When exactly was Tyson's prime?

[Saintpat]

His crowning fight was against Michael Spinks, but Spinks was scared to death -- you can even see his eyes roll up into his head at Tyson's speed on the first missed punch.

I see tons of posts on this forum about how Tyson was this or that in his prime, but he was so carefully matched it's hard to know what period of time to consider his prime.

Was he an awesome fighter when he fought Tyrell Biggs and Pinklon Thomas, or were they just a never-was-gonna-be and a has-been? Did Tony Tucker ever do anything to make anyone think he could go the distance like he did?

I'd like to hear some opinions.

[Robbi]

86-88.

[Thread Stealer]

86-91 was his prime, his absolute peak was 88'.

[TBooze]

he was so carefully matched

:huh He beat anyone that mattered in his prime years of November 1986 to February 1990...

He was hardly carefully matched.

With hindsight, I am no fan of Tyson, but even I can concede that he met all that mattered in his prime, with the possible exception of Terrible Tim. But that was in part, Witherspoon's own fault.

[lefthook31]

His crowning fight was against Michael Spinks, but Spinks was scared to death -- you can even see his eyes roll up into his head at Tyson's speed on the first missed punch.

I see tons of posts on this forum about how Tyson was this or that in his prime, but he was so carefully matched it's hard to know what period of time to consider his prime.

Was he an awesome fighter when he fought Tyrell Biggs and Pinklon Thomas, or were they just a never-was-gonna-be and a has-been? Did Tony Tucker ever do anything to make anyone think he could go the distance like he did?

I'd like to hear some opinions.
Spinks was scared?? cmon not this horse shit again. A lot of so called experts picked Spinks to win. He wasnt scared, he was just outclassed. As far as Tysons prime, I think that was the pinnacle of his fighting prime as he was no longer with the team that brought him to the top. I would say he was physically still a decent fighter up until the Golota fight, but his fighting prime peaked with Spinks and as its clear to see slowly got worse over the course of his career. There was a big difference in the fighter that fought Spinks, and the fighter that fought Ruddock, and even Golota for that matter.

[Hatesrats]

'87-'88

[Robbi]

I think if you put Tyson's performance against Savarese into a time capsule back to 1988, it wouldn't look out of place. As short as that fight was, which was very quick, it was awesome. The left hook that dropped Savarese was timed like a prime Tyson. The follow up assualt as well.

[PetethePrince]

Spinks was scared?? cmon not this horse shit again. A lot of so called experts picked Spinks to win.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Are you serious? Spinks was deathly afraid. The later with experts has nothing to do with Spinks not being scared. It's probably Tyson's best win but let's not get carried away.

Tyson's prime was June 9th 1988 to June 12th 1988. Yes, I know because I remember from interviews how he was feeling his absolute best on those 3 days. So this must be his absolute peak. What a monster, not even Godzilla can beat him on this day. No other man beats him.

[Thread Stealer]

Spinks was scared against Tyson, and it wasn't the first time Spinks entered the ring scared. Spinks talked about having fear when he fought and how he used it to his advantage.

Unfortunately it's not easy for a slow starter like Spinks to be able to use it to his advantage when a young Tyson is all over you, hitting you with ridiculously fast and hard punches.

[KOTF]

I thought Witherspoon didn't fight Tyson because he lost to Bonecrusher via 1st round TKO despite beating him decisively the first time around

[dezbeast]

I'd pick the Tyson of Biggs over the Tyson of Spinks anyday.

[TBooze]

I thought Witherspoon didn't fight Tyson because he lost to Bonecrusher via 1st round TKO despite beating him decisively the first time around

Yes, and a fued with DKP that cost him three years of his career and according to Tim a near £1 Million pay day (a dispute over the purse for his bout with Bruno).

[lefthook31]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Are you serious? Spinks was deathly afraid. The later with experts has nothing to do with Spinks not being scared. It's probably Tyson's best win but let's not get carried away.

Tyson's prime was June 9th 1988 to June 12th 1988. Yes, I know because I remember from interviews how he was feeling his absolute best on those 3 days. So this must be his absolute peak. What a monster, not even Godzilla can beat him on this day. No other man beats him.

Its so easy for you and everyone else to say that after the fact, but did you watch the lead up to the fight. Theres a reason there was such a tremendous buzz going into the fight. It wasnt because everyone though Tyson would KO spinks in 91 seconds. Theres plenty of prefight commentary on youtube, watch it and you'll see for yourself.

[PetethePrince]

Its so easy for you and everyone else to say that after the fact, but did you watch the lead up to the fight. Theres a reason there was such a tremendous buzz going into the fight. It wasnt because everyone though Tyson would KO spinks in 91 seconds. Theres plenty of prefight commentary on youtube, watch it and you'll see for yourself.

Do you like trying to act as if people don't know or didn't watch things? I've seen tons of Tyson and tons of the fight. I understand how Spinks was thought to beat Tyson by few. Mostly it was due to him being unorthodox. I get how it was supposed to be a close fight. I am not downing Tyson. But Spinks was scared shitless, saying otherwise is just laughable.

[janitor]

Its so easy for you and everyone else to say that after the fact, but did you watch the lead up to the fight. Theres a reason there was such a tremendous buzz going into the fight. It wasnt because everyone though Tyson would KO spinks in 91 seconds. Theres plenty of prefight commentary on youtube, watch it and you'll see for yourself.

I agree but that is exactly the kind of pre fight comentry that old time fighters never get credit for because it is forgotten.

Most people thought Jim Jeffries was going to steamroll Jack Johnson.

Jack Dempsey was not going to loose to Jess Willard, he was going to get killed because he was too small.

Nobody today even gives them credit for the psychological disadvantages they were up against never mind winning the fight.

[Muchmoore]

His crowning fight was against Michael Spinks, but Spinks was scared to death -- you can even see his eyes roll up into his head at Tyson's speed on the first missed punch.

I see tons of posts on this forum about how Tyson was this or that in his prime, but he was so carefully matched it's hard to know what period of time to consider his prime.



I don't really understand what you mean by that, but as for the question itself I think Tyson was at his absolute peak from his beatdown of Tyrell Biggs to his demolition job of Spinks. Obviously when he fought Berbick, Thomas etc. he was pretty much the finished product but the Tyson of those fights didn't have the experience and the little bit extra teaching from Rooney. He was a bit more sloppy prior to Biggs.

For his best fight, Tyson never looked better than against Holmes, imo. His biggest flaw was his tendency to get tied up where he would usually stop action and wait to get broken up. Against Larry though he was active on the inside and punished him when he was tied up and bombed out one of the hardest fighters to knock out ever. Obviously the Spinks fight is incredible but it was so decisive it's hard to really get much from it other than that he's one of the most explosive HWs ever.

[Jazzo]

I am of the philosophy that training, including maintenance is just as important as the fight itself. I commonly like to point this out.

Furthermore, the ability to work hard consistently over a long period of time is a talent in itself.

Thus, Tyson was certainly in his absolute Prime before Prison. The fact that he lost does not remove him from his Prime.

His problems are for his social worker, psychologist or psychiatrist. Maybe all three.

But not me.

[Thread Stealer]

Tyson was only carefully matched on the road to the title. The management did a good job of selecting the right opponents on the way up to help Tyson improve, but not enough to seriously challenge him.

Once Tyson won a title though, he basically cleaned out the division except for Spoon, and Tyson beat Spoon's conqueror.

[Jazzo]

Why is Spinks being scared an issue, by the way?

[Thread Stealer]

Why is Spinks being scared an issue, by the way?

I guess it's supposed to take away from the win.

If a fighter uses whatever he has to gain a psychological edge due to the opponent being scared, intimidated, angry, insecure, etc...well good for him.

[Jazzo]

I guess it's supposed to take away from the win.

If a fighter uses whatever he has to gain a psychological edge due to the opponent being scared, intimidated, angry, insecure, etc...well good for him.

Bingo.

Besides, how do you measure how "scared" somebody is?

Someone can look cool but be a nervous wreck and bottle job.

[Bill Butcher]

1987/88

[lefthook31]

Do you like trying to act as if people don't know or didn't watch things? I've seen tons of Tyson and tons of the fight. I understand how Spinks was thought to beat Tyson by few. Mostly it was due to him being unorthodox. I get how it was supposed to be a close fight. I am not downing Tyson. But Spinks was scared shitless, saying otherwise is just laughable.
What facts do you have that a guy making 20 million and considered the lineal heavyweight champion was scared shitless? He gave it go. To me Bruce Seldon showed all the signs of being scared shitless, leading up to and including the fight, but I didnt see that in Spinks. He was knocked cold and his eyes rolled back in his head like a slot machine.

[lefthook31]

Tyson was only carefully matched on the road to the title. The management did a good job of selecting the right opponents on the way up to help Tyson improve, but not enough to seriously challenge him.

Once Tyson won a title though, he basically cleaned out the division except for Spoon, and Tyson beat Spoon's conqueror.
Well I think every fighter should be carefully matched to secure their record, ranking and build their confidence, all the while offering them different looks and styles to improve. Tyson was brought along just right by his handlers and your right he cleaned out the division.

[TheGreatA]

Spinks shows some fear here in my opinion...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[PetethePrince]

What facts do you have that a guy making 20 million and considered the lineal heavyweight champion was scared shitless? He gave it go. To me Bruce Seldon showed all the signs of being scared shitless, leading up to and including the fight, but I didnt see that in Spinks. He was knocked cold and his eyes rolled back in his head like a slot machine.

Maybe you should get new glasses, I don't know what to tell you. He looks in complete fear. He's so frigid and stiff and his eyes spell doom. It's a great win for Tyson regardless.

[Jazzo]

What facts do you have that a guy making 20 million and considered the lineal heavyweight champion was scared shitless? He gave it go.

You are making a worthless, irrelevant argument relevant by arguing it.

Fuck it.

It's boxing.

[Saintpat]

I was at the Spinks fight. I believe he was scared to death. There are replays (or were on HBO) that showed some different angles in the opening seconds. Tyson misses a looping right while Spinks is on the ropes and you can see Spinks' eyes roll when his head comes up (his back is to you on the youtube version).

A few seconds later he has slid past the corner and is still on the ropes and Tyson lands a short head shot and a body shot and Spinks takes a knee.

Now pause and think -- ever heard of a champion taking a knee in the first round of a heavyweight title fight to get his bearings? It wasn't because he was out on his feet -- it was because he was overwhelmed.

All credit to Tyson for creating that circumstance -- Spinks was afraid because he saw he couldn't cope with Tyson's speed and raw power.

As for Tyson being carefully matched -- he could have gone after Witherspoon or Spinks when he first fought for the title, but instead took on Berbick, who was (rightfully) regarded as the least of the three.

Not saying I blame Team Tyson, but that's the fact.

He didn't fight Witherspoon. He didn't fight Holyfield, who was No. 2 in the Ring Magazine ratings at heavy by 1987, during that period. He didn't fight Dokes, who was still regarded as a top-five heavy through much of that period.

Tyson also fought Biggs when Biggs had 15 fights. I personally don't think Biggs would have developed into a great fighter, but I remember conventional wisdom at the time being Tyson's camp chose to go after him then rather than wait until he might be more ready.

Two other guys who Tyson did fight but waited to fight were Donovan Ruddock and Buster Douglas, who made a real case for himself on the Tyson-Spinks undercard picking apart Mike Williams.

Tyson also never fought Foreman, who become viable during the course of Tyson's 'prime.'

I'm not saying Tyson avoided all competition like the plague (a la Cooney), but his management made some intelligent choices about who to fight and when to fight them -- it's not a coincidence that they jumped on Bonecrusher as soon as he beat Witherspoon, but had no interest in that unification when Witherspoon still held that belt because 'Spoon was regarded as more dangerous.

[My2Sense]

86-91 was his prime, his absolute peak was 88'.

Exactly.

[Saintpat]

If Tyson's prime carried through 1991, you'd have to add Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe as guys he didn't fight -- and probably a few others.

[josak]

86-91 was his prime, his absolute peak was 88'.

Agree, except I wouldn't include 91.

[Thread Stealer]

If Tyson's prime carried through 1991, you'd have to add Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe as guys he didn't fight -- and probably a few others.

You could add them, but it won't hold any merit.

Razor Ruddock was more established at heavyweight by the time 1991 came around than Moorer and the green Bowe. There were rumors that Tyson was unhappy with King for how long it was taking him to get a chance to regain his title. Ruddock was supposed to fight Tyson a couple years earlier but Tyson pulled out. Ruddock was more worthy of a big fight at that time than Moorer or Bowe. Moorer hadn't even fought at heavyweight when Tyson faced off with Ruddock the first time.

Then after the Ruddock fights, Tyson signed to fight Holyfield for the title before his "rib injury", which may have meant "not ready to fight due to upcoming rape trial".

When Tyson and Bowe had the most realistic chance of fighting, it was around 1996. But Tyson lost to Holyfield in between the two fights in which Bowe's head and balls were used by Andrew Golota as a punching bag.

[The Kurgan]

I'd say his best performance, considering the opponent, was against Tyrell Biggs. It's easy to forget just how good Biggs was in 1987 and he was the kind of boxer that, if the Tyson-haters were to be believed, Mike couldn't beat: a tall strong boxer with a great left jab and who wasn't afraid to fight back against Tyson.

That night Tyson looked as fast, as focused, as systematic, as powerful and as durable as he ever did. It was bang in the middle of his reign of terror, before Bruno showed some of the *****s in his armour and before Douglas took some of the shine off of the Tyson idol.

[The Kurgan]

As for Tyson being "carefully managed", if that's careful management then Ali and Louis were wrapped in bubble wrap. Tyson was thrown in with the wolves early and cleaned out his division within three years of being champ, so that by the start of 1990 the only boxer out there who was thought to be a challenge was Evander Holyfied who had made his name at cruiserweight.

The only boxers Tyson was kept away from/avoided were Tim Witherspoon and George Foreman, neither of which could be considered major omissions like Lewis for Bowe or Willis for Dempsey. From 1986-2002, Tyson fought three ATGs, over 11 belt-holders and a series of very strong contenders like Razor Ruddock and Andrew Golota who could have won a title had they been matched more easily or were sane, respectively.

I think Tyson was well-managed in his first career and in his second career was a victim of cheque-book management: King underestimated Holyfield and put Tyson in there after Tyson had had under 8 rounds of boxing since 1991. A big mistake.

[ripcity]

86-89. Was outside of the Douglas loss the best heavyweight in the world up till 91 when sent to prison, but he was past his best by than.

[fists of fury]

As for Tyson being carefully matched -- he could have gone after Witherspoon or Spinks when he first fought for the title, but instead took on Berbick, who was (rightfully) regarded as the least of the three.

Not saying I blame Team Tyson, but that's the fact.

He didn't fight Witherspoon. He didn't fight Holyfield, who was No. 2 in the Ring Magazine ratings at heavy by 1987, during that period. He didn't fight Dokes, who was still regarded as a top-five heavy through much of that period.

Tyson also fought Biggs when Biggs had 15 fights. I personally don't think Biggs would have developed into a great fighter, but I remember conventional wisdom at the time being Tyson's camp chose to go after him then rather than wait until he might be more ready.

Two other guys who Tyson did fight but waited to fight were Donovan Ruddock and Buster Douglas, who made a real case for himself on the Tyson-Spinks undercard picking apart Mike Williams.

Tyson also never fought Foreman, who become viable during the course of Tyson's 'prime.'

I'm not saying Tyson avoided all competition like the plague (a la Cooney), but his management made some intelligent choices about who to fight and when to fight them -- it's not a coincidence that they jumped on Bonecrusher as soon as he beat Witherspoon, but had no interest in that unification when Witherspoon still held that belt because 'Spoon was regarded as more dangerous.

You're guilty of a fair degree of revisionism here.

First of all, Spinks pulled out of the tournament, so thereby disqualifying him as a Tyson opponent. What was Tyson supposed to do?

Tyson was on a collision course with the belt holders regardless of who they were. If Berbick was the number one choice, so be it. Witherspoon, had he won against Smith, could have been next, or a Tyson opponent soon enough. Again, it was Spoon who fell off the wagon, so how is Tyson to blame here?

Dokes was coming back after a long layoff. I heard no noise whatsoever from anyone regarding him fighting Tyson. If Tyson had fought him during this period, no doubt now people would be saying things like "Yeah, but Dokes was a shell, a coke fiend, he had a long layoff..." etc.

Regarding Biggs, well I've always had the belief (supported by magazine interviews) that it was Bigg's people (the Duvas) who decided it was time for Tyrell to take on Tyson.
I don't see how waiting another two years or so would have made the slightest bit of difference anyway.
In that time, it's not likely Biggs would have been risked against a fellow contender, nor would he have acquired a great deal more experience. How much more prepared could he really have been?

The Ruddock fight could have been made in '89, but Tyson pulled out. Regardless, he did fight him twice afterward, when there was no particular reason to do so.
Douglas in must be remembered fell off the wagon in June of '87 when Tucker beat him. Tyson then fought Tucker. Douglas needed to re-establish himself as a worthwhile conender. He fought Williams in June of '88, and in Feb. 1990 he got a shot versus Tyson. It's not like he had to wait years and years...besides, Douglas wasn't touted as anyone to worry about.

Foreman only really became a viable Tyson opponent in Janurary of 1990 when he beat Cooney. That's when most people started to take George seriously. The next month, Tyson lost to Douglas. Where's the problem here??

That leaves Holyfield, who was establishing himself as a worthy contender. Had Tyson's camp moved for a fight after say, the Holyfield v Thomas fight, I wonder whether Holyfield's camp would have taken it, since Evander was still testing the waters at the weight.
The fact that Tyson allowed Holyfield to gather experience and become more comfortable at heavyweight shows Tyson's confidence, if anything.

You bemoan Tyson for fighting Biggs when Biggs had less than 20 fights, then you bemoan Tyson for taking his time about fighting certain guys. You can't have it both ways.

Had he jumped on Foreman when George was just coming back, or on Holyfield just after Holyfield had just jumped to heavyweight, people would moan about how he fought fighters than weren't ready.

Thank God he actually fought and crushed Spinks, because I can already hear how that one would play out had he not.

He ducked the lineal champ, he ducked the one guy who would have beaten him, Spinks had all the tools to school Tyson...yada yada.

It makes me sick..

[Holmes' Jab]

'86-'88.

[DamonD]

I would argue with Dokes that, really, the Holyfield fight could be viewed as a bit of an abberration. Dokes having a surprisingly good night and Holyfield perhaps fighting with heart instead of head.

His comeback was from Dec 87 onwards. He bowls over a series of journeymen and no-hopers. His last fight before Holyfield was a UD12 over Rocky Sekorski, in what I believe was a pretty awful fight. Then suddenly has that FOTY candidate with Holyfield.

Goes back to the lower leagues again to rack up a few more wins, then gets knocked out cold by Ruddock in 1990. Returns to the tomato can express to get a gift title shot against Bowe in 1993 which he again loses.

It's basically all about the Holyfield fight. That and being able to defeat guys like Jesse Ferguson, Lionel Washington and a bunch of low-level fighters.

So any hype for Tyson vs Dokes? I really doubt it. Dokes would've been viewed as an easy touch anytime up to 1989, and then returned to that status the following year anyway.

[fists of fury]

So any hype for Tyson vs Dokes? I really doubt it. Dokes would've been viewed as an easy touch anytime up to 1989, and then returned to that status the following year anyway.

Correct.
But since Tyson didn't fight him, Dokes has been magically transformed into a 'threat.'

[Bonavena25]

Someone actually took this question seriously one time and tried to come up with an exact date that Tyson was at his peak, taking into consideration amount of fights, age, physiology, mentality etc.

The date they came up with was September 17, 1987.

[lefthook31]

I was at the Spinks fight. I believe he was scared to death. There are replays (or were on HBO) that showed some different angles in the opening seconds. Tyson misses a looping right while Spinks is on the ropes and you can see Spinks' eyes roll when his head comes up (his back is to you on the youtube version).

A few seconds later he has slid past the corner and is still on the ropes and Tyson lands a short head shot and a body shot and Spinks takes a knee.

Now pause and think -- ever heard of a champion taking a knee in the first round of a heavyweight title fight to get his bearings? It wasn't because he was out on his feet -- it was because he was overwhelmed.

All credit to Tyson for creating that circumstance -- Spinks was afraid because he saw he couldn't cope with Tyson's speed and raw power.

As for Tyson being carefully matched -- he could have gone after Witherspoon or Spinks when he first fought for the title, but instead took on Berbick, who was (rightfully) regarded as the least of the three.

Not saying I blame Team Tyson, but that's the fact.

He didn't fight Witherspoon. He didn't fight Holyfield, who was No. 2 in the Ring Magazine ratings at heavy by 1987, during that period. He didn't fight Dokes, who was still regarded as a top-five heavy through much of that period.

Tyson also fought Biggs when Biggs had 15 fights. I personally don't think Biggs would have developed into a great fighter, but I remember conventional wisdom at the time being Tyson's camp chose to go after him then rather than wait until he might be more ready.

Two other guys who Tyson did fight but waited to fight were Donovan Ruddock and Buster Douglas, who made a real case for himself on the Tyson-Spinks undercard picking apart Mike Williams.

Tyson also never fought Foreman, who become viable during the course of Tyson's 'prime.'

I'm not saying Tyson avoided all competition like the plague (a la Cooney), but his management made some intelligent choices about who to fight and when to fight them -- it's not a coincidence that they jumped on Bonecrusher as soon as he beat Witherspoon, but had no interest in that unification when Witherspoon still held that belt because 'Spoon was regarded as more dangerous.
This whole thread is horrible sorry. It was a nasty uppercut and bodyshot that dropped Spinks to his knees. Now consider this, a guy who is scared to death doesnt try and fight Tyson like Spinks did. Hes trying to avoid getting his eyes rolled back in his head and Tyson knocked him unconscious.

[mr. magoo]

While I don't think that Michael Spinks was going to beat Tyson no matter what his attitude was going into the fight, I agree with all who say that he had cold feet.

Spinks was clearly intimidated, and it showed in his face during the walk to the ring. He seemed cold from the opening bell as well. There was almost no display of enthusiasm or tenacity especially for a man entering what was by far and above the biggest legacy fight of his career, and one that had all the hype of Ali - Frazier, Holmes - Cooney, Jeffries - Johnson, etc... In fact, at times over the years I sometimes wondered if he just said " fuck it ", and layed down.

[mr. magoo]

You're guilty of a fair degree of revisionism here.

First of all, Spinks pulled out of the tournament, so thereby disqualifying him as a Tyson opponent. What was Tyson supposed to do?

Tyson was on a collision course with the belt holders regardless of who they were. If Berbick was the number one choice, so be it. Witherspoon, had he won against Smith, could have been next, or a Tyson opponent soon enough. Again, it was Spoon who fell off the wagon, so how is Tyson to blame here?

Dokes was coming back after a long layoff. I heard no noise whatsoever from anyone regarding him fighting Tyson. If Tyson had fought him during this period, no doubt now people would be saying things like "Yeah, but Dokes was a shell, a coke fiend, he had a long layoff..." etc.

Regarding Biggs, well I've always had the belief (supported by magazine interviews) that it was Bigg's people (the Duvas) who decided it was time for Tyrell to take on Tyson.
I don't see how waiting another two years or so would have made the slightest bit of difference anyway.
In that time, it's not likely Biggs would have been risked against a fellow contender, nor would he have acquired a great deal more experience. How much more prepared could he really have been?

The Ruddock fight could have been made in '89, but Tyson pulled out. Regardless, he did fight him twice afterward, when there was no particular reason to do so.
Douglas in must be remembered fell off the wagon in June of '87 when Tucker beat him. Tyson then fought Tucker. Douglas needed to re-establish himself as a worthwhile conender. He fought Williams in June of '88, and in Feb. 1990 he got a shot versus Tyson. It's not like he had to wait years and years...besides, Douglas wasn't touted as anyone to worry about.

Foreman only really became a viable Tyson opponent in Janurary of 1990 when he beat Cooney. That's when most people started to take George seriously. The next month, Tyson lost to Douglas. Where's the problem here??

That leaves Holyfield, who was establishing himself as a worthy contender. Had Tyson's camp moved for a fight after say, the Holyfield v Thomas fight, I wonder whether Holyfield's camp would have taken it, since Evander was still testing the waters at the weight.
The fact that Tyson allowed Holyfield to gather experience and become more comfortable at heavyweight shows Tyson's confidence, if anything.

You bemoan Tyson for fighting Biggs when Biggs had less than 20 fights, then you bemoan Tyson for taking his time about fighting certain guys. You can't have it both ways.

Had he jumped on Foreman when George was just coming back, or on Holyfield just after Holyfield had just jumped to heavyweight, people would moan about how he fought fighters than weren't ready.

Thank God he actually fought and crushed Spinks, because I can already hear how that one would play out had he not.

He ducked the lineal champ, he ducked the one guy who would have beaten him, Spinks had all the tools to school Tyson...yada yada.

It makes me sick..

Agreed mate,

Had Tyson retired in 1988 after beating Spinks, there isn't a single thing that anybody could have said against him. The heavyweight division was as good as flattened. Period...

[Saintpat]

Correct.
But since Tyson didn't fight him, Dokes has been magically transformed into a 'threat.'

There's nothing revisionist about The Ring's annual rankings.

The Ring ranked Dokes fifth in 1988 and third in 1989.

I'd say that makes him a legitimate contender, 'threat' or not.

[McGrain]

'86-'88.


It's interesting this.

Tyson was something like 16-0 in January of '86. He hadn't yet fought further than 4 rounds. He sure wasn't in his boxing prime at that time. So let's say, rather, that he was in his prime from June of 86.

If his prime does end at the end of '88, that's a pretty short peak.

Though Mike does squeeze some dozen fight in.

[Saintpat]

As for Tyson-Spinks, don't forget the backdrop and the long delay, which probably contributed to Spinks' jelly legs:

Butch Lewis demanded Tyson re-tape. Tyson punched a 2-foot hole in his dressing room wall -- there was a photo in Sports Illustrated. You could literally see out onto the street (or whatever is outside) through the hole.

Spinks doesn't beat Tyson once if they fought 100 times, but the fact is he was scared to death.

[mr. magoo]

There's nothing revisionist about The Ring's annual rankings.

The Ring ranked Dokes fifth in 1988 and third in 1989.

I'd say that makes him a legitimate contender, 'threat' or not.

But he wasn't a mandatory.#3 to #5 does not gurantee a title shot... Tyson's obligation was to fight the men who were rated by the sanctioning bodies. Williams, Bruno and Spinks were the top challengers within that time frame.

Incidentally, following Holyfield's destruction of Dokes, Don King approached Dokes with an offer, but the purse was unsatisfactory, so the fight was never made.

[mr. magoo]

Butch Lewis demanded Tyson re-tape. Tyson punched a 2-foot hole in his dressing room wall -- there was a photo in Sports Illustrated. You could literally see out onto the street (or whatever is outside) through the hole.



Uh, wrong.

This actually happened in the locker room before the HOLMES FIGHT. Not Spinks..

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[McGrain]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Nice catch.

And a very good article. I hadn't heard before that Holmes was so demanding about regaining his feet, that's new to me. What do you think of Sport's Illustrated's dismissal of the Holmes jab as a "tired wave"?

[SpanishArcher]

Until someone posts a picture of that hole in the wall I wont belive it. :bart:deal:nono

[mr. magoo]

Nice catch.

And a very good article. I hadn't heard before that Holmes was so demanding about regaining his feet, that's new to me. What do you think of Sport's Illustrated's dismissal of the Holmes jab as a "tired wave"?


I actually read that in a doctor's waiting room in 1988. Funny how I can't remember to tie my own shoe laces sometimes, but I have the tendency to recall that shit...:lol:

As for the tired wave comment, I don't know. I didn't go back and read the whole thing again.

[SuzieQ49]

I am so sick of hearing people claim tyson ducked spoon. Does anyone realistically think Spoon would have lasted any longer than thomas and tubbs did vs tyson? lets face it, spoon never established himself better than tubbs/thomas level of ability.

[TIGEREDGE]

SPINKS looked scared when he entered the ring, but as soon as the bell rang he tried the right tactics to win. he was trying to hit and move

[Saintpat]

Uh, wrong.

This actually happened in the locker room before the HOLMES FIGHT. Not Spinks..

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I stand corrected (never trust ESPN or Dan Rafael -- [Only registered and activated users can see links])

No doubt there was a delay instigated by Butch Lewis, and no doubt it backfired. Here's what SI wrote:

Butch Lewis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) picked a lousy time to make heavyweight champion Mike Tyson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) angry. Just as Tyson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) prepared to leave his dressing room and make his way to the ring for Monday night's title defense against Michael Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) at Atlantic City ([Only registered and activated users can see links])'s Convention Center, Lewis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links])'s promoter and manager, spotted what he thought was a lump on the wrist of Tyson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])'s left glove. "Hold it," said the tuxedoed but bare-chested Lewis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). "Get rid of that, or we don't fight."
Tyson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])'s handlers explained that the bulge was simply the knotted laces, but Lewis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) demanded that it be examined by Larry Hazzard ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), the chairman of the New Jersey State Athletic Commission. Tyson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), sweat dripping from his broad body, began pacing the dressing room in anger. Hazzard ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) examined the glove and found it faultless, but Lewis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) continued to protest. The impasse wasn't broken until Eddie Futch ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links])'s 77-year-old trainer, said he, too, found the lump harmless. As Lewis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) left the locker room, Tyson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) turned to his trainer, Kevin Rooney ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). "You know," he said softly of Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), "I'm gonna hurt this guy."
Unleashed at last, Tyson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) the Terrible knocked out Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) in just 91 seconds—four seconds fewer than it took Jeffrey Osborne to sing the prefight national anthem. The finish could have been even more abrupt except that Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), a 3�-1 underdog, had the grit to get up the first time Tyson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) knocked him down, with about a minute gone. As it was, in all of boxing history, only three heavyweight championship fights ended faster.


As for Spinks being scared or not, read these words from SI before the fight:

DADDY, PLEASE, DON'T FIGHT TYSON.
Why you say that, baby?
He's gonna knock you out, Daddy.
He might, Michelle. But I might knock him out, too.
He's gonna hurt you, Daddy.
He might. But I might hurt him, too.
Daddy...
Shelly, don't say those things to your father, it's not right. Just pray I don't get hurt. Just pray.
But Daddy....
Michael Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) stares at the ceiling.

[mr. magoo]

=SuzieQ49;4585541]I am so sick of hearing people claim tyson ducked spoon.

No one with any credibility is claiming that " Tyson " ducked Witherspoon. He was blackballed from ever getting a title shot, as a result of a very bad fall out with a promotor who had a bad hair cut.


Does anyone realistically think Spoon would have lasted any longer than thomas and tubbs did vs tyson?

A well trained and motivated Tim Witherspoon, as opposed to a heroine addict in Thomas and deconditioned Tubbs, could have lasted longer.. Yes..



lets face it, spoon never established himself better than tubbs/thomas level of ability.


On what basis do you make this claim?

Tim Witherspoon defeated more quality opponents than Thomas or Tubbs combined, has the only claim among the lost generation to being a two time alpha titlist, and stayed more competitive into old age than either of the other two.. I will also add that since you're such a big advocate of Ring ratings, Tim Witherspoon was in the ring's top 10 for a full decade - considerably longer than either Tubbs or Thomas.

[mochabuzz]

86-87

[lefthook31]

Uh, wrong.

This actually happened in the locker room before the HOLMES FIGHT. Not Spinks..

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


It happened in the Spinks fight too. I never heard about this happening in the Holmes fight.

[McGrain]

It happened in the Spinks fight too. I never heard about this happening in the Holmes fight.

Is that right? Any other occasions?

[lefthook31]

No one with any credibility is claiming that " Tyson " ducked Witherspoon. He was blackballed from ever getting a title shot, as a result of a very bad fall out with a promotor who had a bad hair cut.




A well trained and motivated Tim Witherspoon, as opposed to a heroine addict in Thomas and deconditioned Tubbs, could have lasted longer.. Yes..




On what basis do you make this claim?

Tim Witherspoon defeated more quality opponents than Thomas or Tubbs combined, has the only claim among the lost generation to being a two time alpha titlist, and stayed more competitive into old age than either of the other two.. I will also add that since you're such a big advocate of Ring ratings, Tim Witherspoon was in the ring's top 10 for a full decade - considerably longer than either Tubbs or Thomas.
BS. Tubbs was as good or better than Tim Witherspoon, and he came in excellent shape for Tyson, he had to according to his contract. What better fighters did Witherspoon defeat? He barely beat Tubbs and his biggest win is beating Bruno.
Stayed more competitive in his old age? He lost every fight he was in against a name opponent.

[lefthook31]

Is that right? Any other occasions?
Was typical for Tyson to punch holes in the walls before fights. When Butch Lewis went to the dressing room thinking he could psyche Tyson out a little, he found him punching holes in the wall. He quickly left.

[McGrain]

Was typical for Tyson to punch holes in the walls before fights. When Butch Lewis went to the dressing room thinking he could psyche Tyson out a little, he found him punching holes in the wall. He quickly left.

This is interesting because it doesn't tie in with Mike's apology to the dressing room in the Sports Illustrated article...how aware do you think Mike was of the press pre-court case? How savy of the media? I swear, sometimes I see old interviews and you just don't believe he is capable of some of what came later.

[lefthook31]

4:25 seconds of this clip

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[PetethePrince]

SPINKS looked scared when he entered the ring, but as soon as the bell rang he tried the right tactics to win. he was trying to hit and move

Are you kidding me? He ran and try to go for the lucky big punch rather than boxing him. Even Tyson said so in the post fight interview.

As for the Spinks hole incident, I too heard that. I never knew it occurred for the Holmes fight, I always thought that was for the Spinks fight which supposedly scared Michael Spinks even more.

[mr. magoo]

=lefthook31;4586008]BS. Tubbs was as good or better than Tim Witherspoon, and he came in excellent shape for Tyson, he had to according to his contract.

Read this:

Tyson scaled a trim 216¼ at the weigh-in, pretty much in keeping with his fighting weight at the time. Tubbs, who had promised to come in at 230, weighed 238¼, but collected a $50,000 bonus for reporting “in shape” nonetheless. The promoters presumably figured that if they withheld the bonus Tony might do a Dixie and they might find themselves having to explain why Tyson was fighting Jose Ribalta instead of Tubbs.

I love the part about the promotors giving Tubbs the bonus regardless of the fact that he failed to meet his contract guideliness for fear that he'd back out of the fight.


What better fighters did Witherspoon defeat?

TIM WITHERSPOON:
1. Tony Tubbs
2. Greg Page
3. Frank Bruno
4. Jose Ribalta
5. James Smith
6. James Broad
7. James Tillis
8. Carl Williams
9. Renaldo Snipes
10. Jorge Luis Gonzalez
11. Alfred Cole
12 Arguably Ray Mercer ( robbery )

TONY TUBBS:

1. Greg Page
2. James Smith

PINKLON THOMAS

1. Tim Witherspoon
2. Mike Weaver
3. James Tillis

CONCLUSION: Unless you really want to grab at straws by doing things like crediting Thomas for his draw with Coetzee and mentioning Tubb's win over Seldon, then I think its basically a slam dunk...




He barely beat Tubbs

But who got the win? Is Tubbs not one of the people we're comparing Witherspoon to? Does the win not count in your eyes?


and his biggest win is beating Bruno.

Jeez, what were you smoking during the 80's and why couldn't I find some? Greg Page was the Ring's number one contender and the man who Holmes was stripped for not fighting. Witherspoon put an end to Pages' run and took the WBC title that Holmes had dropped. Your boy Tony Tubbs was undefeated and holding the WBA strap when Spoon dethroned him.. In the year that Spoon beat Bruno, ( 1986 ) the Ring had bruno rated at #9. Now how the fuck was this is best win?



Stayed more competitive in his old age? He lost every fight he was in against a name opponent..


The more I read this shit, the more painfully obvious it gets that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. In 1996, Tim Witherspoon was 39 years old, and he destroyed Jorge Luis Gonzalez, beat cruiserweight champ Alfred Cole, and was arguably robbed against Ray Mercer. What was Pinklon Thomas doing at 39? Who was Tubbs beating at that age??? Get a grip...

[lefthook31]

Read this:

Tyson scaled a trim 216¼ at the weigh-in, pretty much in keeping with his fighting weight at the time. Tubbs, who had promised to come in at 230, weighed 238¼, but collected a $50,000 bonus for reporting “in shape” nonetheless. The promoters presumably figured that if they withheld the bonus Tony might do a Dixie and they might find themselves having to explain why Tyson was fighting Jose Ribalta instead of Tubbs.




TIM WITHERSPOON:
1. Tony Tubbs
2. Greg Page
3. Frank Bruno
4. Jose Ribalta :lol:
5. James Smith
6. James Broad :lol:
7. James Tillis
8. Carl Williams :lol:
9. Renaldo Snipes :lol:
10. Jorge Luis Gonzalez :lol:
11. Alfred Cole :lol:
12 Arguably Ray Mercer ( robbery ) :roll:

TONY TUBBS:

1. Greg Page
2. James Smith

PINKLON THOMAS

1. Tim Witherspoon
2. Mike Weaver
3. James Tillis

CONCLUSION: Unless you really want to grab at straws by doing things like crediting Thomas for his draw with Coetzee and mentioning Tubb's win over Seldon, then I think its basically a slam dunk...






But who got the win? Is Tubbs not one of the people we're comparing Witherspoon to? Does the win not count in your eyes?




Jeez, what were you smoking during the 80's and why couldn't I find some? Greg Page was the Ring's number one contender and the man who Holmes was stripped for not fighting. Witherspoon put an end to Pages' run and took the WBC title that Holmes had dropped. Your boy Tony Tubbs was undefeated and holding the WBA strap when Spoon dethroned him.. In the year that Spoon beat Bruno, ( 1986 ) the Ring had bruno rated at #9. Now how the fuck was this is best win?




The more I read this shit, the more painfully obvious it gets that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. In 1996, Tim Witherspoon was 39 years old, and he destroyed Jorge Luis Gonzalez, beat cruiserweight champ Alfred Cole, and was arguably robbed against Ray Mercer. What was Pinklon Thomas doing at 39? Who was Tubbs beating at that age??? Get a grip...
Everyone beat Gonzalez after Bowe destroyed him. Your forgot to mention that Tubbs beat Alexander Zolkin, Jesse Ferguson, beat Orlin Norris, although the decision was overturned Smith and Page, not to mention he was competitive with Riddick Bowe. Whats the difference if he was still fighting in his old age, he lost to everyone!

[lefthook31]

Magoo once again your attempt to over inflate Witherspoon as something he wasnt isnt cutting it. I think its pretty clear he fits nicely in the mix with all those guys who held the title and lost it without having any sort of dominance. He was no better than a fighter on the level of Tubbs, Tucker, Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Page, Douglas, etc. Thats not too shabby, but hardly some dynamo that was avoided and ducked, especially considering he had his shot in the Acefield tournament and blew it against James Smith. He could have easily been the one fighting Tyson in the second round of the unfication series.

[mr. magoo]

=lefthook31;4586367]Everyone beat Gonzalez after Bowe destroyed him.

Hindsite means little. At the time, Gonzalez was 24-1 and the man who took the gold medal at the 1988 olympics. Also, let's not forget that spoon was nearing the age of 40, and totally mutilated him. I could also put a spin on things by saying that perhaps Gonzalez was devastated after losing two in a row to Bowe and Witherspoon, leading to a downward spiral, but I'll leave the revisionism to you.. You're doing an excellent job of it.:good


Your forgot to mention that Tubbs beat Alexander Zolkin,

Uh, not really. I saw that fight live on USA cable network boxing, with my friends, and we all agreed that Zolkin had gotten robbed. Tubbs looked like shit in that fight to the extent where people were calling USA's home office bitching about the outcome. Care to dig yourself into a deeper hole?

Jesse Ferguson,

Yeah great win. Its always flattering when you manage to eek out a decision over a guy who has the claim to having won all but 5 of his last 13 fights.:lol:

beat Orlin Norris, although the decision was overturned

And rightfully so. Tubbs knew the consequences of testing positive for drugs, but chose to ignore them.. Therefore, he doesn't get the win...


Smith and Page,

Listed them already.


not to mention he was competitive with Riddick Bowe.

Tubbs gave a prospect fits. Witherspoon with only 15 fights, fought the reigning world champion to a near stand still. If you're going to give credit for galant LOSING efforts, then I suggest you do it both ways.


Whats the difference if he was still fighting in his old age, he lost to everyone


You obviously didn't read my full post, as you have:

A. failed to acknowledge I listed Page and Smith as wins for Tubbs.

B. Ignored the things I said about Witherspoon, when past his prime.

C. Have not produced a response that is even worthy of looking at.

Game, set, match....This one's over..

[lefthook31]

Hindsight means little? The proof is in the history. Gonzalez was damaged goods after Bowe, he went 50/50 in his remaining fights. Spoon proved he was about as good as I said he was, and was nothing more than a showcase in his post Don King career. Beating a blown up cruiserweight in Cole and a ruined fighter proved nothing, especially since he lost clearly in every other fight he stepped up in. He lost to Mercer by a landslide, I dont know how you call that a robbery. I know you like the guy but your overating him big time.

[mr. magoo]

=lefthook31;4586453]Magoo once again your attempt to over inflate Witherspoon as something he wasnt isnt cutting it.

Considering that you haven't managed to refute a single word I've said, I'd say its "cutting it" quite well. I dare you to list one factual error that I've made, because I haven't gotten through one sentence of yours without finding several.. Everytime a thread comes up on a topic that you THINK you are well versed in, you pull all this bluster out of your ass like " I don't think you've ever seen this guy fight. " Now you're coming in here and making references to Frank Bruno being Witherspoon's BEST win, and claiming that Tubbs beat Zolkin - fights that you obviously didn't see, and for what? To try and prove that Tony Tubbs was a better fighter than Tim Witherspoon? You should be ashamed of yourself on several levels..

[mr. magoo]

=lefthook31;4586603]Hindsight means little? The proof is in the history. Gonzalez was damaged goods after Bowe,

You never disappoint lefthook,

I said that I'd leave the revisionism to you, and you've done beautifully.:lol:


he went 50/50 in his remaining fights.

Right, because BOWE ruined him, and not Spoon right?

Spoon proved he was about as good as I said he was, and was nothing more than a showcase in his post Don King career. Beating a blown up cruiserweight in Cole and a ruined fighter proved nothing,

Well, it proves that he was still a more capable fighter in old age than either Tubbs or Thomas.. That's good enough for me..

especially since he lost clearly in every other fight he stepped up in.

Yes, from the time he lost to Larry Donald at age 40 to his last fight against Brian nix at the age of 46.. Great rebuttle there buddy..:good

He lost to Mercer by a landslide, I dont know how you call that a robbery.

Oh God, not only do you have your facts on ass backwards, you're also a liar.



I know you like the guy but your overating him big time.

Am I?

It all started with this little nugget from SuzieQ..

Does anyone realistically think Spoon would have lasted any longer than thomas and tubbs did vs tyson?

I gave my response using only FACTS, then you chimed in with this..


BS. Tubbs was as good or better than Tim Witherspoon,


Who is really doing the overrating here? I listed facts, statistics, accomplishements, and also refuted your nonsense, which was mostly false..

[lefthook31]

Considering that you haven't managed to refute a single word I've said, I'd say its "cutting it" quite well. I dare you to list one factual error that I've made, because I haven't gotten through one sentence of yours without finding several.. Everytime a thread comes up on a topic that you THINK you are well versed in, you pull all this bluster out of your ass like " I don't think you've ever seen this guy fight. " Now you're coming in here and making references to Frank Bruno being Witherspoon's BEST win, and claiming that Tubbs beat Zolkin - fights that you obviously didn't see, and for what? To try and prove that Tony Tubbs was a better fighter than Tim Witherspoon? You should be ashamed of yourself on several levels..
First off I think you should think about things before you make a statement. First starting with your "wrong it happend in the Holmes fight" about Tyson punching holes in the walls before the fight. I stated that Tyson did in fact punch holes in the walls at the Spinks fight, and I proved it with the video which interviewed Butch Lewis (Spinks promoter). Secondly, I disagree with your quote stating that "Witherspoon beat more quality opponents than Tubbs and Thomas combined." I clearly stated why I think so, and based on their competition, records, and ability its pretty easy to show that all three guys are fairly comparable in skills, record and accomplishments, especially with them beating each other. Your bias towards Tim Witherspoon might be clouding your judgement and causing you to be defensive, but I think I responded to your incorrect statements quite clearly.

[mr. magoo]

First off I think you should think about things before you make a statement. First starting with your "wrong it happend in the Holmes fight" about Tyson punching holes in the walls before the fight. I stated that Tyson did in fact punch holes in the walls at the Spinks fight, and I proved it with the video which interviewed Butch Lewis (Spinks promoter). Secondly, I disagree with your quote stating that "Witherspoon beat more quality opponents than Tubbs and Thomas combined." I clearly stated why I think so, and based on their competition, records, and ability its pretty easy to show that all three guys are fairly comparable in skills, record and accomplishments, especially with them beating each other. Your bias towards Tim Witherspoon might be clouding your judgement and causing you to be defensive, but I think I responded to your incorrect statements quite clearly.

Dude seriously,

don't dig yourself in any deeper. Pulling the " your biased " card is a classic last resort defense, and coming from a guy who shouldn't throw rocks from the balcony of a glass house.. You haven't refuted anything and repeating lies or inaccuracies at nauseum isn't going to make them any more true...

[lefthook31]

Magoo, did you see the entire Bowe Gonzalez fight? Did you see the one sided prolonged beat down that Bowe gave him?

[lefthook31]

Dude seriously,

don't dig yourself in any deeper. Pulling the " your biased " card is a classic last resort defense, and coming from a guy who shouldn't throw rocks from the balcony of a glass house.. You haven't refuted anything and repeating lies or inaccuracies at nauseum isn't going to make them any more true...

Hello! Are you talking to yourself or reading another thread??

[mr. magoo]

Magoo, did you see the entire Bowe Gonzalez fight? Did you see the one sided prolonged beat down that Bowe gave him?


Yes, and I also saw the Spoon fight....

Doesn't matter. It was still a good win for Spoon and more than anything that Thomas or Tubbs did in their old age...

Did you see the Zolkin fight that you so steadfastly claim Tubbs won?

Did you see the Mercer fight that you so steadfastlyclaim Witherspoon lost?

Did you see the Bruno fight that you so steadfastly claim was his best win?

[mr. magoo]

This is clearly a lost cause.....:patsch

[Danny]

If Tyson's prime carried through 1991, you'd have to add Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe as guys he didn't fight -- and probably a few others.

A debate can be made for Tyson's prime being carried through the 1991 & a case can be made for his prime having passed by that time!

However, Moorer would have been blown away within a round, I'm confident of that! Moorer moved up from LHW where he was a dominant force, but at HW & against a guy like Tyson, it would have been Goodnight for Moorer!

While the performances against Biggs, Spinks & Holmes are generally considered to be the peak Tyson, I think his KO demolition job on Alex Stewart is vastly underrated! Stewart gave Holyfiedl big problems in Sept 1989! Tyson just blew Alex away, on him straight away!

[Holmes' Jab]

I think the Biggs fight was his best performance, always in control of the fight and he could've stopped Biggs earlier, but at the same time it was a discilplined, controlled, yet devestating destruction. Great conbinations/bodywork, terrific lefthand for the first knockdown and another to finish it. Complete performance.

[lefthook31]

Yes, and I also saw the Spoon fight....

Doesn't matter. It was still a good win for Spoon and more than anything that Thomas or Tubbs did in their old age...
What does that have to do with the point I was making?
Did you see the Zolkin fight that you so steadfastly claim Tubbs won?
Yes UD Zolkin wasnt a bad fighter

Did you see the Mercer fight that you so steadfastlyclaim Witherspoon
lost?
Yes UD

Did you see the Bruno fight that you so steadfastly claim was his best win?
Yes on paper it was the best win of his career, better than Page, because Bruno was more dangerous and a better fighter than Page, who lost his title in his first defense to Tubbs, who lost it to WItherspoon who was ko'd by Smith in 1. Again my point that all these fighters are about on the same par.

[mr. magoo]

Yes on paper it was the best win of his career, better than Page, because Bruno was more dangerous and a better fighter than Page, who lost his title in his first defense to Tubbs, who lost it to WItherspoon who was ko'd by Smith in 1. Again my point that all these fighters are about on the same par.


Just answer one simple question.

Who among the lost generation fought the largest number of quality opponents?

[DamonD]

I think the Biggs fight was his best performance, always in control of the fight and he could've stopped Biggs earlier, but at the same time it was a discilplined, controlled, yet devestating destruction. Great conbinations/bodywork, terrific lefthand for the first knockdown and another to finish it. Complete performance.
I'm a big fan of that performance too, it's kinda ironic that we only got that because Tyson wanted to really break Biggs...if he'd just gone about his usual business it would've been done in 3 or 4 and we wouldn't have been able to see so much.

[DRMULLEN]

86-89 unbeatable...DREMULLEN.

[SpanishArcher]

Given the fact that he looks like he lost 50 pounds in a month or two, I'd say he's in his prime right now!

[lefthook31]

Just answer one simple question.

Who among the lost generation fought the largest number of quality opponents?
Tony Tucker or Frank Bruno

[mr. magoo]

Tony Tucker or Frank Bruno

Wrong answer..

[lefthook31]

Wrong answer..
Im not going to get in a pissing match with you again. If you want to believe Witherspoon faced better fighters than Tubbs and Thomas combined so be it. I, and their records, would strongly disagree with that.
If you believe Tim Witherspoon was some dynamo, most likely he would have accomplished more than he did. If you think that Don King was the one who kept him from achieving greatness, thats your opinion and I disagree with that as well. Many Don King fighters were forced into fights on short notice. There's also many behind the scenes stories of a lot of different fighters, whether it be contract disputes, injuries, drug problems, etc. In fact King did everything he could to get Tyson beat, because he didnt promote him, yet Tyson cleaned out all his fighters in that tournament because he WAS a great fighter. If you think Tyson avoided Witherspoon I disagree with that too. Witherspoon had a chance to fight Tyson had he won the WBA fight.

[mr. magoo]

Im not going to get in a pissing match with you again. If you want to believe Witherspoon faced better fighters than Tubbs and Thomas combined so be it. I, and their records, would strongly disagree with that.
If you believe Tim Witherspoon was some dynamo, most likely he would have accomplished more than he did. If you think that Don King was the one who kept him from achieving greatness, thats your opinion and I disagree with that as well. Many Don King fighters were forced into fights on short notice. There's also many behind the scenes stories of a lot of different fighters, whether it be contract disputes, injuries, drug problems, etc. In fact King did everything he could to get Tyson beat, because he didnt promote him, yet Tyson cleaned out all his fighters in that tournament because he WAS a great fighter. If you think Tyson avoided Witherspoon I disagree with that too. Witherspoon had a chance to fight Tyson had he won the WBA fight.

It would seem that out of shear frustration, you have resorted to putting words in my mouth. I do not, nor have I ever believed that Tim Witherspoon was a " great fighter. " My only belief was that he was a notch above the rest of his pears, and I'm comfortable that I have made my case more than adequately. Secondly, I have never claimed that Mike Tyson " avoided " Witherspoon. I have made my position clear on that issue multiple times and in many threads. You seem content to not listening. Witherspoon's career was sabotaged because his promotor no longer wanted him in the picture. He was viewed as bad for business...Period. There has never been any claim of Tyson suffering from cold feet, or at least not from me.... As for your comment about Witherspoon receiving a chance to fight Tyson, only to be thwarted by the Smith loss, is incorrect. That fight was never going to happen.....Period.....

[SuzieQ49]

My only belief was that he was a notch above the rest of his pears, and I'm comfortable that I have made my case more than adequately

Maghoo I am going to have to disagree with you here. Witherspoon to me never established himself as a dominant force over the rest of the Alpa Champs. In fact too me he is always on the same level as a tubbs/thomas level of ability, which is rather good IMO. nothing about witherspoon stuck out as greater than them. Sure he took holmes to the brink of a split decision, but holmes ducked thomas, page, tubbs, from 1983-1985 so these men never got the chance to fight holmes. For all we know they may have beaten Larry during this time. 2ndly, you say Witherspoon performed better in his late years and I disagree. He seemed to lose everytime he stepped up to face a world class fighter. Tony Tubbs at age 33 was robbed against a Prime ATG riddick Bowe imo, and this is a signifigant better accomplishment than what Witherspoon did in the 90s. Drugs caused Pinklon Thomas to have a short prime, but Thomas established himself just as good prime for prime as Spoon by beating a Young Witherspoon worse than Holmes did.

Witherspoon did record a long list of good wins but if you look at his wins over Page and Tubbs, these were stinkers that could have gone either way. Page showed up looking like a baloon, and I still thought this one could have been called a draw....and tubbs/spoon put on a 15 round snoozefest that could have been called a draw. I thought Bruno was getting the better of Spoon until round 11, but Bruno had a history of falling apart late(bonecrusher Smith) Witherspoon did, however, lose a close but clear cut decision to Pinklon Thomas. He also got caught early and blasted away in 1 round by the dangerous bonecrusher smith. This just shows to me Witherspoon was on the same level of these men. Maybe he ranks the highest at # 1, but nothing on film or resume indicataes he should be a clear cut notch above the thomas/tubbs/ of the world.

[mr. magoo]

;4593308]Maghoo I am going to have to disagree with you here. Witherspoon to me never established himself as a dominant force over the rest of the Alpa Champs.

One does not necessarily need to be dominant to establish themselves as the best among peers. While most of the fragment title holders were basically on the same plane in terms of quality there were a select few who I believe were a tad better than the rest, ie Weaver, Witherspoon, Berbick, etc.. For me, Tim Witherspoon defeated a larger range of better fighters, even if those fighters were not exactly stellar. He also has the claim to have acquired a fragment on two occasions -something that no other 80's alpha champ did. In addition, of the 9 fragment holders who held a piece of the belt anywhere from 1979 - 1987, Tim Witherspoon is one of only two who can claim to have won 3 title fights ( Tubbs, Page, Bruno. ) The only other was Weaver who beat Tate, Coetzee and Tillis.

In fact too me he is always on the same level as a tubbs/thomas level of ability, which is rather good IMO.

Fair enough, though I don't think that those other two men were tested in quite as many fights. Thomas's claim to fame is wins over James Tillis ( who spoon beat in 1 round. ) A victory over a 34 year old Mike Weaver who hadn't beaten a rated opponent in 4 years, and a Majority decision over an 18 fight Spoon who some feel was the worst prime performance of his career. He fought to a standstill with Gerrie Coetzee who most of his peers were beating at the time, and was outboxed in one sided fashion by Berbick. Tony Tubbs has claim to only two real signature wins in his career, which were Page who everybody and their brother was beating between 1984-1987, and James Smith - similar case.


nothing about witherspoon stuck out as greater than them.

None of those men particulary carried that extra " something special. " Most of them were deconditioned, on drugs, working with crap managment or were unjustly promoted. I do think that Witherspoon's awkward style, punching power, defense, and other tools made him a tad more formidable than the others, but that is subject to in depth debate.

Sure he took holmes to the brink of a split decision, but holmes ducked thomas, page, tubbs, from 1983-1985 so these men never got the chance to fight holmes. For all we know they may have beaten Larry during this time.

In 1985, perhaps. But timing is everything. In 1983, a 15 fight novice giving Holmes fits was still something to be taken seriously. Homes had just put on the performance of his career by mutilating Cooney months earlier. Remember, during that same year Pinklon Thomas was 20-0. Not 15-0, yet he drew with Coetzee who others were beating. Tubbs had about the same number of fights, but was still taking on journeyman. Page had just got his ass handed to him by Berbick, then was decked in the second round against Tillis, before wearing him down late. Witherspoon had the fewest number of fights, yet there is no question in my mind who was better in 1983 between Witherspoon and the men you listed.

2ndly, you say Witherspoon performed better in his late years and I disagree. He seemed to lose everytime he stepped up to face a world class fighter. Tony Tubbs at age 33 was robbed against a Prime ATG riddick Bowe imo, and this is a signifigant better accomplishment than what Witherspoon did in the 90s.

Again timing is everything. Witherspoon did not start losing big marquee fights until he was 39 years of age or older, and on the comeback trail for the second time in his career. At this very point in time, he was beating Gonzalez, Cole, and was arguably robbed against Mercer. Also, your favorite magazine the RING, had Spoon in their annual ratings in 1996. Though Tubbs continued to fight well into old age, he was doing nothing of note by age 39. As for Tony giving a young Bowe fits at age 33, you have to consider that Bowe was still a good 10 fights away from his peak days against Holyfield, and I wouldn't exactly call the fight a robbery, just close. Spoon at 33, was coming away with ACTUAL VICTORIES over proven contenders in Jose Ribalta and Carl Williams. I will also ad that not long after Tubbs had lost to Bowe, he was blasted out in a single round by journeyman Butler.

Drugs caused Pinklon Thomas to have a short prime, but Thomas established himself just as good prime for prime as Spoon by beating a Young Witherspoon worse than Holmes did.

A single performance in one head to head matchup, does not automatically award the right to say that one fighter is " better" than the other. Using this logic would lead to the conclusion that Douglas was better than Tyson, Barkley better than Hearns, Sanders better than Klitschko, etc, etc..Witherspoon, with less fights than Thomas, battled him to somewhat of a close outcome. In addition, if we're going to look at who looked better against common opponents, then how about Spoon finishing off Tillis in a fraction of the time that it took Thomas?

Witherspoon did record a long list of good wins but if you look at his wins over Page and Tubbs, these were stinkers that could have gone either way.

As indecisive as they may have seemed, I don't think that Tubbs or Page could have been declared the winner in either of those fights. Were they lousy performances? Yes, but Spoon got the wins and the other two didn't.


Page showed up looking like a baloon, and I still thought this one could have been called a draw....and tubbs/spoon put on a 15 round snoozefest that could have been called a draw.

Again, I disagree that these fights were even, and Witherspoon was just as guilty of showing up to fights out of shape as anyone else during that period. Can't give out points for lack of discipline.


I thought Bruno was getting the better of Spoon until round 11, but Bruno had a history of falling apart late(bonecrusher Smith)

I have not seen the Bruno fight in its entirety, but I did see clips of the punch that laid out Frank and it was brutal. Also, all three judges had Witherspoon ahead, and given that the fight was at Wembley stadium with Bruno being the national hero, I have my doubts about Spoon receiving a scoring gift. In addition, Bruno was a legitimate contender at the time, and Spoons KO of him may well have been one of the most decisive title victories of any of the alpha champions.

Witherspoon did, however, lose a close but clear cut decision to Pinklon Thomas. He also got caught early and blasted away in 1 round by the dangerous bonecrusher smith. This just shows to me Witherspoon was on the same level of these men.

The Smith loss proves nothing to me, as I have already started multiple threads on the issue numerous times before, and don't care to go into it again.



Maybe he ranks the highest at # 1, but nothing on film or resume indicataes he should be a clear cut notch above the thomas/tubbs/ of the world.


Once again, I am not placing Witherspoon on a pedistal - only claiming that he was the best among peers, particularly by virtue of his greater list of wins, and better results against his contemporaries. Make of it what you will.

Another small point: Spoon was rated in the Ring's top 10 from 1982 - 1991, then again for a brief period in 1996 for a grand total of 11 years. For 9 of those 11 years, he was TOP 5!!!!.. You won't find any alpha champ who has such a long standing rating with the Ring...

[mr. magoo]

I've got something else for you Suzie, ( and left hook. )

Thanks to Hhascup, I was able to copy the ring's top 50 all time great heavyweights from another thread.. Enjoy!!


Ring Had the top 50:

This was done by the editors of Ring Magazine back in 1998.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Evander Holyfield
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Ezzard Charles
12. James J. Jeffries
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Mike Tyson
15. Gene Tunney
16. Harry Wills
17. Sam Langford
18. John L. Sullivan
19. Max Schmeling
20. Max Baer
21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ken Norton
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Bob Fitzsimmons
25. Joe Jeannette
26. Jimmy Bivins
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Jack Sharkey
29. Archie Moore
30. Sam McVey
31. Cleveland Williams
32. Lennox Lewis
33. Earnie Shavers
34. Jim Corbett
35. Ernie Terrell
36. Michael Spinks
37. Jimmy Young
38. Zora Folley
39. Ingemar Johansson
40. Ron Lyle
41. Tim Witherspoon
42. Jimmy Ellis
43. Mike Weaver
44. Michael Moorer
45. James J. Braddock
46. Tommy Farr
47. Tommy Burns
48. Tommy Gibbons
49. Pinklon Thomas
50. Michael Dokes

PLEASE NOTE: Pinklon Thomas, Micheal Dokes and Mike Weaver are all rated below Witherspoon, while none of the other alpha champs even made the list...

[lefthook31]

How does one establish as the best among peers by not beating all their peers?? Its certainly not because a magazine publication says so. If a fighter splits wins and losses with all the fighters on that level wouldnt that establish him as about the same? Were talking about fighters who maybe got through one defense before losing their title to one of these other fighters discussed.
Why cant you just say it was your opinion that Witherspoon was heads above the rest? Most of us would disagree with you, but your entitled to your opinion. Its my opinion Tubbs had the most skills of these three fighters mentioned, but thats just my opinion. He was slick, had a decent jab, and was pretty quick for a round guy. His first loss was a close fight to WItherspoon, his second loss was a blowout by Tyson, but his third loss was a very competitive loss to Bowe, who by the way, had 22 wins and had surely proved himself as a seasoned pro by knocking out guys like Tyrell Biggs, Bert Cooper and Pinklon Thomas.

[Muchmoore]

I gotta agree with Magoo here. Spoon was no ATG but was a slight step up from Dokes, Thomas etc. None of the other Alphabet titlists had a resume nearly as deep as Spoons.

Wins over Bruno, Tillis, Page, Bonecrusher, Tubbs, Snipes is a pretty nice and under rated set of wins. You can throw in guys like Ribalta, Carl Williams, and James Broad as well. Tubbs by comparison only has two noteworthy wins, over Page and Bonecrusher. Two guys Spoon also beat. I think Pinkie Thomas had the skills to pay the bills, but he really only had one noteworthy win, the close decision over Spoon. Two if you want to count the win over Quick Tillis, and he had the draw with Coatzee if you want to give him credit for that.

No one is saying that Spoon is the face of the 80s Heavyweight division. But it's fair to say that when it was all said and done, he was the best of the alphabet titlists and probably the number 3 of the decade behind Holmes and Tyson.

[lefthook31]

I've got something else for you Suzie, ( and left hook. )

Thanks to Hhascup, I was able to copy the ring's top 50 all time great heavyweights from another thread.. Enjoy!!


Ring Had the top 50:

This was done by the editors of Ring Magazine back in 1998.

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Evander Holyfield
4. George Foreman
5. Larry Holmes
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Joe Frazier
9. Jack Johnson
10. Jack Dempsey
11. Ezzard Charles
12. James J. Jeffries
13. Jersey Joe Walcott
14. Mike Tyson
15. Gene Tunney
16. Harry Wills
17. Sam Langford
18. John L. Sullivan
19. Max Schmeling
20. Max Baer
21. Floyd Patterson
22. Ken Norton
23. Riddick Bowe
24. Bob Fitzsimmons
25. Joe Jeannette
26. Jimmy Bivins
27. Jerry Quarry
28. Jack Sharkey
29. Archie Moore
30. Sam McVey
31. Cleveland Williams
32. Lennox Lewis
33. Earnie Shavers
34. Jim Corbett
35. Ernie Terrell
36. Michael Spinks
37. Jimmy Young
38. Zora Folley
39. Ingemar Johansson
40. Ron Lyle
41. Tim Witherspoon
42. Jimmy Ellis
43. Mike Weaver
44. Michael Moorer
45. James J. Braddock
46. Tommy Farr
47. Tommy Burns
48. Tommy Gibbons
49. Pinklon Thomas
50. Michael Dokes

PLEASE NOTE: Pinklon Thomas, Micheal Dokes and Mike Weaver are all rated below Witherspoon, while none of the other alpha champs even made the list...
Who cares what the Ring says? Its a magazine publication. It is the same as your opinion or mine. I think most people would have a problem with the first four fighters listed in that order.

[Muchmoore]

How does one establish as the best among peers by not beating all their peers?? Its certainly not because a magazine publication says so. If a fighter splits wins and losses with all the fighters on that level wouldnt that establish him as about the same?

Let's compare some of the 80s Alphabet titlists with each other in terms of wins and losses against quality opposition.

Witherspoon has wins over Snipes, Page, Tillis, Smith, Tubbs, and Bruno and losses against Holmes, Thomas, and Smith. That's a record of 6-3 with the close loss to Holmes probably helping his standing.

Tubbs has wins over Smith and Page and losses to Tyson, Witherspoon, and Bowe with the close loss to a young Bowe probably helping his standing. That's a record of 2-3, although if you wanted to stretch it you could argue his wins over Seldon and Ferguson are quality, which pushes his record to 4-3. But if you do this then you have to fault him for his loss to Lionel Butler, which puts his record at 4-4

Thomas has wins over Tillis, and Spoon and the losses to Tyson and Berbick, as well as the draw with Coatzee. I'll forgive everything that happened post Tyson for obvious reasons. That puts Pinkys record at 2-2-1.

So in conclusion, it's fairly easy to see why we are arguing that Spoon is a slight step above the rest of the 80's Alphabet champs. Head to Head, they were all fairly close to each other when at their best. But just looking through their respective records one can see that Spoon has the best resume of the group and the right to be called the best of the alphabet champions of the 80s.

[lefthook31]

Let's compare some of the 80s Alphabet titlists with each other in terms of wins and losses against quality opposition.

Witherspoon has wins over Snipes, Page, Tillis, Smith, Tubbs, and Bruno and losses against Holmes, Thomas, and Smith. That's a record of 6-3 with the close loss to Holmes probably helping his standing.

Tubbs has wins over Smith and Page and losses to Tyson, Witherspoon, and Bowe with the close loss to a young Bowe probably helping his standing. That's a record of 2-3, although if you wanted to stretch it you could argue his wins over Seldon and Ferguson are quality, which pushes his record to 4-3. But if you do this then you have to fault him for his loss to Lionel Butler, which puts his record at 4-4


Thomas has wins over Tillis, and Spoon and the losses to Tyson and Berbick, as well as the draw with Coatzee. I'll forgive everything that happened post Tyson for obvious reasons. That puts Pinkys record at 2-2-1.

So in conclusion, it's fairly easy to see why we are arguing that Spoon is a slight step above the rest of the 80's Alphabet champs. Head to Head, they were all fairly close to each other when at their best. But just looking through their respective records one can see that Spoon has the best resume of the group and the right to be called the best of the alphabet champions of the 80s.
We can all put our personal spins on it but why is Tillis and Snipes any better than Norris Seldon or Zolkin? Also take into consideration Tubbs never fought Bruno, but fought someone far better in Bowe and fought competitively. Tubbs also fought to what could have been called a win or a loss against Witherspoon.
The fact that all of these fighters we are discussing, and the point Ive been trying to make all along is that they have lost to each other and beat each other with no fighter dominating the group, and that puts them all in the same category as far as Im concerned. Another point is that all these fighters held and defended their titles in the same way, poorly (against each other I might add), with Pinklon Thomas having the most title defenses of the group.
A magazine publication that has Evander Holyfield ranked third amongst all heavyweights holds little merit in this discussion.

[Muchmoore]

The fact that all of these fighters we are discussing, and the point Ive been trying to make all along is that they have lost to each other and beat each other with no fighter dominating the group

No one is arguing that Spoon dominated the group!!! To say that they are all the same because Spoon didn't run over everyone in the 80s is wrong and a foolish way of looking at it imo.

We're both just saying that he is a step above the rest because of his resume which is proved in my previous posts.

[lefthook31]

No one is arguing that Spoon dominated the group!!! To say that they are all the same because Spoon didn't run over everyone in the 80s is wrong and a foolish way of looking at it imo.

We're both just saying that he is a step above the rest because of his resume which is proved in my previous posts.
If you followed this thread it started with Mr Magoo stating that Witherspoon fought better fighters than Thomas and Tubbs combined. Thats not true and the point I made. Would you agree with that? I also pointed out that their records indicated that given their respective competition wins and losses, they all fall into the same category as short term titleists with decent skills. Would you agree with that?
If you believe that Renaldo Snipes and James Tillis are significant wins for Witherspoon I would disagree with that. I would also say fighting competitively against a fighter of Riddick Bowe's stature is a pretty signifcant part of Tubbs resume. Getting knocked out by James Smith in one round doesnt help Spoons case much either as being a step above the rest.

[mr. magoo]

Boy, I'm glad you're taking this one over Muchmore....

[mr. magoo]

[quote=lefthook31;4594868]If you followed this thread it started with Mr Magoo stating that Witherspoon fought better fighters than Thomas and Tubbs combined.

I indeed made that comment, but that's not where the thread started.. You just butted in after reading something that cought your eye...


Thats not true and the point I made.

It is absolutely true, and you have made no valid points..

[mr. magoo]

it's fairly easy to see why we are arguing that Spoon is a slight step above the rest of the 80's Alphabet champs. Head to Head, they were all fairly close to each other when at their best. But just looking through their respective records one can see that Spoon has the best resume of the group and the right to be called the best of the alphabet champions of the 80s.

It really is that simple... I don't know why some have made such a project out of this...

[mr. magoo]

=lefthook31;4594684]why is Tillis and Snipes any better than Norris Seldon or Zolkin?

The Norris fight doesn't count.. The Zolkin match was a robbery and Tubbs victory over Seldon was average at best.. Why do you keep bringing up debunked points?? We went through this already, yet you chose to ignore it..

Also take into consideration Tubbs never fought Bruno, but fought someone far better in Bowe and fought competitively.

And Witherspoon fought Holmes with only 15 pro fights to a near standstill. What's your point?


Tubbs also fought to what could have been called a win or a loss against Witherspoon.


According to who?

The fact that all of these fighters we are discussing, and the point Ive been trying to make all along is that they have lost to each other and beat each other with no fighter dominating the group, and that puts them all in the same category as far as Im concerned.

When debating on who is the best of a bunch, you have to look at all factors and all angles. You are making broad generalizations about a group of fighters and throwing them all into the same basket, and that's not how analysis works..
Pinklon Thomas having the most title defenses of the group.

Wrong again.. Thomas had one succusful title defense, as did Witherspoon. Mike Weaver defended his title twice against Tillis and Coetzee. Dokes had a draw against Weaver which counts as a defense. So Thomas doesn't stand out at all.. Witherspoon at least has the claim to having won three title fights by derthroning Tubbs, beating Page for the vacant WBC title, and a defense against Bruno after Tubbs...

Common sense and the ability to do a simple search is all it takes.. Simple math really.


A magazine publication that has Evander Holyfield ranked third amongst all heavyweights holds little merit in this discussion.


The only reason I mentioned the RING ratings, is not because I care for them, but because I was trying to make a point to SuzieQ who lives and dies by them..

[lefthook31]

[quote]

I indeed made that comment, but that's not where the thread started.. You just butted in after reading something that cought your eye...




It is absolutely true, and you have made no valid points..

None at all. It must be nice living in your dream world. Now take your ball and go home. :hi:

[PetethePrince]

This thread is getting heated. Good thing it's not just me causing a rawkus on the Classic section lol.

[lefthook31]

The Norris fight doesn't count.. The Zolkin match was a robbery and Tubbs victory over Seldon was average at best.. Why do you keep bringing up debunked points?? We went through this already, yet you chose to ignore it..



And Witherspoon fought Holmes with only 15 pro fights to a near standstill. What's your point?



According to who?



When debating on who is the best of a bunch, you have to look at all factors and all angles. You are making broad generalizations about a group of fighters and throwing them all into the same basket, and that's not how analysis works..


Wrong again.. Thomas had one succusful title defense, as did Witherspoon. Mike Weaver defended his title twice against Tillis and Coetzee. Dokes had a draw against Weaver which counts as a defense. So Thomas doesn't stand out at all.. Witherspoon at least has the claim to having won three title fights by derthroning Tubbs, beating Page for the vacant WBC title, and a defense against Bruno after Tubbs...

Common sense and the ability to do a simple search is all it takes.. Simple math really.



The only reason I mentioned the RING ratings, is not because I care for them, but because I was trying to make a point to SuzieQ who lives and dies by them..
Wasnt the discussion of who fought the better competition between Thomas Tubbs and Witherspoon, noone else? Wasnt your statement that Witherspoon fought better fighters than Tubbs and Thomas combined? Now its wins? Your changing it to cover your arse. My statement which I called you out on was that was not true, and its not.

[lefthook31]

Im out of this. God forbid you tell the guy he made a mistake. What started as me saying two simple things has turned into an in depth breakdown on the entire 1980's heavyweight division.
I will leave it at this. All of these fighters were Don King controlled promoted fighters. They all fought each other for the most part. Not one with exception to Mike Tyson, established their dominance over each other, and IN MY OPINION, all had about the same level of skills, taking into consideration how their careers played out, and your right they all coudlnt hold onto the title for more than one defense against the same level of fighter. That speaks volumes in itself to prove my point I would think. Magoo if you think Witherspoon was the best figher of the 80's so be it. :dead

[mr. magoo]

Im out of this. God forbid you tell the guy he made a mistake. What started as me saying two simple things has turned into an in depth breakdown on the entire 1980's heavyweight division.
I will leave it at this. All of these fighters were Don King controlled promoted fighters. They all fought each other for the most part. Not one with exception to Mike Tyson, established their dominance over each other, and IN MY OPINION, all had about the same level of skills, taking into consideration how their careers played out, and your right they all coudlnt hold onto the title for more than one defense against the same level of fighter. That speaks volumes in itself to prove my point I would think. Magoo if you think Witherspoon was the best figher of the 80's so be it. :dead

It might as well be what I said, because you obviously can't comprehend a single word someone says.

[lefthook31]

It might as well be what I said, because you obviously can't comprehend a single word someone says.
Your right, I dont comprehend double talk.

[Bummy Davis]

to be honest. I dont see much of a difference between the whole lot.There were all sporatic at condition. Thomas looked to be a talent and then Back on smack. Tim seemed to be a young talent but then he would appear with man boobs and fight lazy, Tubbs was another talent who can in the ring undertrained. Smith was green and did not know his own strength but gun shy and afraid to bleed or take a thumb, Page looked brilliant and packed a wallop and then in some fights had a leaning contest and Dokes another talent who was hot and cold. Coetzee was a one dimentional Right hand bomber. Snipes was inexperienced. It was the fatness era...could gag a maggot, I hate to even read the reports the next day, it took the excitment out of boxing. Funny thing on a good night(in shape) Thomas, Page,Dokes,Coetzee, had a good shot at beating Holmes ( Larry navigated away from the land mines...a 15 fight Witherspoon gave Larry an even fight but what Suzie says is true, anyone of the others may have upset Larry. There was talent in the 80's but it was plagued by drugs, inconsistant training, lack of dedication and corrupt politics. As far as who was the best at there best IMO Page,Thomas,Dokes,Weaver,Coetzee, Witherspoon,Tubbs,Smith, all had there moments but overall it was a cavalry charge.

[mr. magoo]

Wasnt the discussion of who fought the better competition between Thomas Tubbs and Witherspoon, noone else? Wasnt your statement that Witherspoon fought better fighters than Tubbs and Thomas combined? Now its wins? Your changing it to cover your arse. My statement which I called you out on was that was not true, and its not.

The conversation began with a response that I directed at SuzieQ. See below.


Tim Witherspoon defeated more quality opponents than Thomas or Tubbs combined,


You then chimed in with this:


BS. Tubbs was as good or better than Tim Witherspoon, and he came in excellent shape for Tyson, he had to according to his contract. What better fighters did Witherspoon defeat?


I then performed the task of showing you this :

TIM WITHERSPOON:
1. Tony Tubbs
2. Greg Page
3. Frank Bruno
4. Jose Ribalta
5. James Smith
6. James Broad
7. James Tillis
8. Carl Williams
9. Renaldo Snipes
10. Jorge Luis Gonzalez
11. Alfred Cole
12 Arguably Ray Mercer ( robbery )

TONY TUBBS:

1. Greg Page
2. James Smith

PINKLON THOMAS

1. Tim Witherspoon
2. Mike Weaver
3. James Tillis


As you can see, my position has been fairly consistent. Where in any of all this did I change that? The bottom line is, you obviously don't read posts in their entirety, and what little you DO read, you misunderstand. Putting words in people's mouth, changing stories, making irrelevant comparisons, using factually incorrect information, and then at the end of the day accusing people of personal bias is not how meaningful debates are conducted. And it sure as hell does nothing to support your feable position that Pinklon Thomas or Tony Tubbs were better than Tim Witherspoon. You've only managed to discredit yourself. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. No If's, and's or but's about it.

Although I have no proof, I also get the impression that you've lied about fights that you've claimed to have seen, ie. Tubbs vs Zolkin, Witherspoon vs Mercer, etc.. Nothing you say ads up... Now, in a vein effort to storm out of here, you try and sneak in the last comment of " now you're just covering your arse" ??? If you had any dignity whatsover, you would either:

A. Admit your mistakes, and acknowledge EVERYTHING that I've said, rather than ignoring when you're called on your errors.

or

B. Quietly fade away.

You chose to do neither. You think that you're going to overwhelm posters here with shear will power and comments like " you obviously have never seen Tyson fight. " Not gonna work. In the classic section, it takes a working knowledge of history as well as the ability to apply a little common sense once in a while.......

I leave you with these thoughts.

-Magoo-

[jont]

My take on the whole bit is that Tyson never ducked anyone... he beat ass and all contenders who faced him before he went to prison besides Douglas... the best post i saw was the one that described Holyfield and Bowe were not ready to fight Tyson in the early 90's Spoon had his chance to fight Tyson but lost to Smith... several conspiracy theories are involved in his defeat to Bonecrusher. Spoon had the hardest punch of the three men so defiantly defended by some of the posters... Spoon's longevity and impact on the heavyweight divison lasted much longer than Thomas or Tubbs... Orlin Norris is a good victory for Tubbs no matter the case of marijuana in the blood system..the fight took place.... Spoon for whatever reason had more victories over big names than anyone else of the 80's champs mentioned in this thread besides Tyson and Holmes....

[lefthook31]

Magoo, you're such a putz. I can see the steam coming out of your bagpipes as you type your response. Since its so easy to get you riled up, lets continue! You can spend your entire day cooking up another response. Actually it started with the Tyson tidbit you were wrong on. What you were right on was it did start with me saying "wins" but you failed to mention the other three pages of discussion which was summed up basically with this, which is basically what I believe is the general consensus view of Witherspoon.
"I think its pretty clear he fits nicely in the mix with all those guys who held the title and lost it without having any sort of dominance. He was no better than a fighter on the level of Tubbs, Tucker, Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Page, Douglas, etc. Thats not too shabby, but hardly some dynamo that was avoided and ducked, especially considering he had his shot in the Acefield tournament and blew it against James Smith. He could have easily been the one fighting Tyson in the second round of the unfication series. "
Its also funny how you can say that Tubbs win against Zolkin was a robbery, yet you fail to give any credit to him for his performance against Riddick Bowe, saying only that Bowe was green and a few fights from the title? He already had two knockout wins over former champs and a former top contender.
A lot of people actually felt Tubbs was robbed in the Bowe fight. This alone would eclipse a win over Mercer at that time had he got the decision, especially considering the direction Mercer and Bowe's careers took after the fight.
Same goes for Jorge Luiz Gonzalez. Inflating that win is meaningless, both Gonzalez and Spoon showed what they had in future fights. Nothing
Putting all your conspiracy theories aside let the fighters win loss records speak for themselves, there is confliction with both Tubbs and Witherspoon, but that goes for every fighter. If you want to combine Tubbs and Thomas records wins against Spoons with a little subjectivity you will still come up short. Have a nice day.:hi:

[mr. magoo]

Magoo, you're such a putz. I can see the steam coming out of your bagpipes as you type your response. Since its so easy to get you riled up, lets continue! You can spend your entire day cooking up another response. Actually it started with the Tyson tidbit you were wrong on. What you were right on was it did start with me saying "wins" but you failed to mention the other three pages of discussion which was summed up basically with this, which is basically what I believe is the general consensus view of Witherspoon.
"I think its pretty clear he fits nicely in the mix with all those guys who held the title and lost it without having any sort of dominance. He was no better than a fighter on the level of Tubbs, Tucker, Berbick, Thomas, Smith, Page, Douglas, etc. Thats not too shabby, but hardly some dynamo that was avoided and ducked, especially considering he had his shot in the Acefield tournament and blew it against James Smith. He could have easily been the one fighting Tyson in the second round of the unfication series. "
Its also funny how you can say that Tubbs win against Zolkin was a robbery, yet you fail to give any credit to him for his performance against Riddick Bowe, saying only that Bowe was green and a few fights from the title? He already had two knockout wins over former champs and a former top contender.
A lot of people actually felt Tubbs was robbed in the Bowe fight. This alone would eclipse a win over Mercer at that time had he got the decision, especially considering the direction Mercer and Bowe's careers took after the fight.
Same goes for Jorge Luiz Gonzalez. Inflating that win is meaningless, both Gonzalez and Spoon showed what they had in future fights. Nothing
Putting all your conspiracy theories aside let the fighters win loss records speak for themselves, there is confliction with both Tubbs and Witherspoon, but that goes for every fighter. If you want to combine Tubbs and Thomas records wins against Spoons with a little subjectivity you will still come up short. Have a nice day.:hi:



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Unforgiven]

His crowning fight was against Michael Spinks, but Spinks was scared to death -- you can even see his eyes roll up into his head at Tyson's speed on the first missed punch.

I see tons of posts on this forum about how Tyson was this or that in his prime, but he was so carefully matched it's hard to know what period of time to consider his prime.

Was he an awesome fighter when he fought Tyrell Biggs and Pinklon Thomas, or were they just a never-was-gonna-be and a has-been? Did Tony Tucker ever do anything to make anyone think he could go the distance like he did?

I'd like to hear some opinions.

I think people make too many excuses for him. I think everything between 1986 and all the way up to 1997 he was close enough to being the "real Tyson".
But he was certainly more prone to coming to fights in less than superb condition and focus after 1988.

He actually looked about the same in the 2nd Bruno fight (1996) to what he did in the 1st Bruno fight (1989), though he wasn't at his best for either. Still, I'd say he was still close to his prime.

If you look at his fights against Ribalta (1986), Smith (1987), Thomas (1987) and Tucker (1987) it explodes the myth that he never exhibited the "bad habits" (eg. neglecting to duck and weave for long periods, going for the one big punch, resorting to antics when he gets frustrated etc.) in his prime.
Sure, in those years he had a degree more intensity and focus, and the biggest difference was he was always in great physical shape. But the stylistic errors and a propensity for frustration were always there. It wasn't so much his style changed, just his flaws came out more when his intensity ebbed.

He was quite carefully matched before his title shot against Berbick but I dont think he was carefully matched between Nov. 1986 up to his loss to Douglas in 1990.
It was just a case that there weren't better opponents around. Don King might have steered him around Holyfield for one unjustified fight (v.Douglas) but that backfired anyway. And in 1991 he fought Razor Ruddock twice, who was the highest rated contender available.
Peter McNeeley was obviously a fraudulent match (not as fraudulent as his corner's quick retirement of their fighter though !). In 1996 he took on Frank Bruno and Bruce Seldon for world title belts, so again that's reasonable to match him that way.
Just a case of not having an awful lot of good fighters around at the time though.

After the losses to Holyfield he came back from a ban for biting with that awful showing against Botha in 1999 and he actually looked severely past it by then. He fought 6 handpicked opponents all the way up to Lennox Lewis in 2002, and in 2001 he looked heavy and sluggish against Nielsen. I think 1999 was when he proved to be truly over-the-hill, before that he was still a good 80-90% of what he'd been in his best years.

His absolute best peak run was the Biggs-Holmes-Tubbs-Spinks fight fun from October '87 to June '88.

[Stevie G]

86-91 was his prime, his absolute peak was 88'.
The best we ever saw of Tyson was circa 1986-88. Because of lifestyle,out of the ring problems etc. he was already on the slide from 1989 onwards.

[Jaws]

I think Tyson's absolute boxing peak was the stretch of Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, and Spinks. Biggs was at the most relevant point of his career (an undefeated gold medalist with high expectations, and seemingly all the right traits), Holmes had never been knocked out before, Tubbs had never been knocked out before, and Spinks was the undefeated, recognized champ. Pretty impressive, especially when you look at what fashion these men were dispatched with.

I choose this stretch because I think he learned a lot through his belt acquiring fights, and then lost technique once Rooney was gone after the Spinks fight.

His physical prime was obviously much longer, but the outside forces were not there throughout it.
In my opinion there is more to someone's prime than just physicality. You need desire and inner discipline as well as talent. I wonder how much personal discipline Tyson ever really had. He seemed underdeveloped/child-like, who needed a parental figure to guide him.

Tyson's natural tendency was to head-hunt. He liked to be entertaining, and wanted to knock people out. Rooney, on the other hand, encouraged technique. They would go back and forth between the two during fights. This Yin-Yang relationship was part of what made Tyson so successful. And because Rooney was a connection to Cus and the ways Tyson was originally schooled with, he would listen to him (most of the time). But even with this close connection, it was still difficult for Rooney to contain Tyson.

Once Rooney was gone, it was clear nobody was there to encourage technique....or at least no one Tyson cared to listen to.

[Mirko]

his prime was 1986-1992 (the day he wen't to jail) he may have lost to Douglas in 1990 but I don't think a defeat like that ended his prime. had they fought in a rematch, Tyson who for exaple took out Steward would destroy him. So I take it as a momentary setback. until 1992 it is.

[Stevie G]

to be honest. I dont see much of a difference between the whole lot.There were all sporatic at condition. Thomas looked to be a talent and then Back on smack. Tim seemed to be a young talent but then he would appear with man boobs and fight lazy, Tubbs was another talent who can in the ring undertrained. Smith was green and did not know his own strength but gun shy and afraid to bleed or take a thumb, Page looked brilliant and packed a wallop and then in some fights had a leaning contest and Dokes another talent who was hot and cold. Coetzee was a one dimentional Right hand bomber. Snipes was inexperienced. It was the fatness era...could gag a maggot, I hate to even read the reports the next day, it took the excitment out of boxing. Funny thing on a good night(in shape) Thomas, Page,Dokes,Coetzee, had a good shot at beating Holmes ( Larry navigated away from the land mines...a 15 fight Witherspoon gave Larry an even fight but what Suzie says is true, anyone of the others may have upset Larry. There was talent in the 80's but it was plagued by drugs, inconsistant training, lack of dedication and corrupt politics. As far as who was the best at there best IMO Page,Thomas,Dokes,Weaver,Coetzee, Witherspoon,Tubbs,Smith, all had there moments but overall it was a cavalry charge.
Agreed. They all cancelled each other out,really.

[Shake]

I'm not qualified to comment on resume or how to weight certain wins, but I will always be a Spoon fan. Man, that lad could box.

[Stevie G]

his prime was 1986-1992 (the day he wen't to jail) he may have lost to Douglas in 1990 but I don't think a defeat like that ended his prime. had they fought in a rematch, Tyson who for exaple took out Steward would destroy him. So I take it as a momentary setback. until 1992 it is.
The thing is,it was n't just the Douglas defeat that indicated that he'd prematurely passed his prime. Study the two Ruddock fights from '91. His late 80's variety had vanished. Just loading up on shots. Mike was still quite formidable at this stage,but passed his best.

[Mirko]

The thing is,it was n't just the Douglas defeat that indicated that he'd prematurely passed his prime. Study the two Ruddock fights from '91. His late 80's variety had vanished. Just loading up on shots. Mike was still quite formidable at this stage,but passed his best.

yes that's true he was past his supreme best of the Holmes and Spinks fight but I still think these were prime/best years.

[mr. magoo]

If prime refers to when a fighter was at his "best", and not just taking into account youthfulness or physical peak, then his best years were from about the Berbick of '86 to the spinks match of '88. After Bill Cayton and Kevin Rooney were canned, along with the whole Robyn Givens debacle, and everything else, Tyson's life and career basically went to crap. There was no discipline. Training basically went out the window. There was more emphasis placed on partying with the homies and hanging out with women there was preparing for fights. In earlier clips of Tyson's training camp, we saw Tyson, Rooney, his cornermen, and a few sparring partners. After King took over, we all of a sudden saw these thugs with top hats and shades hanging out in the background....

[lefthook31]

The thing is,it was n't just the Douglas defeat that indicated that he'd prematurely passed his prime. Study the two Ruddock fights from '91. His late 80's variety had vanished. Just loading up on shots. Mike was still quite formidable at this stage,but passed his best.
Depends how one wants to define prime. To me to define Tyson at his best would be when he was physically and mentally at his best. Focused, determined, and doing all the things a fighter has displayed at his respective best, and consistently.
Tyson was no longer his best after the Spinks fight. Physically he was still capable of performing on the top level, but he had gotten away from specific things that made him what he was, trainer, training etc. The proof came out in the next few fights, getting hurt badly in the Bruno fight and eventually knocked out a couple fights later. The Ruddock fights to me looked like the Bruno fights. Tyson winging away and taking a lot of punishment he hadnt taken during his first championship run. Not sure if Tyson was ever capable of returning to what he was after prison (he admitted he didnt have the gut for it), but certainly he was up until his incarceration.

[Jaws]

And a comment on Tyson being "carefully matched".

Yes, he was. But so are all fighters who show great potential to be champions at the beginning of their careers. They are matched so they can learn and grow, and so their records are intact for that big championship fight. This seems to come out against Tyson because he is under such a microscope, but it's no different from anyone else. It's who they fight once they become champion that you can start to judge. Tyson took on everyone once he became champ.

[mr. magoo]

And a comment on Tyson being "carefully matched".

Yes, he was. But so are all fighters who show great potential to be champions at the beginning of their careers. They are matched so they can learn and grow, and so their records are intact for that big championship fight. This seems to come out against Tyson because he is under such a microscope, but it's no different from anyone else. It's who they fight once they become champion that you can start to judge. Tyson took on everyone once he became champ.

I really don't know how we can claim that he was carefully matched. He turned pro when he was 18 years of age, and within less than two years, was champion. Some of the better fighters that he was matched with prior to facing Berbick were Frazier, Ribalta, Tillis, Green, Ferguson and Radcliff. Who else was he supposed to be fighting at 19 years of age?

[Jaws]

I really don't know how we can claim that he was carefully matched. He turned pro when he was 18 years of age, and within less than two years, was champion. Some of the better fighters that he was matched with prior to facing Berbick were Frazier, Ribalta, Tillis, Green, Ferguson and Radcliff. Who else was he supposed to be fighting at 19 years of age?

Hey man, you are preaching to the choir. I'm just calling out people that try to discredit Tyson's earlier career because he fought "nobodies" and that he was "protected". All I'm saying is that all fighters start out that, and work their way up, but for some reason Tyson gets ragged on for it.

[Unforgiven]

He was definitely carefully matched in his first 27 fights.
But he was also matched often, fighting like twice a month, so that's a credit to his management.

Jacobs and Cayton were very astute and aware that the "KO highlight reel montage"-style publicity on Tyson was working. After Tyson was forced to go the distance two fights in a row against Tillis and Green, they made sure he got three lower grade opponents in a month to build him up for Marvis Frazier, (who was also picked as somewhat "easy" since he'd been KO'd in 1 by Larry Holmes). I'm not saying they matched him with complete tomato cans, but they didn't want too many competent spoilers or real danger men.
And Cayton and Jacobs and the original Tyson team were notoriously controlling and manipulative towards the media and basically refused access to certain reporters who weren't helping build up the invincible Tyson image. And spoiled the guys who were. But that's the business side of boxing. Kickbacks and bullshit rules the day.

[Unforgiven]

Hey man, you are preaching to the choir. I'm just calling out people that try to discredit Tyson's earlier career because he fought "nobodies" and that he was "protected". All I'm saying is that all fighters start out that, and work their way up, but for some reason Tyson gets ragged on for it.

Firstly, it's not all fighters. Although it seems to be most fighters in recent eras.
And secondly, I'm ready to rag on anyone who got built up on too many easy opponents.

[Jaws]

Firstly, it's not all fighters. Although it seems to be most fighters in recent eras.
And secondly, I'm ready to rag on anyone who got built up on too many easy opponents.

I had previously said fighters who show great potential and as such are recognized by proper management.

And that's fine--except Tyson wasn't built up "on too many easy opponents." I think his career took a pretty normal course---as Mr. Magoo stated, he was fighting for the championship within two years of turning pro.

Yes, he was very well promoted compared to most boxers, but that's different from being coddled and having a padded resume.

[mr. magoo]

Hey man, you are preaching to the choir. I'm just calling out people that try to discredit Tyson's earlier career because he fought "nobodies" and that he was "protected". All I'm saying is that all fighters start out that, and work their way up, but for some reason Tyson gets ragged on for it.


Agreed,

Champions are rated by their ability to beat whatever availabe challengers that were around at the time. Tyson did this and then some...

[Rubber Warrior]

I believe Nov 1987 - June 1988

[lefthook31]

Firstly, it's not all fighters. Although it seems to be most fighters in recent eras.
And secondly, I'm ready to rag on anyone who got built up on too many easy opponents.
Only fighters with poor management, arent fed a steady diet of lower grade opponents for experience in the beginning stages of their career. There's really nothing wrong with it if the opponent provides a different look for the fighter to grow from. The amatuers dont provide that, just as they dont provide 6,8,10, and 12 round fights, so its crucial that a fighter is prepared for each tier or step up the ladder against each specific style.
Kind of hard to criticise Tyson, because he never lost even when presented with a style that gave him a little difficulty. He also fought just about every available contender of the 80's either before or after his title campaign. There's really no question mark on his early career as far as styles go, he faced and defeated just about every style thats in boxing, accept one that was attached to another all time great in their prime.

[PetethePrince]

February 17th 1988 to February 18th 1988. I know, I know, but you should've seen him in training that day. Un-freaking-believable. A flash of an inhuman phenomena that day. Everything was just perfect.

[PetethePrince]

It was a sunny day too. Clearly it was a Tyson day also. He was a phenom. Phenom! It should be declared Tyson day as far as I'm concerned.

[lefthook31]

February 17th 1988 to February 18th 1988. I know, I know, but you should've seen him in training that day. Un-freaking-believable. A flash of an inhuman phenomena that day. Everything was just perfect.
You still feel that people are describing Tyson as growing old overnight after the Douglas fight dont you? :lol:

[Unforgiven]

Only fighters with poor management, arent fed a steady diet of lower grade opponents for experience in the beginning stages of their career. There's really nothing wrong with it if the opponent provides a different look for the fighter to grow from. The amatuers dont provide that, just as they dont provide 6,8,10, and 12 round fights, so its crucial that a fighter is prepared for each tier or step up the ladder against each specific style.
Kind of hard to criticise Tyson, because he never lost even when presented with a style that gave him a little difficulty. He also fought just about every available contender of the 80's either before or after his title campaign. There's really no question mark on his early career as far as styles go, he faced and defeated just about every style thats in boxing, accept one that was attached to another all time great in their prime.

Well, his management was good, and the best thing I can say about his pre-title run is that he was being kept busy. Yes, they included some decent learning fights (Ferguson, Tillis, Green, .... and Ribalta turned out to be a good pick)

Evander Holyfield, Joe Frazier, Joe Louis fought far far tougher fighters in there first 15 - 20 fights than did Tyson, IMO.
But I wouldn't call that "poor management".
Lennox Lewis fought Gary Mason in his 15th pro fight, which isn't shabby at all.
Tyson fought Mark Young in his 15th fight, and possibly the fighter with the "best" credentials he fought in his first 15 was Donnie Long in his 9th fight ! (Incidentally, Long was KO'd in 1 the following year by a 13-0 Mason, without any fanfare. Mason also fought Mark Young - in his 12th fight- and saying Mason was brought along carefully wouldn't be too controversial).

Tyson racked up lots of these wins very quickly, which is the saving factor in his management's match-making record, but there are several champions who weren't matched so carefully.
Floyd Patterson, managed by Cus D'amato was actually fighting some tough experienced fighters early on, at a similar age to Tyson. He fought Joey Maxim in his 14th fight.
George Chuvalo was matched ridiculously hard early on, aged 19 and 20 - perhaps too hard, but he won most of them and learned a lot and I dont think he had quite the same talent as Tyson.
Ray Mercer fought a tougher first 20 than Tyson, and sure he was a lot older, but again he didn't have the same talent for disposing of easy pickings as Tyson did.

As I said before, a lot of it was purposely designed to make the KO montage highlight reels. Cayton and Jacobs video taped his early fights, and edited the footage along with his early TV fights, mostly 1st round KOs, and bombarded the sports media with the tape. The big TV companies and HBO picked up on the method and by the time of the Berbick fight, spectacular Tyson KOs (over mostly tomato cans) were being viewed all over the world as part of the advertising for the Berbick fight and the heavyweight unification tournament.
But you guys know all this. I'm just pointing out that there was a reason for careful matchmaking, and the careful matchmaking was a reality.

[lefthook31]

Well, his management was good, and the best thing I can say about his pre-title run is that he was being kept busy. Yes, they included some decent learning fights (Ferguson, Tillis, Green, .... and Ribalta turned out to be a good pick)

Evander Holyfield, Joe Frazier, Joe Louis fought far far tougher fighters in there first 15 - 20 fights than did Tyson, IMO.
But I wouldn't call that "poor management".
Lennox Lewis fought Gary Mason in his 15th pro fight, which isn't shabby at all.
Tyson fought Mark Young in his 15th fight, and possibly the fighter with the "best" credentials he fought in his first 15 was Donnie Long in his 9th fight ! (Incidentally, Long was KO'd in 1 the following year by a 13-0 Mason, without any fanfare. Mason also fought Mark Young - in his 12th fight- and saying Mason was brought along carefully wouldn't be too controversial).

Tyson racked up lots of these wins very quickly, which is the saving factor in his management's match-making record, but there are several champions who weren't matched so carefully.
Floyd Patterson, managed by Cus D'amato was actually fighting some tough experienced fighters early on, at a similar age to Tyson. He fought Joey Maxim in his 14th fight.
George Chuvalo was matched ridiculously hard early on, aged 19 and 20 - perhaps too hard, but he won most of them and learned a lot and I dont think he had quite the same talent as Tyson.
Ray Mercer fought a tougher first 20 than Tyson, and sure he was a lot older, but again he didn't have the same talent for disposing of easy pickings as Tyson did.

As I said before, a lot of it was purposely designed to make the KO montage highlight reels. Cayton and Jacobs video taped his early fights, and edited the footage along with his early TV fights, mostly 1st round KOs, and bombarded the sports media with the tape. The big TV companies and HBO picked up on the method and by the time of the Berbick fight, spectacular Tyson KOs (over mostly tomato cans) were being viewed all over the world as part of the advertising for the Berbick fight and the heavyweight unification tournament.
But you guys know all this. I'm just pointing out that there was a reason for careful matchmaking, and the careful matchmaking was a reality.
I kind of feel because of Tyson's style and height, he needed to be matched a bit carefully earlier on as well? He had been outboxed in the amatuers. It was important for him to become better against the more savvy boxers and not lose. Contrast that to Lewis and Holyfield, who were already fairly savvy boxers themselves. Lets not forget Tyson had a very raw style for a professional fighter, that later seemed to become more refined in on itself as he was a pro.
The TV networks and contracts were definitely just as huge of a factor and really the first of their kind. Cayton was a savvy businessman he wanted Tyson to be the highest grossing fighter ever, and he knew he had the kid with the right style to do it. What was a couple extra easy paydays that produced an exciting knockout? That was certainly acceptable to HBO and their audience....

[Morbitory]

It's pretty difficult to pin point Tyson prime but I would go with the years 86-88, to be his absolute best. I have actually been reading a book that was written back in 1989 about Tyson's life and it's very interesting some of the stuff that I've learned about during that period of his career. The Bruno fight was rescheduled like 3 or 4 times due to things that had gone on in Tyson's life. He was actually said to have weighed up to 250 pounds before going back into the gym and training for that fight...Meaning he hadn't been training for awhile and was fiercely caught up in personal problems, car accident, divorce with Robin, Don King..aka trying to get rid of Bill Cayton as manager due to Kings propaganda/brainwashing. In Short I wouldn't consider the Bruno fight his prime, he was quite a mess before that fight actually occurred.

The reason I say 86-88 is because he was a lot more strict with his training habits and focused during those years (plus he was with Kevin Rooney). It wasn't until all his personal problems came into the forefront that he started slacking off because his mind was on other things. It's pretty obvious too when you look at his weight coming into the fights after the Spinks one, well at least he was heavier against Bruno and Douglas...was lighter for Carl Williams. In the 90's he was much heavier, looked ripped but his hand speed might have suffered a little, even though he was still pretty fast but his movement wasn't quite the same.

Even with that, two of my favorite fights to watch with Tyson are the two bouts with Razor Ruddock because he showed how great of a chin Tyson had and it was just fun to watch two big brawlers go at it.


As for the Spinks fear thing, yeah I think he was scared but you know what, so was Tyson...Tyson always had fear going into the ring, he's said it himself several times. Also in the book I am reading it talks about how Tyson had a dream before the Spinks fight that he lost the fight against Spinks. Overall I'm not sure how much that factored into the fight, Spinks did look bewildered in the fight that's for sure but I think he may just have been in shock over Tyson's speed and power.

[Stevie G]

It's pretty difficult to pin point Tyson prime but I would go with the years 86-88, to be his absolute best. I have actually been reading a book that was written back in 1989 about Tyson's life and it's very interesting some of the stuff that I've learned about during that period of his career. The Bruno fight was rescheduled like 3 or 4 times due to things that had gone on in Tyson's life. He was actually said to have weighed up to 250 pounds before going back into the gym and training for that fight...Meaning he hadn't been training for awhile and was fiercely caught up in personal problems, car accident, divorce with Robin, Don King..aka trying to get rid of Bill Cayton as manager due to Kings propaganda/brainwashing. In Short I wouldn't consider the Bruno fight his prime, he was quite a mess before that fight actually occurred.

The reason I say 86-88 is because he was a lot more strict with his training habits and focused during those years (plus he was with Kevin Rooney). It wasn't until all his personal problems came into the forefront that he started slacking off because his mind was on other things. It's pretty obvious too when you look at his weight coming into the fights after the Spinks one, well at least he was heavier against Bruno and Douglas...was lighter for Carl Williams. In the 90's he was much heavier, looked ripped but his hand speed might have suffered a little, even though he was still pretty fast but his movement wasn't quite the same.

Even with that, two of my favorite fights to watch with Tyson are the two bouts with Razor Ruddock because he showed how great of a chin Tyson had and it was just fun to watch two big brawlers go at it.


As for the Spinks fear thing, yeah I think he was scared but you know what, so was Tyson...Tyson always had fear going into the ring, he's said it himself several times. Also in the book I am reading it talks about how Tyson had a dream before the Spinks fight that he lost the fight against Spinks. Overall I'm not sure how much that factored into the fight, Spinks did look bewildered in the fight that's for sure but I think he may just have been in shock over Tyson's speed and power.
Tyson was always going to a nightmare,stylewise for Spinks.

[Unforgiven]

I thought Michael Spinks had that fearful look on his face both times he fought Holmes too, to be honest. And in other fights, he often looked anxious before a fight. So, I think it got a little bit over-stated in several post-fight analyses of the Tyson fight .....

Spinks' own take on the matter is that he lost his cool after he felt Tyson's power and completely forgot his strategy, got angry and desperate and got himself knocked out. Maybe some truth in that too.

[sugarsean]

It's pretty difficult to pin point Tyson prime but I would go with the years 86-88, to be his absolute best. I have actually been reading a book that was written back in 1989 about Tyson's life and it's very interesting some of the stuff that I've learned about during that period of his career. The Bruno fight was rescheduled like 3 or 4 times due to things that had gone on in Tyson's life. He was actually said to have weighed up to 250 pounds before going back into the gym and training for that fight...Meaning he hadn't been training for awhile and was fiercely caught up in personal problems, car accident, divorce with Robin, Don King..aka trying to get rid of Bill Cayton as manager due to Kings propaganda/brainwashing. In Short I wouldn't consider the Bruno fight his prime, he was quite a mess before that fight actually occurred.

The reason I say 86-88 is because he was a lot more strict with his training habits and focused during those years (plus he was with Kevin Rooney). It wasn't until all his personal problems came into the forefront that he started slacking off because his mind was on other things. It's pretty obvious too when you look at his weight coming into the fights after the Spinks one, well at least he was heavier against Bruno and Douglas...was lighter for Carl Williams. In the 90's he was much heavier, looked ripped but his hand speed might have suffered a little, even though he was still pretty fast but his movement wasn't quite the same.

Even with that, two of my favorite fights to watch with Tyson are the two bouts with Razor Ruddock because he showed how great of a chin Tyson had and it was just fun to watch two big brawlers go at it.


As for the Spinks fear thing, yeah I think he was scared but you know what, so was Tyson...Tyson always had fear going into the ring, he's said it himself several times. Also in the book I am reading it talks about how Tyson had a dream before the Spinks fight that he lost the fight against Spinks. Overall I'm not sure how much that factored into the fight, Spinks did look bewildered in the fight that's for sure but I think he may just have been in shock over Tyson's speed and power.

good post

[sugarsean]

I believe Mike Tyson's prime years were from the 22nd of November 1986 tothe 27th of June 1988

[TIGEREDGE]

I believe Mike Tyson's prime years were from the 22nd of November 1986 tothe 27th of June 1988

spot on

[Robbi]

I actually think that even a prime Tyson was a terribly overrated fighter.

Really.

[IntentionalButt]

Pretty much from my conception ('82) to my balls dropping. :yep

[Jaws]

I thought Michael Spinks had that fearful look on his face both times he fought Holmes too, to be honest. And in other fights, he often looked anxious before a fight. So, I think it got a little bit over-stated in several post-fight analyses of the Tyson fight .....

Spinks' own take on the matter is that he lost his cool after he felt Tyson's power and completely forgot his strategy, got angry and desperate and got himself knocked out. Maybe some truth in that too.

Yep, I've noticed that as well. In Spinks' other fights, he has the same look on his face. So I think the Spinks fear thing is way overblown in the Tyson fight.

Spinks said after the fight that he felt "light headed" after the body shot/8 count. That was a brutal shot to the ribs.

[Jaws]

I actually think that even a prime Tyson was a terribly overrated fighter.

Really.

"terribly overrated"?

That's a strong statement. Care to elaborate?

[KTFO]

Pre-Douglas.

[Silver]

I actually think that even a prime Tyson was a terribly overrated fighter.

Really.
well, you can think so, but that version tyson gives any heavyweight a tough fight. but some people do overhype a prime tyson.