Why is Tysons competition poo pooed

My point was my reply to your post. The one I replied to. You claim Tyson didn't face every heavyweight out there, which is absurd since that's impossible. Holyfield didn't face everyone either, since it's literally impossible.

Understand? Rather simple post. I call it like I see it. Tyson was the heavyweight for the 80's, Holyfield for the 90's mostly because Tyson was in prison for 3 years and hadn't fought in 4.

Going further, Holyfield was lucky he didn't fight pre-prison Tyson.

 

˄ this is outstanding post ˄
For accusing Tyson, they should rather accuse Holmes (never the undisputed champion). Tyson had to fight a different champion for each belt (and for the lineal belt). He didn't earn all the belts (and the lineal belt) like the next champions; Douglas and Holyfield.

 

I pretty much agree with this too for the most part.
From what I’m reading overall though, the argument that some are making is that Tysons opposition isn’t very good because Holyfields was better?
I always thought that they both faced good opposition, just at different stages.

 

Completely disagree. Berbick's best win, by far, was against Pinklon Thomas the perceived claimant to Holmes' throne and the guy Holmes refused to fight for obvious reasons. Thomas was ranked #10 by Ring's end of the year P4P voting in 1985 when Berbick beat him.

Tate was nowhere near that, perceived or otherwise.

 

No, Berbick wasn't that good. He had double digit losses in a medium level era. The guy was strong, competitive, had a good chin and decent stamina but he was overall a pretty mediocre fighter in terms of skill and ability. Berbick would've gone life and death with Buddy Baer, Tony Galento, Nino Valdez, and Lou Nova as he was roughly on the same level as them. He'd win some, he'd lose some but he would probably have a hard time becoming champion and he certainly wouldn't have "ruled" anything.

 

I pooh-pooh this post.

Pooh-pooh!

 

Larry Holmes was the heavyweight of the 80s. Holyfield was in the 90s. Tyson had a few years that spanned the end of one decade and the start of another.

Evander wasn’t lucky that Tyson was a ******. That’s on Tyson. Evander was ready and willing to fight him — in fact, it was Tyson who pulled out claiming injury (non-contact rib injury) the first time they signed.

 

The real poo poo in this thread is that being slung by some Tyson lovers who want to act like Mike beat King Kong when he bested Trevor freaking Berbick.

 

Aha, you dislike Tyson the boxer because he was a convicted ******! It's hard to separate the man from the fighter, but at least try to for FFS!!

You're thisclose to claiming Tyson ducked him, while Holyfield took on soft touch has beens like 41 year old Foreman before signing to fight Tyson in 1991 (as long as Tyson took $15 mill while Holy took $25 mill).

Tyson had a **** conviction looming over his head. Of COURSE he postponed the fight until after the trial. What would you do?

 

Berbick in the 80s until the Tyson fight:
Wins over Tate, Page, Bey, Green, Thomas.
Loses to Holmes, St Gordon, Tyson, Snipes.

He was better than those guys.

 

To an aside, my previous coach beat berbick as well in the Olympics though. He was the Romanian medallist who nabbed the silver in Montreal. He was a straight up brawler , on pad work he would be like "one two now SWING SWING SWING" he is ancient nowadays but back in the day he used to fight at the Olympic auditorium. He was a hero in his hometown. A true fixture in amateur boxing.

On a side note, I predict brawling with Tyson would not bode him too well lol. But then again he's forgotten more about boxing than I've ever learned. God bless em.

 

I was just about to type that. But Holmes had 2 losses compared to Tyson's 0. Tyson also fought the better competition.

In the 80's, Mike Tyson was the man. While Sugar Ray Leonard was the fighter of the 80's Mike Tyson was considered second only to SRL and even picked #1 by many in the fight game.

Many forget that.