Heavyweight Boxing

You could ask same question of many HWs? Who were the best they beat? They beat who was in their era at the time

You are fixated on wanting to portray Tyson's first reign as being against bums, which is ridiculous, and inaccurate..

Who at HW was so great that Holmes beat? Louis? Liston? Dempsey? Tunney?

They beat who was in front of them, and lost to what was in front of them

Mike was the younger man when he fought Lewis and got demolished ,

Lennox beats him 9 out of 10 times ,

Well of the people Tyson is allegedly in contention with (ie top 10 ever)

Holmes beat Norton, Shavers and loads of the people Tyson beat. Williams, Smith, Witherspoon, Marvis.

Ali beat Liston, Patterson, Williams, Foreman, Frazier, Norton.

Foreman beat Frazier, Norton, Lyle.

Lewis beat Tyson, Holyfield, Klitschko.

Holyfield beat Tyson twice, Foreman and all the others Tyson beat.

Frazier beat Ali.

Tyson beat..... Bruno?

Its a genuine question. And the only way to judge greatness. The fantasy stuff is just that.

Which greats of his era did he beat? Theres usually only 2 or 3 by the way in any era. But he lost to both of them. Apart from Naseem, still my favourite fighter ever to watch mind you.

The obvious strategy for Fury would be to get behind that jab all night and use that 14 inch reach advantage. Even if Mike did catch Fury and put him down I'd have full faith that he'll get up and still win. Mike's only hope would be to end it early, longer it goes on Fury with lean on him, wrestle him, slow him down and probably get a late stoppage.

He could also win going on the offensive, take the centre of the ring and get tyson fighting on the back foot. He'd look for those clubbing right hands to the ear, lots of 1-2's and clinch, wear him down. Bit riskier but likely to end in a quicker stoppage.

Norton and Shavers were not near great, despite Norton beating Ali...

Some the names you mention were every bit as weak as you want to make Mike's opponents to be.

They beat who was in their era....Tyson's 10 wins up to 1990 Douglas was every bit as decent as some the names on Holmes' ledger

Foreman lost to Jimmy Young for chrissake Norton he knocked out. Big deal. So did Cooney...even quicker I believe.

Your selecting Mike's wins and trying to lambast his opposition, while trying to not lambast others is way off....they all beat and lost to names that were in their time.

Holmes, lost to fooking Spinks......a man Mike pulverized in one round, yet what happens? Yes, Mike's detractors slag Spinks as being too small...this is the kind of logic that gets thrown around

And on Floyd Patterson: One of, if not the weakest HW champions ever. I'd back all Tyson's opponent he beat during his 1986-1989 reign to KO Patterson. Liston is 2-2 in championship bouts. Both wins vs. Patterson..

Not sure what that means about it being Mike's fault.....whatever age he was, in 2002 vs Lewis he was clearly shot to bits.....

Why are you asking me what year was prime Mike?

You know the year(s) I gave, and what most educated boxing fans would give

What year(s) would you say were when Tyson was at his best, or really close to it?

All boxers have prime ages/years etc.....Tyson is no different.

I always knew Tyson would KO Spinks. Most picked him to. Where did I say that I thought he was a serious heavyweight?

Fact is that he was the lineal champion, as he beat Holmes twice. So let's not pretend he was a nobody.

My Spinks point was clear, if you read it. Holmes lost to Spinks twice, and you won't hear too much criticism, yet Tyson pulverizes Spinks in 90 seconds and it gets dismissed as Spinks being too small. Despite being 6-7 lbs lighter than Mike...

I am not arguing Spinks as a great HW. I am simply pointing out the bias/logic that people use to harshly assess and criticize Tyson's opposition

Again, where did I say it was Tyson's best win?

And, why are you asking me for Mike's prime, again?!

I already said what I believe to be his prime...it is the years 1986-1988/1989....any one these calendar years I think he was at his best.

Having to pick one year where Tsyon looked to me to at his fighting best? 1988.....1987 a close second.

You have not said what you believe to be his prime year(s) where he was at his fighting best...

So then you'd have Fury and Marciano as a draw?

Also it's very fair to judge pre Buster Douglas Tyson with Fury. Mike had more fights at that time than Fury has in his career to date.

Another boxing thread ruined by talking about Mike Tyson mystical match ups.

Lads, you all follow boxing. When you hear or read the words prime, peak and Tyson in one sentence do you not think it would be better to just leave it?

It's been going on years everywhere on the internet.

He looked unbeatable for a few years, he went off the rails and it was a slow end after that.

Can we leave it at that?

It's a chat forum, everyone is entitled to chat about what they like once it's relevant to the thread. Everyone is entitled to give their opinion as well and we know yours now.

Thats my point its all absurd and a pointless exercise

Ahh now come on

Number of fights doesnt do justice here

15 in Tyson fought Mark Young whos lost like 40 fights, Fury fought Chisora

Young had lost 6 fights by the time. He fought Mike and went on to lose his next 6 hardly stellar competition

In his next fight (16) he fought Jaco, The fight was somewhere in the middle of a 2wins & 16 losses streak for Jaco

I know Mike was young but the first 16 where bowling pins waiting to be knocked over

Guys like John McDermott who Fury fought in his 8th fight would have beat all of Mike ealry opponents

Just on this. You post once in a blue moon here on the forum. But you are obviously reading the threads, and clearly reading this one.

If you barely ever contribute to threads, why are posters who are contributing and discussing with decent back and forth, analysis, stats and opinions ruining anything? And most of all, how are we ruining threads for you, who doesn’t contribute anyway?