon fight and say, "Well, Pinklon didn't look as good as he did that night" ... like everyone looked better against Tyson than they did when they squared off against Terrible Tim ... sound ridiculous.

Pinklon Thomas could've easily been undefeated when he faced Mike Tyson. He lost ONE fight in his entire 31-fight-career to that point, by ONE ROUND.

Was Thomas absolutely at his absolute PERFECT, ALL-TIME best against Mike Tyson? Who knows and who cares? He was the #1 contender. In the Ring ratings, the only people rated above were the champs (Tyson, Spinks, Smith). Thomas was the highest rated heavyweight who didn't have a title.

He wasn't a shell. Thomas was a top heavyweight, and Pinklon fought like a top heavyweight that night. It was an excellent win by Tyson. It should be considered an excellent win by Tyson. Tyson essentially RUINED Thomas with that brutal KO. Thomas retired after that and then decided to come back a year and a half later.

It was the vicious demolition of a top heavyweight.

At his best, Pinklon Thomas NEVER would've beaten Mike Tyson. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a top heavyweight in the world and among the best when Tyson ruined him ... because Thomas WAS one of the top heavyweights and among the best when he was ruined by Tyson.

 

You make excellent and articulate points, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, I am just making counter points about why the win is not considered as highly as some others by Mike, which was the original question by the OP.

I am also saying that I don't remember anyone (in the UK press) at the time, or fans I knew, at the time, being that excited by this fight or thinking Pinky stood a chance. It is hard to see a win as being that amazing when it plays out pretty much as you expected. Mike's win over Berbick was electrifying because firstly we didn't really know what to expect and Mike dismantled a tough solid guy who had recently won convincingly over Pinky. He was then a known quality and so it was not a surprise he had an easy time with Thomas. In fact Mike seemed to go to sleep for a few rounds after looking like it would be another first round KO for him. You can hear the crowd booing several times during the fight so it sounds not everyone was as thrilled as you were

 

Fair points but as I said I see no problem with reassessing performances based on later information. And yes I totally agree it is annoying as I admitted in my post

 

Direct answer - the general atmosphere around Tyson.
That win is certainly worth it (and I'm impressed with how many punches it took for Tyson to take Thomas down), but Mike took the belt in the fight before that fight, and he took the belt in the fight after that fight.
Those circumstances, and some others overshadowed the knockout of Thomas.