How good was a 'prime' tyson?

[LondonBB]

Ok guys, im gonna brandish the ol' 'in his prime' rhetoric again, (damn, i hate using that word because it reminds me of the doubters and haters who always quote 'in his prime, but in his prime, but in his prime, but in his prime he wouldve beaten him' etc etc non stop).

The simple fact is that fighters fight each other at various times, the greatest fighter in boxing is the one who achieves the most, not the one who people say 'but in his prime he wouldve beaten a prime version of the other fighter'...because its complete fiction, its an opinion, nothing more and nothing less...the greatest fighter is the one with the best record against the best opponents, that is how history judges.

HOWEVER I DIVULGED...But using the old 'in his prime' argument that so many like to spring up...i could say the same to totally discredit mike tyson.

Note firstly that i think tyson was a great boxer with great talent and skill, i am, just writing this to prove a point though.

WHO THE HELL DID A 'PRIME' TYSON BEAT THAT WAS IN THEIR 'PRIME'?

He beat no decent 'prime' fighter himself.

He beat a past it larry holmes and a crap spinks. Then in his 'prime' he lost to douglas. The only other fighters he fought in their 'prime' were holyfield and danny williams and lost them both aswell. He fought a slightly past his 'prime' lenox and got beaten badly.

So, if a fighter is devastating against bums, or second rate champs yet is a popular fighter, then it doesnt matter if he didnt fight or beat any decet fighter in their 'prime'?

The fact is that tyson lost to holyfield and to lewis, i'll ignore the later losses as they are irrelevant. I'll ignore the douglas fight aswell, even though he lost fair and square.

These were the best two fighters he fought. He lost them both. Yet people make excuses saying 'but in his prime tyson wouldve bashed them up'...ERRRR HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How would he bash up holyfield and lewis? Who did tyson fight that was in their prime when he was in his prime?

Lenox bashed the sh*t out of all the fighters that tyson also bashed when tyson was 'in his prime'...they were all pretty much unworthy opponents.

So how good was this 'prime tyson' that people rave on and on about? HE NEVER FOUGHT ANY GREAT FIGHTER IN THEIR 'PRIME' EXCEPT FOR LEWIS AND HOLYFIELD AND LOST THEM BOTH (but the excuse is that tyson was past it, maybe he was, but he never fought anyone anywhere near as good as those 2 when he was in his 'prime')

So, just highlighting how silly this whole 'in his prime' make believe fictitious style of comparison of boxers looks in my opinion.

I hear time again people saying that 'a prime tyson wouldve beaten holyfield or lewis'...well...based on what exactly? Based on the fact he never fought a top rate fighter in his 'prime' and was knocking out bums? Lenox ko'd very simmilar bums aswell.

So what do you guys think? Was this magnificent 'prime' tyson beat any other heavyweight boxer? Even though when we look at his records, he never beat any other great fighter in their 'prime'.

Heres a scenario, who wouold win? A prime roy jones or a prime achilles from ancient greece (the greatest warrior of all time supposedly).

Or...a prime ray robinson vs a prime bruce lee?

A prime robocop vs a prime terminator?

A prime optimus prime vs a prime megatron?

Or finally...im sure that a prime he-man would still beat a prime skeletor! Even though skeletor was very old when they fought, his magic was a lot greater due to him being older and wiser therefore he was more powerful than when he was younger and he-man still beat him.

I know the last few were silly, it just illustrates the whole 'in his prime argument'...its all make bellieve.

In the end a fighter is judged by their record and who they faced, what they achieved etc...not weighed up in a fictional battle of who would win in their prime...because its FICTION!

For the record though, i think a prime achilles or king leonadas of sparta would beat any boxer in a fight because those guys were just savage ass mofo's lol.

Anyone else sick of the whole whining voice going 'yeah but in his prime he wouldve won'...the bottom line is that even if a fighter does get beat and isnt at his peak, is past his best, it still doestn mean he wouldve beaten the opponent if he was 'in his prime'. A fight is not determined by 1 fighter, it is a mixture of 2 fighters movements, like a chess match.

So...if fighter 1 doest fight well, then fighter 2 doesnt need to fight that well to beat him.

But if fighter 1 is in his 'prime' and fights really well, what if fighter 2 raises his game because the stimulus infront of him is greater and raises his game even higher and wins aswell.

This is why the whole 'in his prime' argument is useless imo.