Here's the thing, bruh. Mike Tyson in his prime never really had an impressive opponent. That's not Mike Tyson's fault, okay? I'm not hating on Tyson. In fact Iron Mike is actually one of my favorite athletes and fighters of all time - he has his place in history. I just don't think he's as great as his fanboys think because he reached his prime at just the right time in the sport.
To add a little more context, I have stated on other forums that Mike Tyson *was* a great fighter - can't take that away from him. And yeah, I do concede that end-career Tyson was a hot mess compared to early-career Tyson. I think Mike Tyson from 1987-1989 would have had a puncher's chance against a lot of great fighters. I know I dissed Tyson for his fight against an aging Holmes.
Just to be clear, I've actually disagreed with some Tyson skeptics who argued that Holmes was washed up and that young Holmes would have beaten Tyson. I honestly think prime Tyson was better than prime Holmes for the reasons I've already stated: Holmes was that late 70s and early 80s fighter that liked to use a jab and load up on the right hand. That style was made to order for Iron Mike who used his hand speed and head movement to get around that style of fighting. Tyson did clean the heavies in the 80s and he gets respect for that because that wasn't easy to do. Not every fighter can say they fuckin demolished an entire division, so Tyson gets his props from me.
But shit, Emanuel Steward and Angelo Dundee both said the same thing of Tyson when he was already up and coming, which is that he won't be a champion by the time he's 30 and they were 100% right and that's because they knew his head movement, as great as it was, was dependent on his youth. Put him in the ring against a guy who can jab and take punches, and it's a different game. And Buster Douglas proved that right.