Why is Tysons competition poo pooed

I think its underrated Tyson basically cleaned up the division in a few short years and never avoided anyone ATG reign IMO.

 

Mostly he cleaned up the dregs of the previous generation, guys who got to claim they were former heavyweight titleholders because they played hot potato with belts but were never considered the top guy at any point during their time (Larry Holmes aside, but he was retired and just came back to collect a payday without a tuneup or a really ample time to train himself back into shape).

Versus guys of his own generation, he lost to Holyfield x2, Buster Douglas and Lennox, missed Riddick Bowe and beat Razor Ruddock x2 and Tony Tucker … am I missing anyone?

He could have fought Greg Page and Tim Witherspoon to finish his collection of 1980s second-tier action figures.

Not bad but to a large degree he dined on leftovers.

 

He beat most of the best fighters of his time.

 

He didn’t beat bums, he just beat Holmes’ older leftovers. It’s not Mike’s fault the division sucked when he was in his prime

 

He also ate Holmes for breakfast. That straight right that laid him flat out on the canvas was very impressive.

 

Mostly people that fell for that negative tyson narrative and they still hold those ignorant views years later, foolishly.

Tyson was a great fighter, best of his generation and I feel the same way about people that try to bash his competition.

 

Evander was the best heavyweight of that generation.

He also fought better opposition than Tyson.

 

2 -3 against other IBHOF members with wins over Holmes and Spinks

 

The same reason that the opposition of most ATG's get's criticized really.

The significance of the wins get lost in the mists of time, leaving you with a list of forgotten men.

If an opponent is not an ATG, then they pixilate as we move further from the event.

 

He cleaned up against who he had.
In 1986, Ring magazines heavyweight ratings were :
Champion - Michael Spinks
1 - Mike Tyson
2 - Bonecrusher Smith
3 - Pinklon Thomas
4 - Tim Witherspoon
5 - Tony Tubbs
6 - Trevor Berbick
7 - Buster Douglas
8 - Tony Tucker
9 - Frank Bruno
10 - Tyrell Biggs.
He fought them all except Tim, which is impressive especially by todays standards, lost to one, and beat the rest decisively. He even beat four of them and grabbed two belts in one year (1987). It was the manner in which he won the fights too which impressed. A good number of pundits didn’t expect him to do it like that….Spinks wasn’t considered a pushover by most. If anything, Tyson diminished some of his own wins by making them look so easy.

But to the original question, who knows? Probably just the usual confirmation bias which we all have. People will talk up the achievements of the fighters they like, and talk down those of the people they don’t.