WTF is "prime Vargas"? You know a fighter wasn't really any good, when you have to consistently remind everyone that he had maybe one or two decent nights as a pro.
I'm guessing the Campas fight to the Trinidad fight. X probably just wanted to envision another scenario where Vargas gets a beating.
Nah, its ridiculous. There are certain guys that are always listed like "Prime Vargas", or "Prime Tyson", "Prime Curry"...why? Because they were superstars for a short period of time. They were exposed, whereas if you speak to fans, they just peaked early. Bollox. They just weren't as good as everybody thought they were. McCallum in about 6 or 7, without Vargas having more than a couple of decent combinations.
Prime Tyson was from about 86-91, up until he got locked up. His PEAK was from 86-89. Douglas beat him when he was in his prime. Was Tyson at his best when Doulgas beat him? No, he was still in his physical prime. Curry, and Vargas are different from Tyson. Curry just mysteriously burnt out over night, and Vargas had his prime cut short by Tito, just like Taylor had his prime cut short by Chavez.
Well lemme rephrase that. Vargas' prime was from Campas up until Tito ruined him. So from 98-00. I agree that McCallum would beat the living shit outta ANY version of Vargas, but even you cant dispute that the 98-00 version of Vargas would be more competitive than say the 05 version of Vargas.
No I couldn;t dispute that, anymore than I could dispute that the '66 version of Ali was better than the '80 version.
McCallum beats the stuffing out of Vargas in a counter-punching festival. Ref stops fight in round 10.
I know that's the consensus regarding Vargas' pomp --- that Trinidad ruined him --- but in all honesty, I am firmly in the minority in believing he looked as strong & capable against De La Hoya as he ever had. After that point, yes, there's a marked drop-off, but I just never saw real merit in this idea he was never the same after fighting Trinidad. Still, it's rare I come across someone who agrees with me, so there must be something to it, I guess :shrugs:
Regarding Tyson --- Thank you. I have offered countless opportunities to those perpetuating the myth his prime was over to see how many documents they can come up with at the time which supported that view. Tyson past his prime against Douglas? Revisionist nonsense.
Sounds about right to me. I was trying to do the same thing --- conjur an edge for Vargas he could parlay into a real-time advantage. I came up with him getting stopped in seven. Nine wouldn't surprise me. McCallum gets my nod ahead of Hearns, Benvenuti & co. as the best 154lber. in history.
Yup...Tyson wasn't past his prime against Douglas...but he wasn't at his best either. I was overconfident and underprepared. He wasn't the Tyson that destroyed teh likes of Berbick, Thomas, Spinks and Holmes.
No, I don't. That doesn't mean your primes over, though. Tyson is something else in a lot of his fans' minds. Some of them bring up talk of marriage, legal & corner troubles as though these were pioneering distractions of Tyson. Such hassles have existed since day-dot for all sportsmen, & countless Boxers have entered the ring with these & other confusions. It wasn't Tyson on his best night, but he was anything but past his prime. The Tyson who lost to Douglas would still have made mince-meat out of Spinks, Holmes, Tubbs & co. There are too many excuses for this loss & not enough honest appraisal of the man.
Good post. When it comes to historical revisionism Mike Tyson seems to be the number one subject. Not just for fans, but for the haters on the other side of the fence as well. I think that Tyson would still beaten up Spinks easy, but i don't know about making "mince-meat out of Holmes". As far as the Douglas fight goes, no Tyson wasn't at his best that evening. However Douglas certainly was and took it to Tyson. It was a great performance. If people want to bring up Tyson at his peak they have to accept the fact that "the version of Douglas" that beat him would have been a stern test on any evening.
