Why didn't Tyson use any head movement in the Buster Douglas fight?

I'm not downplaying Tyson's achievements at all. He was a great fighter for all his physical shortcomings but face facts, he was beaten by a journeyman fighter end of story!!

Maybe Tyson didn't look all that good in Tokyo because Douglas didn't give him the chance to, he got off first and fought the right fight. Tyson showed how limited he was as a fighter and had no plan B!!

 

James "Buster" Douglas was no journeyman. He had been a contender for years and at 29 years old was in the peak of his prime with plenty of experience and physical tools. Sure he was more of a "fringe" contender than a world beater, but certainly no journeyman. For 24 years the arguments have gone back and forth about weather or not Douglas beat the best Tyson or a diminished one. I won't go there. But frankly, I would have rather seen him in that fight with the team who got him there and utilizing some of the things that we saw between 1986-1989...

 

Put it this way he was no great fighter either, that's why Tyson can't go down as one of the best ever. It's not as though he was knocked out by one punch, he was taken apart and outclassed the entire fight.

The man was 23 for Christ sake, he was in a much better condition than all the Tyson worshippers want to believe! Hell even Douglas was genuinely ill before the fight, Tyson's excuses are just hearsay!!

 

Yes, I acknowledged that Douglas was no great fighter, hence my comment about him NOT being a world beater. That's what I meant. But as for anyone calling him a journeyman, they need to research the term. Tyson was definitely one of the best ever if you consider top 10-15 in that fraternity. I'll grant you he was no top 5, but an atg nonetheless. If you're going to eliminate all time greats from the top 10 based on a bad loss to a lesser fighter, then I think a lot of traditional top 10's would end up looking very different

 

I've never heard of so many excuses for a fighter though, do you really believe that he took Evander Holyfield lightly because I'm not having it one little bit!

 

No.. Not Holyfield. I think that was a case in which two fighters were both past their best and one of them just had the other's number. But Tyson's loss to Douglas? well i'm not so sure that the best version of Mike showed up that night, and it wasn't so much a case of him being past it, as it was damaged goods.

 

The fight wasn't even competitive though, apart from the 8th round knockdown Tyson hardly had any success at all. IMO Douglas would have always beaten Tyson either by late stoppage or unanimous decision.

 

Personally I can understand that Tyson wasn't at his absolute best for the Douglas fight, but as has been said, he was totally dominated by Douglas. It wasn't close, it was almost completely one-sided. All credit to Tyson for scoring the knockdown while getting the **** beaten out of, but aside from that he was totally taken apart, out-boxed, out-fought and out-thought.

The point is, if Tyson was ever as great as his biggest fans think he was, and if he was so far above Douglas as they say, then on an off-night he would have done a lot better than that.

Plenty of the great heavyweights had off-nights, and real problems, and bad training habits, and similar issues to those of Tyson was having, similar lifestyle, but I can't think of a heavyweight who was thrashed so thoroughly in their prime by such an ordinary opponent and yet still retain the mythical 'invincible' aura in the minds of many.

Douglas had Tyson figured almost completely.
Tyson, for all the hype, was limited in various ways, physically, stylistically, and psychologically - that it was inevitable that somebody with reach and boxing ability would come along and beat him.
Anyway it happened, and it didn't look at all flukey to me.

 

Schmeling beat the **** out of Louis in a one sided fight and McCall humiliated Lennox in two rounds. Needless to say those guys were having "off" nights, but the difference is that they had an opportunity to prove themselves in the rematches and under more ideal circumstances where they were able to show case themselves at their best. Tyson never got that chance.

 

:rofl

 

Louis-Schmeling 1 looked more competitive than Tyson-Douglas.
And Louis went on to dominate the division for 10 years.
Also, prime Louis v prime Schmeling, I'm not going to argue that Louis is a sure-thing to win. I'd say Schmeling has an argument to be in Louis's class.

Lennox Lewis, I'm not a fan of his. I can't be bothered to defend him. Hey, we can even rate Tyson above him.

 

Louis got his ass kicked big time against Schmeling, and I disagree that when at their best Schmeling was in his class. The Lewis example was to illustrate that Douglas vs Tyson being non competitive means little, had two fighters in question met at their best.

 

Well, Lewis was taken out by one punch. People can argue reasonably that is a way that the 'better fighter' sometimes loses at heavyweight, it happens. I don't strongly agree with that argument at all, but I can follow it and understand its reason.
Tyson was dominated by Douglas.

I make no excuses for Joe Louis.
I still think he was greater than Tyson. By miles.

 

There will always be those who insist on summing up Tyson's WHOLE career on the night of February 11th, 1990. By that logic that man might as well have just had one professional fight and called it quits.