How many distractions and problems in Tysons life in 1990 led to the Douglas k.o

It's not a case of rating Tyson highly. I just don't think that much of Douglas and think he gets overrated based on one performance. Physically and stylistically he wasn't much different to other guys Tyson handled, and certainly was no better. He just caught Tyson on the right night IMO. Tucker could have done the same in Tokyo.

Ali faced Norton three times and never beat him convincingly so yes you can make the case that Norton had his number. You can't do that for Douglas/Tyson based on one fight. Had they fought again and Douglas KO'd him again or even made him struggle, then you could.

 

As you say, that is your opinion. It is mine that Douglas was just a tough matchup for Tyson.

As we've both said, history is littered with superior fighters losing to opponents who, on paper, they should be beating.

 

Ironic that Tyson showed a tremendous chin when his skills declined. Who else ships those bombs Ruddock landed? Not many.

Tyson-Holyfield '91 just might have been the greatest heavyweight war since Ali-Frazier. I feel it would've been better with Tyson regaining the title in a firefight. Like you said it would be a tough task for Holyfield to move Tyson, and despite his tremendous accuracy and work rate Holyfield lacked the firepower. Tyson's kryptonite wasn't getting hit - it was being unable to respond to his opponent. Tyson was prone to frustration when he couldn't land. Holyfield would have to implement the game plan Tommy Brooks chalked up in '96 and I'm not sure he could do that and stick to it in '91. Plus, Tyson was hungry and knew beating Holyfield meant he's the best of that era.

I've been saying this all along so it's nothing new I've mustered. Tyson-Holyfield '91, Bowe-Lewis, Roy Jones-Nigel Benn and Norris-Trinidad are the 4 biggest matches I wish were made in my lifetime. There are many more but those 4 stand out.

 

It's so hard when two men past their prime compete.

I'm of the belief that on paper Tyson should have enough for a man like Holy, but all we have is two fights that Holy won so I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

yeah the Tyson v Holyfield in 91 is one of those fights that should have happened. All I think about when I watch the 96 fight is how much better Tyson could have done and how much better he was 5 years before, after a few rounds he had nothing to offer, stamina, footwork, persistence, combination punching, elusiveness, pretty much everything was lacking. at least in 91 he had some of that, the difference is he was an actual fighter then, after prison he was a bit of a con job really, flash but no substance.

Holyfield was always going to be tough because of his will and mental strength but he wasn't invincible, as evidence shows, he could be hit and hurt by lesser fighters than Tyson. you cant ignore what actually happened, Holy out toughed Mike, he wasn't scared and he never would be but he would have had a hell of a fight in front of him in 91 and I can easily see him losing to be honest.

 

There are reasons countries have s*x offenders registers, and rapists are on them. If it bothers you that I refer to convicted rapists, as rapists, tough. I don't give a toss.

All your sensitivity has done is prove that you do indeed see the world through Tyson tinted glasses.

It might also surprise you to know I am far from the only person in the world that is sickened by his endless line of pathetic apologists. No other fighter gets as many grovelling nonsensical excuses written about them when they lose ( possibly Pac ) the way he does.

It doesn't get much more childish than that, or the child minded idiots that write it.

 

Don't hold your breath.

They won't. It would mean facing up to the unpalatable truth that their little hero was over rated and stumbled at the first real hurdle he met.

They are no different to those religious types you see and hear all the time mouthing off about their god.

 

Busters mother died a few weeks BEFORE the fight.

 

:barf

A perfect example of the pathetic apologists I referred to above. Anyone would think this goon was abducted off the street and forced to fight against his will.

Tyson the eternal victim. What sickening garbage.

 

glad you liked the post :good

 

Not as glad as I was seeing him getting beaten up, then KTFO.:good

 

happens to the best of em :good

 

Doesn't bother me that you refer to convicted rapists as a rapists. Why would it?

 

Possibly because you wrote,

People rightly IMO berate Mayweather due to him beating women, yet Tyson gets a free pass for his subhuman behavior to females. Wasn't Atlas's niece only 11 or 12 when the 17 year old Tyson groped her between the legs?

And according to the lawyer who prosecuted Tyson, Desiree Washington was far from his only victim of s*xual abuse. I find it sickening that this nonce case gets admiration just because he was a fighter. If he was a cab driver or a builder, whatever, people would do their best to hound him out of their neighbourhood.

As for his boxing career, my opinion is crystal clear. He was an over rated on top fighter, who stumbled at the first serious hurdle he came across, and stumbled badly again when still only in his 20's when he came up against another fighter who came to really fight, in Holyfield.

As for the other defeats they are neither here nor there, and meaningless, due to the myth having been well and truly smashed.

 

Me saying "You obviously got a problem about Tyson being a ****** and therefore can't talk about his boxing career".
Doesn't mean it bothers me that you refer to a convicted ****** as a ******.
I don't see how at that follows. You're clutching at straws there.