Quote Originally Posted by BIG H
Quote Originally Posted by Lyle
Evander Holyfield
Oliver McCall
Gerry Coetzie
Michael Dokes
Greg Page
Tim Witherspoon

Anyone is better than who he fought
O.K Since we were talking about 1986-89 which is when Tyson dominated and when he fought all those people you claim were bogus, here's what I make of your list

Evander Holyfield - In 1986 Holyfiled weighed 190 pounds, didn't step up for Heavyweight title fight till 91

Oliver McCall - Only turned pro in 85 and didn't even reach NABF level till 92 - has also lost to Bruno & Tucker WHO TYSON BEAT

Gerry Coetzie - Retired in 86 after been blown away in one round by the same Frank Bruno that you classed as being one of Tyson's lowly opponents

Michael Dokes - was fighting stiffs between 86 and 89 and was stopped by holyfield in 89

Greg Page - went 6-4 between 86-89 and lost to Joe Bugner in the process - hardly begging to fight for title. He has also lost to Seldon, Douglas, Tubbs & Ruddock - ALL OF WHOM TYSON BEAT

Tim Witherspoon - knocked out in a round by Bonecrusher (WHO TYSON BEAT) in 86 and hardly fought for next 3 years - although I do agree this would've been a test for Tyson

Tyson beat Douglas?!?!?...was that in the rematch?

Regarding Mike's opposition he fought what was out there and from 86-88 there was not a great deal of talent...but what he faced he dominated as a great fighter should...My reasons for not considering Mike and ATG are basically:

1) Excuses; there are ton's of excuses why Mike was considered beyond his peak at 22 years old. A bad marriage, misguided management, blah, blah blah...Welcome to bigtime boxing, these are just excuses. Marciano, Louis, Ali, Dempsey, Johnson, etc.. all had some sort of management/ personal issues that never became an excuse...

2) Inability to adapt;Mike fought one way and one way only, he never could adapt...He was perhaps the best at the Cus D'Amato style EVER no denying that...but being a one way fighter always leads to disaster once your style is neutralized...Did he peak at 21 years old or did Buster Douglas show the world how to beat Mike Long before Mike the rule to beat a Cus D'Amato fighter was to walk him backwards...This became painfully obvious when Mike lost to a well worn Holyfield...D'Amato fighters don't throw punches going backwards, look at old fights of Patterson to see the other D'Amato prodigy...


3)Losses: while many will argue that Tyson was beyond his prime for the douglas fight (three fights removed from Spinks)...Tyson Lost to a "B-C" level fighter, he was outboxed, outhustled, out-hearted by a guy that was going through more inner turmoil than he, but Buster sucked it up...No ATG ever lost to a bum like Douglas and any that did lose to a lesser opponent avenged those loses...that's an ATG

4)Longevity; Thos who argue Tyson is an ATG say that his prime was from 86-88, which I won't deny...so from his 19-22 year of age he was the best, that is far to short a legacy to be considered an ATG...that means he peaked as a boxer before his physical strength peaked(medically around 25), certainly his maturity and before he got to face his generations best opposition...

IMO...Mike was a Fighter that had great potential and at times fought great...but certainly can't be considered an ATG