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. punchy

    punchy Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,801
    10
    Oct 10, 2005
    These are my thoughts too I think a prime Holmes does well as does Ali don't like Bowe's chances because he would like to brawl rather than use his jab.
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    agree on all 3 predictions.
     
  3. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,658
    Dec 31, 2009
    james smith and tony tubbs would have failed as miserably as they actualy did to the very same Tyson that Douglas fought.

    bonecrusher, though dangerous was a big slower guy who fought in spurts, he knew he was in danger of being beaten to the punch so he looked to walk tyson down, tie him up and frustrate him. That is the only game plan a guy like smith could hope to use on any version of Tyson. Tokyo Tyson would have landed enough punches between clenches to outscore bonecrusher as he did earlier when they did fight.

    Tubbs? he could box and neutralise a foe but Tysons hand speed would always have been a match for tubbs - mike would always have found Tubbs's chin (just as he did with douglas). To say Tubbs could ever beat Tyson is like saying Tubbs could get through it without ever getting hit.
     
  4. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,658
    Dec 31, 2009
    Douglas was initiating first because he made Tyson pause for thought. watch the footwork, Douglas made Tyson buy feints and made him pay. Mike became reluctant to lead. Rather than lead off and be countered Tyson hoped to beat Douglas to the draw (as he did with tubbs) but douglas was making it impossible for him to judge the distance correctly with the feints and double jabs. Douglas had him stuck at his mercy, forced into a no mans land where Tyson could not reach douglas.
    Tubbs was always going to get hit at some point and that is why he would always lose to Tyson. what kind of world class prep was tubbs getting going into his fight with Tyson? Greg page was the last good fighter he beat before Tyson and that was a long time ago. Ditto pinklon thomas, it was a long time since mike weaver...
    Tucker was a good technician. there is a chance he was capable of outscoring Tyson for spells but no evidence he could discourage and isolate Tyson in a no mans land in quite the way Douglas was able to. There is a big difference between winning a share of a round and keeping the other guy out of the fight. Douglas, with his use of range, feints and forcing Tyson to pause too much kept Tyson out of the fight.
     
  5. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    I don't think just anyone would have beaten him. A certain set of attributes were required and whilst douglas isn't the only man in history to possess those attributes, he might well have been the only man at that time.

    I can't really speculate on which other styles mike would have been vulnerable to because he didn't show it when it was meaningful; i'm sure noone holds the holyfield, williams nor mcbride losses against him.
     
  6. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    271
    Jul 22, 2004
    WOAHHHHHHH Did you just put the Holyfield loss in the same bracket as Williams and McBride? Past prime at 29 and inactive against a past prime 34yo Holyfield, I hold it against him a little yes
     
  7. Lester1583

    Lester1583 Can you hear this? Full Member

    4,426
    27
    Dec 18, 2008
    Many people hold Holyfield losses against Tyson.
     
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    Any loss post prison is in the same bracket from my point of view.

    The difference lies in how credible the victor should be: holyfield became my number 1 hw as a result of beating tyson. Williams became a top 10 hw as a result of beating tyson. McBride had no real benefit.

    However none of these losses should be held against him, unlike the douglas loss which should be.
     
  9. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,658
    Dec 31, 2009
    should the schmeling loss be held against joe louis then? Louis did get revenge but it was against an older schmeling 8 years past his peak - I rate Louis the highest of all champions regardless but the first fight with schmeling did hapen when he was already great in the same way as Tyson was already great when he was beaten by douglas. Both fights showed that the right desire and gameplan from a still capable world class fighter can over come a special fighter.
     
  10. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    Currently I think it should. As should wlad's defeat against sanders, douglas's against tucker, lewis's against mccall etc.
     
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    Really? Ten years after his first championship, fight years after his best performance, 5 years after being sent down.

    Why would anyone hold that against tyson?
     
  12. Lester1583

    Lester1583 Can you hear this? Full Member

    4,426
    27
    Dec 18, 2008
    Of course.

    These 2 fights many consider serious blows to his legacy.
    Almost as serious as Douglas loss.

    Usual arguments are:

    Holyfield was older and on the decline himself;

    Holyfield wasn't viewed as a big threat to Mike and that was the reason he was chosen as an opponent;

    second fight is a total disgrace and a blatant quit job;

    because of this two fights people question Tyson's heart, ability to deal with adversity, his whole skillset and a place in history basically.

    prime Holyfield beats prime Tyson because they both were at the similar stages of their careers at the time of their actual fights.

    That's just some points right off the top of my head.
     
  13. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,178
    Sep 15, 2009
    I'm not really sure any of them are real points though. it was a great win for holyfield but not a great loss for tyson.

    1) it doesn't matter if holyfield was "more on the decline" so to speak, because tyson was still past his own prime and I don't hold past prime losses against someone.

    2) this isn't the first case of matchmaking gone wrong; jones was a big favourite against johnson who was seen as a journey man, but i wouldn't hold that loss against jones and i sure hope noone else does.

    3) certainly a quit job, probably the only time in his career he didn't display heart and a warriors mentality but again after what he'd been through and accomplished, one lapse is forgiveable 11 years after first winning the championship.

    4) questioning tyson's skillset based on the holyfield fights is pure crazy and doesn't really need addressing.

    5) fighters can decline at different rates and basing a prime prediction on a past prime showing is quite dangerous i.e. calzaghe vs jones etc


    Roy Jones Jr could lose the next 653 fights he competes in and it won't harm his legacy one bit in my eyes. Everything after the tarver knockout is and should be completely irrelevant when judging the greatness of his legacy and i'm not even sure how much i hold the tarver ko against him (he was still the lhw/p4p king but he had clearly declined since the turn of the decade).

    everything aftre Tyson left prison should be the same really. He won the championship in 86, got twatted in 90 served 4 years inside and then fought about 4 rounds of action over the next 2 years. He was still a killer in the ring as bruno, golota, seldon etc found out but that because he was still very good however he just wasn't a great fighter any more and considering we all know what he once was I don't see how our opinion could possibly change.
     
  14. Lester1583

    Lester1583 Can you hear this? Full Member

    4,426
    27
    Dec 18, 2008
    Just to be clear: I'm not arguing about Tyson nor Jones just listed the arguments people usually mention in the debates.

    Boxing fans use Jones' past prime losses almost in every debate as a proof of him not being a great fighter or to show his so called deficiencies.

    And that's Jones who is universally recognized even by his detractors as being completely shot fighter since 2004.

    Compare that to Tyson who still was a top heavyweight after jail.

    That's just how most people think and operate.

    That doesn't necessary make them right, of course.;)
     
  15. CHAL_DIESEL

    CHAL_DIESEL GOAT Full Member

    2,385
    1
    Mar 18, 2011
    Primo tyson Ko's every boxer in history