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

Yeah an he completely closed the book on the Holmes era by personally wiping out Holmes. just like Holmes himself had drew a line under the Ali era by brutally beating old Ali

 

As always you make a fair point, and to be honest I got a bit sidetracked, but my point overall is that of those guys Pinky had the most talent and had noticeably faded the most when he fought Tyson, hence the victory not being that highly rated by some.

 

With one obvious exception, none of those guys listed performed any better than Thomas, so I'm hesitant to say he didn't look prime.

I think it's fair to say that Thomas' fight with Weaver was during his prime. In that fight, he eats lots of flush punches without even moving his head, but still prevails due to his chin and two handed power being way above average. That same approach is obviously flawed against a prime Tyson.

 

Perhaps Thomas was the man who was meant to take over the division from Holmes, albeit briefly.

 

I think that Tyson's strength played a part in making Pinky appear to be faded... I think that Ferdy called the fight and almost called out the fact that Tyson was just a small step behind on catching up to Thomas a few moments before he connected with the final assault...this was quite a brutal fight that showcased how intense Tyson's fights were

 

He would've beaten Holmes between 84-85 IMO.

 

I will just say that who ever taught Pinklon how to defend was sadist.

It was his style to take big bombs to face even aginst Weaver.

i dont think any version of Thomas beats Tyson with that style.

Beatings he took from Holyfield and Bowe was so onesided seemed like they wanted to test how much one human can take those punches.

 

I had a peak at the Ring's pre-fight issue last night and there isn't any preview of this fight despite Mike being #1 (behind their champ- Spinks) and Thomas being #2, whereas the month before Spinks vs Cooney was hugely previewed- cover stars and all. So, like I thought I remembered, it wasn't regarded as a test for Tyson at the time, despite their rankings (which was shortly after Ring announced it was going back to rating only the traditional 8 divisions.

 

What did it say about the fight? Sounds like the wrong issue.

 

Nothing. That was my point. I'm talking before the fight, not after it (which it reported in the issue with one of Liverpool's finest 'Michael Olajide' on the cover, looking like he's auditioning for a place in 1980s pop disco-funk shitbags 'Five Star').

 

That's strange. Maybe KO covered it and they intentionally left it out.

 

I doubt it. KO went big on Spinks-Cooney too.

 

Yeah, that was a much bigger fight. I didn't realize they were only two weeks apart.

 

Because he was mostly the only one with his **** together consistently. Certainly not fair to guys who looked great for certain fights, but you can understand why others were tarred.