Mike Tyson-Who Has He Beat?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

C'mon Saad, Tubbs wasn't all that bad, a decorated amateur, shared the ring with Teofilo Stevenson, former World Champ, had fast hands, good chin and very good boxing skills.

Sure his conditioning left a lot to be desired. However this is a guy, who several years on hurt Bowe to the body and barely (some say unfairly) lost a tight decision to him. Bowe was streaking, at the time.

He can't have been all that bad, surely?

Today Tubbs, whilst, in my opinion, wouldn't beat either Wlad or Vitali, certainly had the speed and skills to pose them some problems, not to mention give people like Haye, Povetkin, Chambers, Arreola, Thompson etc a severe test, if not beat them.

To me, Chambers reminds me of him, to a degree, but a significantly poorer version.

He was ok, nothing to talk about. This post reads like you agree with me.

[ThatOne]

Bottom line...It's not Tyson's fault..He beat everyone there was at that time....Same for Marciano....Just came around at the right time, and in some case, the wrong time


Jay

But Tyson really didn't beat everybody in front of him. He lost to Douglas in what inarguably was his prime and lost to Holyfield in what arguably should have still been his prime.

Wrong. Tyson's prime was when he still prepared properly for fights. SOmething he didn't do for Bruno, Douglas and Williams.

Tyson after '91 was just not the same fighter. It's a bit like Ali after the ban.
In terms of who he beat.... I think it's more a question of how he beat them.Holmes in 4. No one ever beat Larry like that, even Holyfield and McCall couldn't do that.

Spinks in 1. Unbeaten and went the distance with Holmes twice, but yet Tyson need 1 round.

Tubbs in 2, Berbick in 2, Willimas in 1. All superb results.

I'm was always a Holyfield fan and not Tyson, but credit where credit's due. Tyson in his prime was a fantasic fighter.

Take the blinkers off fellas, Tyson's record in his prime speaks for itself.

If he didn't prepare properly for his fights that's a blemish on his record. I don't count a fighter's losses against him when he's done. That's why I ignore RJJ's , BHops, and Holyfield's recent losses though BHop just won a big fight. But Tyson lost big fights to Douglas and Holyfield in what should have been his prime (Douglas) and ever so slightly past prime.(Holyfield.)

And, yes, Tyson and Ali were diminished fighters after their layoff. The difference was Ali was able to adapt to his diminished skill set. Tyson wasn't. A lot of it had to do Tyson's style and smallish stature but more than a little of it had to do with committment, desire, and heart.

[keithmoonhangover]

But Tyson really didn't beat everybody in front of him. He lost to Douglas in what inarguably was his prime and lost to Holyfield in what arguably should have still been his prime.

Wrong. Tyson's prime was when he still prepared properly for fights. SOmething he didn't do for Bruno, Douglas and Williams.

Tyson after '91 was just not the same fighter. It's a bit like Ali after the ban.
In terms of who he beat.... I think it's more a question of how he beat them.Holmes in 4. No one ever beat Larry like that, even Holyfield and McCall couldn't do that.

Spinks in 1. Unbeaten and went the distance with Holmes twice, but yet Tyson need 1 round.

Tubbs in 2, Berbick in 2, Willimas in 1. All superb results.

I'm was always a Holyfield fan and not Tyson, but credit where credit's due. Tyson in his prime was a fantasic fighter.

Take the blinkers off fellas, Tyson's record in his prime speaks for itself.

If he didn't prepare properly for his fights that's a blemish on his record. I don't count a fighter's losses against him when he's done. That's why I ignore RJJ's , BHops, and Holyfield's recent losses though BHop just won a big fight. But Tyson lost big fights to Douglas and Holyfield in what should have been his prime (Douglas) and ever so slightly past prime.(Holyfield.)

And, yes, Tyson and Ali were diminished fighters after their layoff. The difference was Ali was able to adapt to his diminished skill set. Tyson wasn't. A lot of it had to do Tyson's style and smallish stature but more than a little of it had to do with committment, desire, and heart.

I like the way you just ignored the bits I wrote about how he beat the fighters.

[ThatOne]

Wrong. Tyson's prime was when he still prepared properly for fights. SOmething he didn't do for Bruno, Douglas and Williams.

Tyson after '91 was just not the same fighter. It's a bit like Ali after the ban.
In terms of who he beat.... I think it's more a question of how he beat them.Holmes in 4. No one ever beat Larry like that, even Holyfield and McCall couldn't do that.

Spinks in 1. Unbeaten and went the distance with Holmes twice, but yet Tyson need 1 round.

Tubbs in 2, Berbick in 2, Willimas in 1. All superb results.

I'm was always a Holyfield fan and not Tyson, but credit where credit's due. Tyson in his prime was a fantasic fighter.

Take the blinkers off fellas, Tyson's record in his prime speaks for itself.

If he didn't prepare properly for his fights that's a blemish on his record. I don't count a fighter's losses against him when he's done. That's why I ignore RJJ's , BHops, and Holyfield's recent losses though BHop just won a big fight. But Tyson lost big fights to Douglas and Holyfield in what should have been his prime (Douglas) and ever so slightly past prime.(Holyfield.)

And, yes, Tyson and Ali were diminished fighters after their layoff. The difference was Ali was able to adapt to his diminished skill set. Tyson wasn't. A lot of it had to do Tyson's style and smallish stature but more than a little of it had to do with committment, desire, and heart.

I like the way you just ignored the bits I wrote about how he beat the fighters.

I give Mike Tyson as much credit for beating a faded Larry Holmes as I give Hector Cammacho for beating a faded Sugar Ray Leonard in even more devatating fashion which is not much. I addressed that when I said I ignore the performances of done fighters. It would be like expecting a Who reunion or what is left of them to perform now the way they did at Leeds. And I discount the Spinks win over Holmes for the same reason but not quites as much as the Holmes that faced Spinks wasn't nearly as cooked as the Holmes that faced Tyson. Yeah, Holmes had a nice little post Tyson career but he wasn't nearly the fighter he was in the late seventies and early eighties.

Holmes' decline began about four years before he faced Tyson.

Tubbs, Berbick. and Williams were nice fighters, nothing special. I don't think they would make anybody's top one hundred, top one hundred fifty all time great heavyweight lists.

I don't think Tyson is garbage. He's a definite top fifteen HW ATG. But he had flaws that became too evident and he was unable to overcome them.

[NazNaci1]

However post the Tyson fight, Holmes went on to beat Mercer and gave Holyfield a decent fight.

Past his best, of course he was, no debate about that but another example of diminishing a Tyson victory.

SRL v Camacho is completely different, as Leonard never went onwards from that win, Holmes did.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

However post the Tyson fight, Holmes went on to beat Mercer and gave Holyfield a decent fight.

Past his best, of course he was, no debate about that but another example of diminishing a Tyson victory.

SRL v Camacho is completely different, as Leonard never went onwards from that win, Holmes did.

He also fought many tune ups and got himself in shape for those fights. I have no idea why Tyson backers continuously over look that. Like I said, I have no doubt Mercer would have hammered the Holmes that Tyson faced.

[ThatOne]

However post the Tyson fight, Holmes went on to beat Mercer and gave Holyfield a decent fight.

Past his best, of course he was, no debate about that but another example of diminishing a Tyson victory.

SRL v Camacho is completely different, as Macho never went onwards from that win, Holmes did.

I think you meant Leonard never went on from that loss..

It was a nice win over a clearly diminished Larry Holmes. Can we put it in the same category as Rocky Marciano's win over Archie Moore, another faded champion, who had a nice, little post Marciano career?

Holmes had been slipping since his near loss to Tim Withersppon in 1983; a loss that had him considering retirement.

As for the post Tyson Holmes he did well and put together a nice , little career, but he was a diminished fighter. He was able to pace himself and take advantage of his ring savvy. But he needed the legs, speed, timing, and stamina of youth to beat a pressure cooker like Tyson.

Tyson never beat a heavyweight ATG in his prime. That's just a fact. He had his chances. It's like the author said. Tyson is known more for the fights he lost than for the fights he won.

[NazNaci1]

However post the Tyson fight, Holmes went on to beat Mercer and gave Holyfield a decent fight.

Past his best, of course he was, no debate about that but another example of diminishing a Tyson victory.

SRL v Camacho is completely different, as Leonard never went onwards from that win, Holmes did.

He also fought many tune ups and got himself in shape for those fights. I have no idea why Tyson backers continuously over look that. Like I said, I have no doubt Mercer would have hammered the Holmes that Tyson faced.

Whilst I can see the point your making here, Saad, there is no way Mercer does that Holmes, as Tyson did.

Win? Sure, 4th round blast out? No chance. Not even that version of Holmes.

[ThatOne]

However post the Tyson fight, Holmes went on to beat Mercer and gave Holyfield a decent fight.

Past his best, of course he was, no debate about that but another example of diminishing a Tyson victory.

SRL v Camacho is completely different, as Leonard never went onwards from that win, Holmes did.

He also fought many tune ups and got himself in shape for those fights. I have no idea why Tyson backers continuously over look that. Like I said, I have no doubt Mercer would have hammered the Holmes that Tyson faced.

Whilst I can see the point your making here, Saad, there is no way Mercer does that Holmes, as Tyson did.

Win? Sure, 4th round blast out? No chance. Not even that version of Holmes.

Mercer and Tyson had very different styles. Tyson like Marciano was tailor made to blow out true boxers whom age had stole the attributes that made them great like speed, reflexes, and durability.

Reminds me of when Gerry Cooney almost killed a done Ken Norton. Greater fighters than Cooney would never have disaptched Norton so easily but Cooney was made for that role.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

However post the Tyson fight, Holmes went on to beat Mercer and gave Holyfield a decent fight.

Past his best, of course he was, no debate about that but another example of diminishing a Tyson victory.

SRL v Camacho is completely different, as Leonard never went onwards from that win, Holmes did.

He also fought many tune ups and got himself in shape for those fights. I have no idea why Tyson backers continuously over look that. Like I said, I have no doubt Mercer would have hammered the Holmes that Tyson faced.

Whilst I can see the point your making here, Saad, there is no way Mercer does that Holmes, as Tyson did.

Win? Sure, 4th round blast out? No chance. Not even that version of Holmes.

I didn't say he would, Mike was a better fighter than Ray. But it shows how different the versions of Holmes were in spite of being older. Larry was way out of shape for the Tyson fight and his timing was incredibly rusty. Mike did what he had to do. But 6 weeks in the gym after years out of it aren't nearly enough to face Tyson. Not that I think the latter Holmes would have beaten Tyson. Mike would have always been rough on Larry, even at his best. But the win can only be rated for the guy he fought and it means about the same as Danny Williams beating Mike to me.

[ThatOne]

If Tyson gets credit for beating a thirty eight year old Larry Holmes does that mean Danny Williams gets credit for beating a thirty eight year old Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis gets credit for beating a thirty six year old Mike Tyson and Kevin McBride gets credit for beating a thirty nine year old Mike Tyson?

I count losses by done fighters and wins over done fighters the same. Not much

So his wins over done fighters and his losses as a done fighter cancel each other out.

[NazNaci1]

Both of you make fair points, and I understand that.

The point I was making, not so much giving credit for beating an old, past it Holmes, as rightly pointed out, an old Mike lost to Williams, McBride et al, but the fact Holmes went on to perform admirably, later on in his career, does show Tyson's win in an impressive light.

Saad, I take your point about Holmes's lack of activity and general lack of fighting condition, at the time he fought Mike though.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Both of you make fair points, and I understand that.

The point I was making, not so much giving credit for beating an old, past it Holmes, as rightly pointed out, an old Mike lost to Williams, McBride et al, but the fact Holmes went on to perform admirably, later on in his career, does show Tyson's win in an impressive light.

Saad, I take your point about Holmes's lack of activity and general lack of fighting condition, at the time he fought Mike though.

It was still impressive to stop him, just not as much as some make it out to be. And that's the case whenever an aging legend loses. A lot of times it's difficult to find the right perspective.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I agree with both of you. Holmes, though older, clearly had his, "sealegs," back under him around 1990-93 & was in better nick to fight than in 1988. However, it still resonates with me a bit, the way Tyson just completely obliterated him. Literally just blew him away in a sandstorm of brutality. Thing is, however diminished, no one ever did that to Holmes, or even got truly close to it. Not like that. Not before. Not after.

It's never going to be a great win, but it was about as impressive as it could possibly have been.

[keithmoonhangover]

However post the Tyson fight, Holmes went on to beat Mercer and gave Holyfield a decent fight.

Past his best, of course he was, no debate about that but another example of diminishing a Tyson victory.

SRL v Camacho is completely different, as Leonard never went onwards from that win, Holmes did.

He also fought many tune ups and got himself in shape for those fights. I have no idea why Tyson backers continuously over look that. Like I said, I have no doubt Mercer would have hammered the Holmes that Tyson faced.

Got to call BULLSHIT on that. Are we talking the same Mercer that lost to Jesse Ferguson? The Holmes that lost to Tyson was a stone lighter and four years younger.

The Tyson who beat Holmes beats an older Holmes just the same. And before anyone accuses me of biased towards Tyson.... Larry Holmes was my boyhood hero.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'm not accusing you of anything and, in case you missed it, I totally agree that he would have beaten the better version of Holmes that fought Holyfield & Mercer. He may have beaten Larry in his prime.

But that older Holmes was definitely superior to the one in the ring with Tyson. No doubt about it. So to use that as some sort of guide to a prime Tyson vs Holyfield fight is quite silly.

And I was talking about the Ray Mercer that fought Larry Holmes.

[keithmoonhangover]

I'm not accusing you of anything and, in case you missed it, I totally agree that he would have beaten the better version of Holmes that fought Holyfield & Mercer. He may have beaten Larry in his prime.

But that older Holmes was definitely superior to the one in the ring with Tyson. No doubt about it. So to use that as some sort of guide to ... uite silly.

And I was talking about the Ray Mercer that fought Larry Holmes.

Prime vs Prime, Holyfield beats Tyson 9 out of 10 times.

Prime vs Prime, Holmes vs Tyson is a mouthwatering proposition.

[mrbassie]

He beat some good fighters in dominating fashion, I don't know what more can be asked of him. He didn't beat a "prime atg" but the list of heavyweights who did is rather a short one I would say.
Lewis never did, nor did Holyfield, Holmes, Fazier, Patterson, Marciano...

[ThatOne]

Holmes had been fading for at least four years prior to his fight with Tyson. He won close, hotly disputed decisions, to Tim Witherspoon and Carl Williams. He became the first heavyweight champion in history to lose his title to a light heavyweight making his first heavyweight appearance. When he fought Mike Tyson he was 0-2 in the last four years.

He was clearly a diminished fighter.

[ThatOne]

He beat some good fighters in dominating fashion, I don't know what more can be asked of him. He didn't beat a "prime atg" but the list of heavyweights who did is rather a short one I would say.
Lewis never did, nor did Holyfield, Holmes, Fazier, Patterson, Marciano...

As much as it pains me to say Joe Frazier did beat a near prime Muhammad Ali. Ali was a lot closer to his prime when he face Frazier in the FOTC than the Larry Holmes that lost to Mike Tyson.

Tyson is probably a top 15- 20 ATG HW. IMHO, to be a great team or individual sportsman you should beat the teams or individuals you are supposed to beat. (Tyson didn't do that.) and you need to beat all or most of the teams or individuals that you are evenly matched with or might even be perceived as better.(Tyson didn't do that.)

[keithmoonhangover]

He beat some good fighters in dominating fashion, I don't know what more can be asked of him. He didn't beat a "prime atg" but the list of heavyweights who did is rather a short one I would say.
Lewis never did, nor did Holyfield, Holmes, Fazier, Patterson, Marciano...

As much as it pains me to say Joe Frazier did beat a near prime Muhammad Ali. Ali was a lot closer to his prime when he face Frazier in the FOTC than the Larry Holmes that lost to Mike Tyson.

Tyson is probably a top 15- 20 ATG HW. IMHO, to be a great team or individual sportsman you should beat the teams or individuals you are supposed to beat. (Tyson didn't do that.) and you need to beat all or most of the teams or individuals that you are evenly matched with or might even be perceived as better.(Tyson didn't do that.)

Near prime Ali?!?!? Give your head a shake.

[mrbassie]

As much as it pains me to say Joe Frazier did beat a near prime Muhammad Ali. Ali was a lot closer to his prime when he face Frazier in the FOTC than the Larry Holmes that lost to Mike Tyson.

Ali was still a noticeably inferior fighter after the layoff though. I know it's subjective and nitpicky but still.

Tyson is probably a top 15- 20 ATG HW. IMHO, to be a great team or individual sportsman you should beat the teams or individuals you are supposed to beat. (Tyson didn't do that.) and you need to beat all or most of the teams or individuals that you are evenly matched with or might even be perceived as better.(Tyson didn't do that.)

there wasn't anybody around in his pomp who was evenly matched with him. Tyson nosedived even before the Desiree Washington thing and everybody knows why.
I'm not arguing where he sits in a list because I don't go in for that sort of thing but recently Tyson has started to become as underrated as some would say he was previously underrated.
We can pick apart the records of every post seventies champion as easily as Tyson's.

[ThatOne]

He beat some good fighters in dominating fashion, I don't know what more can be asked of him. He didn't beat a "prime atg" but the list of heavyweights who did is rather a short one I would say.
Lewis never did, nor did Holyfield, Holmes, Fazier, Patterson, Marciano...

As much as it pains me to say Joe Frazier did beat a near prime Muhammad Ali. Ali was a lot closer to his prime when he face Frazier in the FOTC than the Larry Holmes that lost to Mike Tyson.

Tyson is probably a top 15- 20 ATG HW. IMHO, to be a great team or individual sportsman you should beat the teams or individuals you are supposed to beat. (Tyson didn't do that.) and you need to beat all or most of the teams or individuals that you are evenly matched with or might even be perceived as better.(Tyson didn't do that.)

Near prime Ali?!?!? Give your head a shake.

That's a touchey subject on this board. IMHO, Ali never had a prime. It was taken away from him by the American government and the boxing commissions. However, there are many on this board that believe the Ali who fought Frazier in 1970 was a better or as good a fighter as he was before the exile. I disagree...

Anyway.

Back to Larry. I am a firm believer in the maxim or axiom that styles make fights. Of course there are exceptions. Tyson would have been a tough out for either Larry or Ali, the latter whom I think is the greatest heavyweight to have ever lived. However, in the end I do see Ali and Holmes stopping Tyson late. It's also a possiblity that Tyson gets frustrated and gets himself disqualified. But given their styles they would need to be pretty close to prime or in their prime to beat Tyson. I don't think Ali beats Tyson after 1975 and I don't think Holmes beats Tyson after 1982.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He beat some good fighters in dominating fashion, I don't know what more can be asked of him. He didn't beat a "prime atg" but the list of heavyweights who did is rather a short one I would say.
Lewis never did, nor did Holyfield, Holmes, Fazier, Patterson, Marciano...

As much as it pains me to say Joe Frazier did beat a near prime Muhammad Ali. Ali was a lot closer to his prime when he face Frazier in the FOTC than the Larry Holmes that lost to Mike Tyson.

Tyson is probably a top 15- 20 ATG HW. IMHO, to be a great team or individual sportsman you should beat the teams or individuals you are supposed to beat. (Tyson didn't do that.) and you need to beat all or most of the teams or individuals that you are evenly matched with or might even be perceived as better.(Tyson didn't do that.)

Near prime Ali?!?!? Give your head a shake.

Indeed, that was prime Ali. Well, as close as you can get.

[keithmoonhangover]

As much as it pains me to say Joe Frazier did beat a near prime Muhammad Ali. Ali was a lot closer to his prime when he face Frazier in the FOTC than the Larry Holmes that lost to Mike Tyson.

Tyson is probably a top 15- 20 ATG HW. IMHO, to be a great team or individual sportsman you should beat the teams or individuals you are supposed to beat. (Tyson didn't do that.) and you need to beat all or most of the teams or individuals that you are evenly matched with or might even be perceived as better.(Tyson didn't do that.)

Near prime Ali?!?!? Give your head a shake.

Indeed, that was prime Ali. Well, as close as you can get.

Prime was Cleveland Williams surely.