Why is Tysons competition poo pooed

You've got one guy in the thread claiming that Tate was a better win than Thomas in order to make Berbick past prime for the Tyson fight and prime for Holmes, and another guy claiming that Tate sucked even though he was favored to beat Berbick in order to prove that Berbick sucked.

Only on Classic forum.

 

Witherspoon lost ONE FIGHT between March of 1985 and July of 1992, with like 20 wins in there. Some of them pretty good wins.

He was rated below Tubbs because Tubbs was with Don King and Tim was suing Don King. And Don manipulated the ratings.

The truth is, any chance of Spoon getting a shot at Tyson went out the window the minute Mike signed with Don King.

But you cannot tell me that between 1985 and 1992 there’s not a single place where Mike could have fought Witherspoon. Would you (or anyone) have protested he was an unworthy opponent if Tyson fought him instead of Carl Williams or Tony Tubbs (or after Douglas if he’d have fought Spoon rather than Henry Freaking Tillman)?

You’re acting like Tim was on a losing streak when the opposite is true.

 

I never said Tate sucked, I said the win was decent but not that great because he came off a brutal KO loss. I didn't say Berbick sucked either, I said he was a decent B level fighter and most people would agree. You could try actually addressing what I wrote instead of creating straw man's or bringing up other posters.

 

I’m not saying he ducked him.

But ‘he lost to Bonecrusher’ doesn’t account for a 7 1/2-year span where he was on quite a roll. That one loss doesn’t make it impossible for them to fight, but people dismiss it.

By contrast, Tubbs won three fights in a row over 2 years to get his shot at Tyson … against Wimpy Halstead, Eddie Gonzalez and Mike Jameson.

And that loss four fights before? It was to … Tim Witherspoon, haha.

 

Because they were poo poo, and you poo poo, poo poo.

 

Was he the guy in the Karate Kid movies?

This content is protected

 

Well he may be a Pat, but I can tell you that guy’s no Saint.

 

To get a shot at Tyson you had to go through King. Too bad for Spoon because he did the right thing but was blackballed. Don't blame Tyson for never facing Spoon because his track record showed he fought everyone who was anyone. And most if not all were on Witherspoon's level.

Besides being "exciting", did Tyson do anything else considered above standard in your opinion?

 

And both Tyson haters, I might add.

Damn, I even became a member of this forum almost 13 years ago to get away from the silly Tyson hater temper tantrums. But now I feel like I'm only defending the guy these days. I mean imagine going to a fighter you hate's thread and poo pooing his resume and everything else you feel about the guy...on every single thread!?

I mean...why?

 

Why didn't Holyfield ever fight Spoon???

 

Busy beating Mike Tyson twice. Or fighting a three-fight series with Riddick Bowe. Or Lennox Lewis twice. Or Michael Moorer twice. Or Ray Mercer. Etc.

 

Tyson was fast and powerful and I said he injected excitement into the heavyweight division and boxing in general. He had a meteoric rise and a fast crash landing. If you’re asking if I have him in my top 10 heavyweights all-time, the answer is no because of several reasons — losing to Douglas, his peak being so short, etc. But I have him somewhere around 11 or 12 ish.

As for Don King … Tyson was a free agent and freely chose to sign with King while leaving behind people who had been with him and had his interests at heart.

He also could have chosen to fight Tim before he signed with King (which happened after Spinks iirc).

I have plainly said, more than once, that I’m not saying he ducked Witherspoon. But I did reply to someone who said ‘well he didn’t fight him because he lost to Bonecrusher’ — which happened to be his only loss in SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS. Like that DQ’d Witherspoon from fighting Tyson, but losing to Witherspoon didn’t DQ Tubbs … that’s ridiculous.