How much of Mike tyson s potential did we see?

Douglas beat Page in 1986 then lost to Tucker and his rating dropped. His later wins in 1988 to 1989 is what earned him a shot at Tyson in early 1990 as a "tuneup" for Evander by which point Tyson had already beaten the best of the 80's era.... That's my final argument.

EDIT: Witherspoon was not ranked near the top of the division in 1988. Ring might have had him highly ranked but no one else did.

 

As I keep trying to explain to you, that argument is redundant because Tyson DID fight Buster Douglas ..... and he lost.
Believe it or not, no one would have objected to Tyson skipping Marvis Frazier and Tony Tubbs either.

 

You have no answer so run along you cur....

 

Or Frank Bruno or Carl Williams.....

 

That's like saying Sonny Liston never cleaned out his division because of the eventual matter of Ali beating him. Or that Marciano never cleaned out his division because he and Patterson never fought. The fact is Tyson took down the best of an "era".. And Douglas was not the best of that "era." And neither was Holyfield the best of that "era". The time frame spanning from when Holmes lost the title to the dawn of the 90's was its own "era." And Tyson beat everyone who mattered. Douglas mattered to no one and wasn't highly ranked for most of that time. As for Marvis Frazier he was a necessary evil to face because he was a pre-title contender for Tyson. He was someone who mike beat to rise in the ranks. While he didn't have that many fights his record was certainly better than Douglas in 1986. Tubbs was a recent former world champion. that should speak for itself.

 

Magoo talks out of his ass, i can recall Sugar Ray Leonard giving Douglas big praise before his bout with Tyson. He was raving about Douglas knocking fighters down with his jab.

 

I agree that Douglas wasn't known as the main man in the division after Tyson I'll give you that.

 

Which meant fvckall prior to 1990..

 

But he fought him in 1990 not prior to fcuking 1990, do you realise how silly you're making yourself look.

 

The "best of the 80's era" is where your argument falls down. The whole division rankings were inhabited by Buster Douglas-caliber fighters. There were a lot of heavyweights going nowhere fast.
You trying hard to pretend Douglas wasn't a contender among that crop, when actually he was.
Trying to say Biggs, Bruno and Frazier were a notch above Douglas's perceived level, but they weren't.

It's absurd really. You are downgrading Douglas, who wasn't all that anyway, in an effort to alibi Tyson's loss to him. There's a strange logic to that. Make Douglas disappear by saying he never mattered.
...... If we knock Douglas a few tiers down ..... then losing to him doesn't matter ..... We can still say we cleaned out the division anyway !

Yes, but only because he was suing Don King.

 

"Unforgiven, post: 18426906, member: 2761"] The whole division rankings were inhabited by Buster Douglas-caliber fighters. There were a lot of heavyweights going nowhere fast.
You trying hard to pretend Douglas wasn't a contender among that crop, when actually he was.
Trying to say Biggs, Bruno and Frazier were a notch above Douglas's perceived level, but they weren't.


.[/QUOTE]

At the time Tyson fought those guys they WERE a notch above Douglas.. Maybe not from an overall historical standpoint if you looked at their entire careers. But from 1986 to 1989. Hell yes and more specifically on the ACTUAL DATES that Tyson faced them, hell yeah.

 

No.. It has nothing to do with me trying to "alibi" Tyson's loss to him.. It has nothing to do with Tyson losing to him period.. It has nothing to do with any fvcking thing that happened in 1990 onward...

 

Dont waste time on him.

Just block him, like I have.

 

No, it's not the same.
And I'll explain why, for about the hundredth time :

Cassius Clay turned professional in October 1960, when Sonny Liston was already the well-established #1 contender, being avoided by champion Patterson, and a 7-year professional.
Clay was from a new generation, a new crop.

Likewise Floyd Patterson to Marciano. He was a 17 year old middleweight with 1 professional fight when Rocky Marciano was 43-0 and fighting Jersey Joe Walcott. He wasn't even eligible to box a 10-rounder at the time, nevermind at heavyweight. I don't think Patterson was even a ranked heavyweight when Marciano retired, despite what revisionists claim.
Patterson was clearly of a later crop, the next generation.

The case of Tyson and Douglas is very different.
Douglas was actually of Tyson's era, well, in fact he was of a previous crop really but his career had spluttered along a bit in journeyman mode for 4 years and he didn't really get going until about 1986, at exactly the same time as Tyson did. We're not talking about Tyson losing to a fighter from the "next generation" (as, say, would be a reasonable assertion if he'd held the title until 1992 or 1993 and lost to Bowe/Lewis), we're talking about him losing to a contemporary and a man who'd been a journeyman in a previous crop.

If you "clean out the division" and then lose, surely it would have to be losing to someone NEW, not just losing to some guy that's been knocking around all the time.
Because it that case, it seems obvious to me, the cleaning out job didn't actually happen.

If I clean out my room ..... except the corner behind the TV because I can't be bothered ..... then later find out that I can't clean that corner, it has me beat ! .... what am I allowed to boast I cleaned out my room anyway, just forget I ever moved my TV ??

 

And the biggest nuthugger of all as entered the building..... Hahahaha.