i thought the question was: why was tyson underrated here if that was the question, then this is the answer.
You know the forum has sank to new lows when someone suggests that Tyson ducked Bert Cooper or had any obligation to face him.
Instead of whining like a little girl about people like Wass, Swag and myself who simply don't buy into your fantasies about Tyson, why don't you take issue with some of the even weirder Tyson freaks than yourself, who claim Tyson was all over by 89 after he fired Rooney in 88. Because here you are plainly disputing their opinions by lauding it up over Tyson fighting Ruddock in 91. So which is it? Was the guy finished " before " Douglas, or should everyone bow in reverence to his " great performances " against Ruddock in 91? Only that is what is so confusing about you Tyson fanboys, you can't even seem to agree amongst yourselves.
Yes they cry that Tyson was finished after parting with Rooney claiming the Bruno fight is evidence of that. They then **** themselves silly over their hero's devastating knockout over Williams forgetting that Rooney wasn't in his corner. Then after being beaten silly by Douglas it's all because Kevin wasn't there to hold his hand.....
What's your take then? Was Tyson as good as ever in Tokyo? What about in 96-97? Does his technique look the same to you? If not, when did they start to change? Does 20yo Tyson get stopped by Danny Williams too?
I'm saying he wasn't as bad as people make out, it's just Douglas in that shape had his number. Was Ali the same fighter in 74-75? Was Foreman the same fighter in 90? You talk as though Tyson is the only fighter who should be immune to regression.
Even if there are no excuses for the Douglas defeat and even if he got literally obliterated by a far lesser man with no concessions to be made, Tyson is still underrated these days. Its almost as if anything else he achieved has been forgotten or erased because of the events that occurred on one night of his career. I really don't think that any other champion in any weight class or from any era has ever suffered a greater hit to their credibility for a single bad defeat even though many have sustained multiple.
Totally Agree. Lennox Lewis was the victim of a one punch knockout loss to Oliver McCall. The same Oliver McCall who had lost to the same Buster Douglas people were calling a no-hoper against Tyson. Lewis' loss to McCall is clearly a worse loss. However, because Tyson was so highly thought of (and conversely, Lewis was not held in such high regard) Tyson's legacy seems to have taken an inappropriately inordinate beating.
I guess it's how you view things. A lot of folk think a one sided beat down is worse than a one shot KO loss. Both are equally as damaging to one's legacy imo.
I believe it is a worse loss because Lennox folded quickly against an even worse opponent than Douglas. Tyson had a poor showing against Douglas to be sure. But at least he showed that on his worst night, he was still a difficult man to hurt. And, that he did in fact carry power late in a fight.
One huge difference. No one ( including Lennox himself ) was claiming such unadulterated sh,ite about him being the " baddest man on the planet " an irresistible force " the " most destructive Heavyweight who ever lived " or any of that other bollox that Tyson, his parasitical Klingons, and in particular his idiotic fan boys were claiming. Particularly at the time of the Douglas fight, as evidenced by the 42 - 1 odds. :yep
people love labels when it comes to Tyson. Bully is the main one. As said his failures are similar to other great fighters but for some reason he gets no pass. The detractors will always say Tyson was in peak form against Douglas, why wouldn't he be, he had his life time trainer with him and the consensus was that Mike was in great form and life was going swimmingly, oops maybe not. But no free pass on that bad night. Its Tyson should have overcome it but didn't, one way traffic opinions. My view is somewhere between, the hater show themselves with their one way view on Tyson.
