Tyson

[apollo creed]

As I said, please name one quality HOF worthy win of Tyson that is equally or even better than the best wins of Holy, Bowe, Lewis or even Ike??

Tyson had better life and training conditions in the jail than many other top fighters had in the freedom.

Did he? I never heard the prison was staffed with trainers and equipment like Ron Lyle's or James Scotts' prison. Sure, he could run and do pushups but that's no sub for sparring, trainers, and bags.

Tyson was treated like a fcking king in that prison. Do your research.

[apollo creed]

You have to choose between Holmes, Spinks, Tucker, or Tubbs, Berbick, Biggs, Thomas, Williams

Who would you choose between these guys to be on a par with Lennxox, Holy, Bowe or Ike best wins ?

I think Holmes. When he was 42 years old, he quite easily beat Mercer who, at the age of 35, gave a very equal fight to prime Lennox Lewis. Besides, style is very important. Outside of Tony Tucker, Tyson dominated these guys, he dominated. No one has knocked down Larry Holmes before or since, Mike did it three times. Who did Lewis win against? in what style? what is his greatest victory? I can actually ask the same about Holyfield... I agree with Ike, he theoretically could have stopped the best Tyson, although I don't think so. The problem with Ike is that he finished it too quickly and was not fully tested. Lewis and Holy were there and in my opinion, they wouldn't have stopped the best Tyson

So Mike's best win may be against an over the hill version of Holmes? who previously got defeated by a ballooned up lhw in Spinks and thats a fact.

Lennox's best wins: Holy, Tua and of course Vitali.

Holy's best wins: Buster, Foreman, Bowe II, Tyson I and Ruiz I

Bowe's best wins: Holy I & III

Ike's best wins: Tua & Byrd

To me, these looks like better quality wins than Tyson's best wins.

[apollo creed]

Who would you choose between these guys to be on a par with Lennxox, Holy, Bowe or Ike best wins ?

I agree with Ike, he theoretically could have stopped the best Tyson, although I don't think so. The problem with Ike is that he finished it too quickly and was not fully tested.

IMO he was juicing. He threw almost a 1000 punches in 12 rounds against Tua, output a featherweight would be proud of and a record in HW boxing. A 16.5 stone HW built like a bodybuilder and throwing that amount of punches doesn't flash normal to me. That was listed in the top 10 list of most punches ever thrown in a fight, the other 9 fights were at welterweight or below.

who wasn't juicing at that time?lol

[apollo creed]

I think one of the problems with Tyson is we never actually got to see his peak. He was unstoppable up to the Spinks fight. But after that he lost Rooney, Lott and the team who helped him get to that level. Then, he spent 3 of his prime years in jail. He was never the same fighter again and we don’t know how good he might have become if he had stayed out of trouble and kept those people around him.

His achievements before the age of 22 are still unequalled though and more than worthy of him being considered an ATG.

People like to find Tyson so many excuses but they forget to mention that he stepped up in competition against fighters that knew how to use their jab, were better conditioned, better chins, better mindset and ring IQ's. Mike was limited and small against the top guys. Buster proved it.

[Controversial]

I think one of the problems with Tyson is we never actually got to see his peak. He was unstoppable up to the Spinks fight. But after that he lost Rooney, Lott and the team who helped him get to that level. Then, he spent 3 of his prime years in jail. He was never the same fighter again and we don’t know how good he might have become if he had stayed out of trouble and kept those people around him.

His achievements before the age of 22 are still unequalled though and more than worthy of him being considered an ATG.

People like to find Tyson so many excuses but they forget to mention that he stepped up in competition against fighters that knew how to use their jab, were better conditioned, better chins, better mindset and ring IQ's. Mike was limited and small against the top guys. Buster proved it.

You can pick holes in any fighters career. Plenty of ATGs lost, struggled in fights or got lucky decisions go their way. Tyson was great but had a relatively short period where he dominated. You don’t become the youngest HW champ in history and undisputed champ without being pretty good. Having 4 years out in his prime years didn’t help either. No one is saying he was unbeatable but who is. If he was coming up now he would likely steamroll the HW division.

[Jakub079]

Who would you choose between these guys to be on a par with Lennxox, Holy, Bowe or Ike best wins ?

I think Holmes. When he was 42 years old, he quite easily beat Mercer who, at the age of 35, gave a very equal fight to prime Lennox Lewis. Besides, style is very important. Outside of Tony Tucker, Tyson dominated these guys, he dominated. No one has knocked down Larry Holmes before or since, Mike did it three times. Who did Lewis win against? in what style? what is his greatest victory? I can actually ask the same about Holyfield... I agree with Ike, he theoretically could have stopped the best Tyson, although I don't think so. The problem with Ike is that he finished it too quickly and was not fully tested. Lewis and Holy were there and in my opinion, they wouldn't have stopped the best Tyson

So Mike's best win may be against an over the hill version of Holmes? who previously got defeated by a ballooned up lhw in Spinks and thats a fact.

Lennox's best wins: Holy, Tua and of course Vitali.

Holy's best wins: Buster, Foreman, Bowe II, Tyson I and Ruiz I

Bowe's best wins: Holy I & III

Ike's best wins: Tua & Byrd

To me, these looks like better quality wins than Tyson's best wins.

I see no logic here. Holmes lost to the inflated light heavyweight and before that he won 48 fights in a row and defended his world title for the 25th time. Then, at the age of 42, he easily beat a guy who, being a veteran, gave Prime Lewis one of the most difficult fights in his career, and at the age of 45, he gave a difficult fight to another guy who had just destroyed Lennox, taking away his champion belt. The only one who destroyed Holmes in his 30-year career was Mike Tyson and you say it's not impressive?

[Controversial]

Ruddock were decent wins for Tyson, at the time Ruddock was seen as a danger man on a knockout streak and ranked number 2 in the world by the WBA, WBC and IBF, people weren't clambering to fight him. If you listen to Ruddock talk he admits he was never the same fighter after fighting Tyson as the two fights took a lot out of him.

[apollo creed]

I think one of the problems with Tyson is we never actually got to see his peak. He was unstoppable up to the Spinks fight. But after that he lost Rooney, Lott and the team who helped him get to that level. Then, he spent 3 of his prime years in jail. He was never the same fighter again and we don’t know how good he might have become if he had stayed out of trouble and kept those people around him.

His achievements before the age of 22 are still unequalled though and more than worthy of him being considered an ATG.

People like to find Tyson so many excuses but they forget to mention that he stepped up in competition against fighters that knew how to use their jab, were better conditioned, better chins, better mindset and ring IQ's. Mike was limited and small against the top guys. Buster proved it.

You can pick holes in any fighters career. Plenty of ATGs lost, struggled in fights or got lucky decisions go their way. Tyson was great but had a relatively short period where he dominated. You don’t become the youngest HW champ in history and undisputed champ without being pretty good. Having 4 years out in his prime years didn’t help either. No one is saying he was unbeatable but who is. If he was coming up now he would likely steamroll the HW division.

Mike was still very young when he got stopped by Buster. Mike could not stop guys like Green, Tillis, James Smith.

[apollo creed]

I think Holmes. When he was 42 years old, he quite easily beat Mercer who, at the age of 35, gave a very equal fight to prime Lennox Lewis. Besides, style is very important. Outside of Tony Tucker, Tyson dominated these guys, he dominated. No one has knocked down Larry Holmes before or since, Mike did it three times. Who did Lewis win against? in what style? what is his greatest victory? I can actually ask the same about Holyfield... I agree with Ike, he theoretically could have stopped the best Tyson, although I don't think so. The problem with Ike is that he finished it too quickly and was not fully tested. Lewis and Holy were there and in my opinion, they wouldn't have stopped the best Tyson

So Mike's best win may be against an over the hill version of Holmes? who previously got defeated by a ballooned up lhw in Spinks and thats a fact.

Lennox's best wins: Holy, Tua and of course Vitali.

Holy's best wins: Buster, Foreman, Bowe II, Tyson I and Ruiz I

Bowe's best wins: Holy I & III

Ike's best wins: Tua & Byrd

To me, these looks like better quality wins than Tyson's best wins.

I see no logic here. Holmes lost to the inflated light heavyweight and before that he won 48 fights in a row and defended his world title for the 25th time. Then, at the age of 42, he easily beat a guy who, being a veteran, gave Prime Lewis one of the most difficult fights in his career, and at the age of 45, he gave a difficult fight to another guy who had just destroyed Lennox, taking away his champion belt. The only one who destroyed Holmes in his 30-year career was Mike Tyson and you say it's not impressive?

Are 40 y/o Holmes, Spinks, Ruddock or Tucker better wins than Holy, Vitali, Bowe, Buster or Tua ?

Its about a young prime champion vs a an over the hill veteran fighter. Its a big difference. Boxing is pretty much a young's men sport. Its pretty logical. Mike was good but against hand-picked over the hill/ more weak fighters with a good name. Buster was somehow a cherry-pick gone wrong.

[Jakub079]

So Mike's best win may be against an over the hill version of Holmes? who previously got defeated by a ballooned up lhw in Spinks and thats a fact.

Lennox's best wins: Holy, Tua and of course Vitali.

Holy's best wins: Buster, Foreman, Bowe II, Tyson I and Ruiz I

Bowe's best wins: Holy I & III

Ike's best wins: Tua & Byrd

To me, these looks like better quality wins than Tyson's best wins.

I see no logic here. Holmes lost to the inflated light heavyweight and before that he won 48 fights in a row and defended his world title for the 25th time. Then, at the age of 42, he easily beat a guy who, being a veteran, gave Prime Lewis one of the most difficult fights in his career, and at the age of 45, he gave a difficult fight to another guy who had just destroyed Lennox, taking away his champion belt. The only one who destroyed Holmes in his 30-year career was Mike Tyson and you say it's not impressive?

Are 40 y/o Holmes, Spinks or Tucker better wins than Holy, Vitali, Bowe, Buster or Tua ?

Its about a young prime champion vs a an over the hill veteran fighter. Its a big difference. Boxing is pretty much a young's men sport. Its pretty logical. Mike was good but against hand-picked over the hill/ more weak fighters with a good name. Buster was somehow a cherry-pick gone wrong.

If you rely on statistics, check them and please write whether the current HW leader is closer to 38 or 22? How old are Usyk, Fury, Joshua, Wilder, Zhang, Hrgović, Ruiz? are they closer to 22 or 38?? You ignore my arguments, you didn't address the fact that this old man easily won against Ray Mercer 4 years after the fight with Mike and then gave a difficult fight to Holyfield. The same myth is that Spinks was an inflated LHW. He did what 46 heavy rivals did not do Larry Holmes so I guess the opinions that he was LHW should just be thrown in the trash

[apollo creed]

I see no logic here. Holmes lost to the inflated light heavyweight and before that he won 48 fights in a row and defended his world title for the 25th time. Then, at the age of 42, he easily beat a guy who, being a veteran, gave Prime Lewis one of the most difficult fights in his career, and at the age of 45, he gave a difficult fight to another guy who had just destroyed Lennox, taking away his champion belt. The only one who destroyed Holmes in his 30-year career was Mike Tyson and you say it's not impressive?

Are 40 y/o Holmes, Spinks or Tucker better wins than Holy, Vitali, Bowe, Buster or Tua ?

Its about a young prime champion vs a an over the hill veteran fighter. Its a big difference. Boxing is pretty much a young's men sport. Its pretty logical. Mike was good but against hand-picked over the hill/ more weak fighters with a good name. Buster was somehow a cherry-pick gone wrong.

If you rely on statistics, check them and please write whether the current HW leader is closer to 38 or 22? How old are Usyk, Fury, Joshua, Wilder, Zhang, Hrgović, Ruiz? are they closer to 22 or 38?? You ignore my arguments, you didn't address the fact that this old man easily won against Ray Mercer 4 years after the fight with Mike and then gave a difficult fight to Holyfield. The same myth is that Spinks was an inflated LHW. He did what 46 heavy rivals did not do Larry Holmes so I guess the opinions that he was LHW should just be thrown in the trash

Man, I talk about what type of top real deal "killer" has Tyson beat , not some type of triangle theory! There is no one, bc top contender Buster Douglas stopped Mike's hype-train, period.

[Jakub079]

...


Man, I talk about what type of top real deal "killer" has Tyson beat , not some type of triangle theory! There is no one, bc top contender Buster Douglas stopped Mike's hype-train, period.

buddy, if someone conquers Mount Everest and then trips while climbing McKinley, will you also claim that there are bigger mountains in the USA than in Tibet? This is not a computer game. Tyson had a crazy lifestyle, it had to happen. But in his career he's beaten three guys that Buster lost to. What do you want to prove? that if Buster had been born earlier and met Mike in 1986, he would have been the best, unified all the belts and won 10 title fights? prime Duran lost to Kirklain Laing, prime Hearns lost to Iran Barkley, 27-year-old Foreman was beaten by Jimmy Young, Norton was beaten by Garcia and Sonny Liston by Marta Marshal and Leotis Martin. Lennox Lewis lost to someone like Oliver McCall and Doug Jones should have had at least a draw with Cassius Clay. This is boxing

[Controversial]

...


Man, I talk about what type of top real deal "killer" has Tyson beat , not some type of triangle theory! There is no one, bc top contender Buster Douglas stopped Mike's hype-train, period.

27-year-old Foreman was beaten by Jimmy Young

Exactly. Jimmy Young beat Foreman and Lyle, drew with Shavers and lost a MD to Norton. He also gave Ali a close fight which some of the press had Young winning. But Young also lost numerous times to very average fighters throughout his career. As you say it's boxing, no one is unbeatable or looks good all the time. Someone can look bad in one fight and great in another. Consistency is what often separates fighters. It was reported at the time that Tyson wasn't training too hard, skipping sessions, getting beat up in sparring and more interested in working his way through the local women. Whereas Douglas was on top form and great shape, arguably the one time in his career he was. As the saying goes timing is everything, especially true in boxing. Against Holyfield he didn't prepare the same or have the same desire, he had hit the jackpot beating Tyson and it all went to his head (and stomach)

[apollo creed]

Performance wise Tyson had no better wins than Lennox, Bowe, Holy or Ike best wins , period. Tyson got stopped by Buster, and he didn't avenge his loss period. Like I said, the other top fighters avenged their losses and improved themselves. If a fighter like Tua had Tyson's marketing and promotion, he'd have been a boxing culture demigod too. Tua had great work ethic, strong chin and grit.

Bringing up some excuses like Foreman lost to Young, Tyson lost his trainer/focus, he was partying a lot, not training enough, etc its just very subjective and biased when we talk about facts, datas and quality performances. Yeah Foreman lost to Young but guess what Foreman also has great HOF victories against Frazier and Norton.

[cfang]

Another thing to consider is that Tyson’s partying is often shown as an excuse for losses in particular Douglas. A fighters greatness includes attitude. Being great for a while is fair enough but comparing great fighters to others, a poor attitude and lack a of discipline is all part of it.

He’s great but not top 6 all time great.

[Tony1244]

As I said, please name one quality HOF worthy win of Tyson that is equally or even better than the best wins of Holy, Bowe, Lewis or even Ike??

Tyson had better life and training conditions in the jail than many other top fighters had in the freedom.

Did he? I never heard the prison was staffed with trainers and equipment like Ron Lyle's or James Scotts' prison. Sure, he could run and do pushups but that's no sub for sparring, trainers, and bags.

Tyson was treated like a fcking king in that prison. Do your research.

First off, I started my post with a question, not a definitive statement, so just relax, dude. Secondly, being treated like a king has nothing to do with top training facilities. We all know Tyson peaked early, you don't need to keep belaboring the point.

[Benny The Kid]

I think one of the problems with Tyson is we never actually got to see his peak. He was unstoppable up to the Spinks fight. But after that he lost Rooney, Lott and the team who helped him get to that level. Then, he spent 3 of his prime years in jail. He was never the same fighter again and we don’t know how good he might have become if he had stayed out of trouble and kept those people around him.

His achievements before the age of 22 are still unequalled though and more than worthy of him being considered an ATG.

People like to find Tyson so many excuses but they forget to mention that he stepped up in competition against fighters that knew how to use their jab, were better conditioned, better chins, better mindset and ring IQ's. Mike was limited and small against the top guys. Buster proved it.

You can pick holes in any fighters career. Plenty of ATGs lost, struggled in fights or got lucky decisions go their way. Tyson was great but had a relatively short period where he dominated. You don’t become the youngest HW champ in history and undisputed champ without being pretty good. Having 4 years out in his prime years didn’t help either. No one is saying he was unbeatable but who is. If he was coming up now he would likely steamroll the HW division.

I agree with Controversial here he seems to share my thought's. Tyson was 13-1 in world title fights heading into Holyfeild 1. Tyson was doing just fine in the fight until Holyfeild heat butted him & opened the cut, Tyson panicked plain & simple when he was cut. I just watched the fight, it's the round he was knocked down , he was clear;y greatly affected by the head butt. I always felt thing's would of unfolded differently had thier been no head butt. I'm not saying Tyson would have won but he was unfairly diminished in the fight.

I understand the OP postion. But I wish to put things in perspective in the pioneer days a fighter usually hit thier prime at 25 & they were usually done (clearly out of his prime) at age 30. Their prime was much shorter due to the damage they would encounter in olden days.
Tyson was 24 at the end of ruddock 2
Tyson was 29 during comeback & 30 at Holyfeild 1. Yeah he was younger than holy feild.

Tyson literally missed all of a fighters prime years. That chunk of time would of resulted in various big name opponent's.
The Fact that he was 13-1 (before Holyfeild) in world title fights missing his entire prime years is a testament to his greatness. Tyson was just like Dempsey greatly diminished upon his return.

You can twist an argument to fit any agenda you have, like Controversial said poke holes in any fighter.
Sometime fighter's miss time, stuff happens. Had he not lost those years he would be viewed very different. Having lost all of his prime years & still being 13-1 before Holyfeild spells an A+ fighter. Almost no one is history of boxing can be 13-1 in world title fight's skipping thier prime years. Debating merit of wins noteworthy but literally almost no one had a higher ceiling potential than Tyson, he didn't hit his peak trajectory we know that much but that doesn't take away his greatness.

I do probably think the same as Apollo Creed in that I know Tyson would have trouble with bigger fighter's he was height wise a Light heavy height, that in it's self was going to handicap him. It would take a strength of youth Tyson to beat all the bigger guy's and he was unfortunately robbed of that youth. But I think Prime Tyson was capable of beating all of them at least a few times in 5 fight series. (holyfeild, bowe, Lewis) Simulation proves that much. But he would be at a distinct disadvantage in every fight due to height.

Thier is little doubt had Dempsey not quit & got rust he would of been way better vs Gene Tunney & the same goes for Tyson. Age is unique to each fighter Dempsey was young like Tyson after his return but "ring wise" both were way past thier prime. You just can't judge age universally the entire history of boxing is filled with fighter's who were never the same after layoff's.

[Jakub079]

Performance wise Tyson had no better wins than Lennox, Bowe, Holy or Ike best wins , period. Tyson got stopped by Buster, and he didn't avenge his loss period. Like I said, the other top fighters avenged their losses and improved themselves. If a fighter like Tua had Tyson's marketing and promotion, he'd have been a boxing culture demigod too. Tua had great work ethic, strong chin and grit.

Bringing up some excuses like Foreman lost to Young, Tyson lost his trainer/focus, he was partying a lot, not training enough, etc its just very subjective and biased when we talk about facts, datas and quality performances. Yeah Foreman lost to Young but guess what Foreman also has great HOF victories against Frazier and Norton.

again, you don't address my arguments at all. Ok, who do you think Tyson should have won at this stage of his career, i.e. the 1980s, which was his era, in which he dominated divisions like no one else and no one after him, what name is missing among the 37 rivals he defeated? what fight? Holyfield doesn't have as impressive a win as Tyson had over Holmes, deal with it. Lewis doesn't have it either.
Ike and Tua fought to a draw, other judges could have said Tua won, but he lost against Byrd. Ike didn't have time to prove his class because he didn't have enough fights. Tyson fought various fighters. With sluggers, punchers, outfighters and infighters, and he beat everyone. I'll ask again - do you think it's marketing that Tyson has been the champion since 1986 and won 10 championship fights, and Douglas should have done it but his marketing was too weak?

[apollo creed]

Mike was 23 y/o when he lost to top cotender Buster Douglas, so he was in his very prime years even in the 90's. Mike got stopped by a top contender. Instead of avenging his first loss he was feasted with stiffs to regain that ko artist aura.

Holmes was on his way out being 40 y/o at that time.

[Jakub079]

Mike was 23 y/o when he lost to top cotender Buster Douglas, so he was in his very prime years even in the 90's. Mike got stopped by a top contender. Instead of avenging his first loss he was feasted with stiffs to regain that ko artist aura.

Holmes was on his way out being 40 y/o at that time.

Do I have to ask you every time to relate to the conversation and not repeat slogans? Have you already checked whether the HW leader is closer to the age of 22 or to the age of 38? did you check how old Holmes was when he beat Mercer? Will you finally answer my question: do you think Douglas should have been in power since 1986 but he didn't do it because of marketing? Will you write again that Holmes was old?

[apollo creed]

Did he? I never heard the prison was staffed with trainers and equipment like Ron Lyle's or James Scotts' prison. Sure, he could run and do pushups but that's no sub for sparring, trainers, and bags.

Tyson was treated like a fcking king in that prison. Do your research.

First off, I started my post with a question, not a definitive statement, so just relax, dude. Secondly, being treated like a king has nothing to do with top training facilities. We all know Tyson peaked early, you don't need to keep belaboring the point.

Mike had everything what he wanted in that prison. Only a subjective gullible fangirl would think otherwise. Google it.

[apollo creed]

Mike was 23 y/o when he lost to top cotender Buster Douglas, so he was in his very prime years even in the 90's. Mike got stopped by a top contender. Instead of avenging his first loss he was feasted with stiffs to regain that ko artist aura.

Holmes was on his way out being 40 y/o at that time.

Do I have to ask you every time to relate to the conversation and not repeat slogans? Have you already checked whether the HW leader is closer to the age of 22 or to the age of 38? did you check how old Holmes was when he beat Mercer? Will you finally answer my question: do you think Douglas should have been in power since 1986 but he didn't do it because of marketing? Will you write again that Holmes was old?

I've repeat it and I'll say it again. Lennox, Bowe. Holy and Ike resumes are better in terms of quality wins than Mike's resume. Mike was a young fighter in the 90's too, so there is no argument that he was past of his prime. The only objective arguments are that he stepped up in competition and he lost and that are facts and datas. The rumours and the gossips don't matter.

[Jakub079]

Mike was 23 y/o when he lost to top cotender Buster Douglas, so he was in his very prime years even in the 90's. Mike got stopped by a top contender. Instead of avenging his first loss he was feasted with stiffs to regain that ko artist aura.

Holmes was on his way out being 40 y/o at that time.

Do I have to ask you every time to relate to the conversation and not repeat slogans? Have you already checked whether the HW leader is closer to the age of 22 or to the age of 38? did you check how old Holmes was when he beat Mercer? Will you finally answer my question: do you think Douglas should have been in power since 1986 but he didn't do it because of marketing? Will you write again that Holmes was old?

I've repeat it and I'll say it again. Lennox, Bowe. Holy and Ike resumes are better in terms of quality wins than Mike's resume. Mike was a young fighter in the 90's too, so there is no argument that he was past of his prime. The only objective arguments are that he stepped up in competition and he lost and that are facts and datas. The rumours and the gossips don't matter.

but you provide zero arguments, only that they had better victories, better victories and that's it. I present the facts - Tyson is the only one who dominates Holmes in his career and I refute the arguments regarding his age and you cannot dissuade him. He gives Tyson's record in the 1980s - and you say nothing. He writes that he outclassed the current linear champion, that he won 10 fights and the title, and you still have Buster and Buster... what was Buster doing before 1990? was he just born or what? start discussing arguments and facts, not just repeating slogans. You're out of arguments, buddy, maybe you'll come back when you learn boxing?

[cfang]

It’s very possible Mike’s missing prime years would have been losses when his mind wasn’t on the job dispersed with wins against scared or limited opponents. Evander was supposed to be shot pre Tyson 1. It was the Bobby c fight that convinced Tyson’s people evander would be easy. I suspect Tyson’s prime years would have included losses to evander, Bowe and look at what Lewis did to ruddock.

[Tony1244]

Tyson was treated like a fcking king in that prison. Do your research.

First off, I started my post with a question, not a definitive statement, so just relax, dude. Secondly, being treated like a king has nothing to do with top training facilities. We all know Tyson peaked early, you don't need to keep belaboring the point.

Mike had everything what he wanted in that prison. Only a subjective gullible fangirl would think otherwise. Google it.

I just did Google it; Thank You. I was essentially correct. I already knew he got into tremendous condition with pushups, weights, and running. I already knew he read a lot and viewed his years in prison as "The best time of my life." The only thing I learned was that he could choose his meals. I could be wrong on this, so I'll put it in question form, so you don't get so upset: Did Mike even have access to a heavy or speed bag? Even if so, that is NOT the same as a Freddie Roach type trainer and top sparring.

Also repeating Tyson went the distance with Green, Tillis, Smith etc is a bit silly. Levi Forte and Roberta Davila went the distance with GF. Marciano went the distance with guys you've never heard of.