Did mike ever fight someone who could jab or move as good as douglas?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by lufcrazy, Jan 13, 2012.


  1. manbearpig

    manbearpig A Scottish Noob Full Member

    3,255
    134
    Feb 6, 2009
    My point is you are applying far too much 'strict logic' to boxing. It's not all black and white like mathematics and you should chill out and stop worrying about being so consistent.

    Mike fought a better fighter who was just as determined in Tony Tucker, and prevailed. This supports a view of it being more to do with Mike than Douglas, so there's no need for the venomous defence of your ideas.
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    referring to this post?

    what have I said that's black and white? I think my actual conclusion is "I'm not sure mike wins the other 9 out of 10" so there's no strcit definite all encompassing logic used there. I've just stated more unceratinty than i previously had if anything.

    I do like to be consistent in my observations though but I don't really see the issue there :think:

    Nor do I think that post is a venemous defence, it's more of a response to another post regarding the thread topic.

    I made a couple of posts last night whilst pissed but i've apologised for any hostility that was displayed in them, my posts today reflect my sober way of thinking and as I said, my conclusion is not based on some logistical formula, it's more an observation that based on the fight i've seen, I have no reason to believe tyson wins for certain had he trained harder.

    Make of that what you will, just try not to be too logical, consistant nor venomous :lol:
     
  3. manbearpig

    manbearpig A Scottish Noob Full Member

    3,255
    134
    Feb 6, 2009
    You try far, far, far too hard. Stop trying to make boxing into a formula you weird boring *******.

    Your heavyweight list is ****ing terrible too.

    ps. the 'black and white' thing - you are arguing that Douglas would always cause Mike trouble just based on him beating him, when there is evidence of Mike beating better, similarly styled fighters in his record.
     
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    try too hard to do what buddy?
     
  5. manbearpig

    manbearpig A Scottish Noob Full Member

    3,255
    134
    Feb 6, 2009
    Appear credible. "My take on who was the champion'.

    Get the **** over yourself.
     
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    well I said ?I think it would always cause him trouble, my bad.

    Awwww :|:|:|:| I was hoping you'd have embraced my heavyweight list muc more readily :|:|:|:| Although FYI I'm reevaluating my ranking of fighters so hopefully my new list will meet your strict logical standards.

    I think maybe you should stop trying to nail down certainties within the sport, stop trying so hard to reach concrete conclusions and just actually watch fights and enjoy them.
     
  7. manbearpig

    manbearpig A Scottish Noob Full Member

    3,255
    134
    Feb 6, 2009
    gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
     
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    Credibility? I'm a maths teacher not a boxing analyst. Who would I want to appear credible to? Some faceless posters on the internet?

    Now if you said I try too hard to research and better understand what I'm talking about then I'll plead guilty on that count!

    Awwwwwwwww no do you not like my timelines now :|:|:|:|:|:| i'm terribly sorry. I'm not trying to re-write history or anything love, I'm just saying who I think was the best boxer from the start of the division until the end.

    I never meant to upset you darling, maybe you need to relax a bit. Log off, go do some shopping or something and when you're all happy again come back online :good
     
  9. manbearpig

    manbearpig A Scottish Noob Full Member

    3,255
    134
    Feb 6, 2009
    Ok, that is solid advice. I need to go and let off some steam from my vagina.
     
  10. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    you're welcome babe












































































    p.s. please please tell me I seem more credible to you now :deal
     
  11. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,426
    1,470
    Sep 7, 2008
    This is all fair, agreed on not beating Frazier, that's the kinda' thing I was trying to get at re: Douglas' H2H potential :good

    Thank you Sir.
     
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    Yeah I'm just hoping noone out there actually does think douglas should be favoured over frazier.

    good win but as many have pointed out, he isn't some h2h monster. I do think I was overrating tyson previously though.
     
  13. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,658
    Dec 31, 2009
    yes tucker won their fight but douglas was better than Tucker until he quit/ imploded. If we knew douglas would not quit or implode we might have suspected he was good enough to surpass Tuckers effort against mike Tyson. The Tucker - douglas fight showed douglas could be a good fighter if he could keep going and believe in himself even though he lost.
     
  14. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    62,536
    47,751
    Feb 11, 2005
    Anyone who claims Tyson was near 100% prepared for this fights just hasn't read anything on the subject.
     
  15. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,658
    Dec 31, 2009

    Tyson wasnt 100% prepared for many of his best fights but such was his talent he always found a way to win.

    He ran into a tree before the bruno fight. He sent Rooney mad many times with his partys.