1986 Tyson vs Wilder .. Let's be real

This is 1986 Tyson only. meaning from his debut all the way to the last fight in '86. that is the supposed unbeatable "prime" Mike we hear about. here are the list of opponents: Hector Mercedes Trent Singleton Don Halpin Ricardo Spain John Alderson Larry Sims Lorenzo Canady Michael Johnson Donnie Long Robert Colay Sterling Benjamin Eddie Richardson Conroy Nelson Sammy Scaff Mark Young David Jaco Mike Jameson Jesse Ferguson Steve Zouski James Tillis Mitch Green Reggie Gross William Hosea Lorenzo Byrd Marvis Frazier Jose Ribalta Alonzo Ratliff Trevor Berbick Red = all would be called bums today. Green = meh. C level at best. still bums by today's standards. ~~~ now lets be real. you match up Wilder with everybody on this list and he most likely beats all by KO. is this the resume of an unbeatable monster? yet people call Wilder a hypejob. if we're being consistent isn't 1986 Tyson a hypejob as well? during the broadcast for Tyson's fight with Mitch Green there was a short segment explaining the careful selective process of picking opponents for Mike to look good (in other words, cherry picking.) The architects behind the creation of Tyson's aura were Jim Jacobs and Bill Cayton. here's a link > https://youtu.be/s549QWexlUo (go to 3:40 and listen real close the whole segment. the segment ends at 9:14) here are direct quotes from that segment: "our chief responsibility has been to pick the opponents for Mike Tyson." "the strategy was to pick opponents he would not only beat, he would beat devastatingly." "Bill and I are scrupulously careful in determining who he fights and the style of the fighter." "the 100% A1 strategy was to go after the non sports fan, to capture the fringe sports fan, and certainly the fringe boxing fan." ~~~ again lets be real what would we call this today? cherry picking is the answer. the art of cherry picking has been utilized all throughout boxing history to pad records and build the profile of a fighter so this isn't in no way an attemtp to sh*t on Mike but its just to kill the myth that he was facing elite competition. he wasn't. and do you think a segment like that gets aired in this social media era? not a chance. Tyson would've got his credibility shredded. and again if you line up all these guys to face Wilder we would all call him a bum beater. a tomato can destroyer. yet the same resume gives Mike an "unbeatable" reputation? the marketing strategy of Jacobs and Cayton obviously worked to perfection. https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/28165226_2051819725101757_7442146387102153498_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=e7aeaed7731136c0cb28f92ad1a0c616&oe=5B0CF394 in this picture the only thing you have to change is age. 1986 Tyson (age 20) vs 2018 Wilder (age 32). but the height and reach is accurate. why is it so impossible for Wilder to KO a much smaller opponent? people say he's never faced anybody like Mike. and that goes both ways. Tyson never faced anybody like Wilder. what opponent in that list possesses the right hand, height, reach and awkwardness Wilder brings? answer is none. my point is that 1986 Tyson was very much the creation of brilliant matchmaking and promotion. there's nothing about 1986 Mike that suggests Wilder would be easy for him. Tyson came in an era where the heavyweight division was on life support. he brought back excitement and interest in boxing in general. he's the reason my father became a boxing fan. I still have all the VHS footage my pops recorded on Mike. the guy was a big deal. but this is strictly sizing them up stylistically and based on styles its very much possible for Wilder to KO Tyson.