How much of Mike tyson s potential did we see?

In fairness they aren't claiming Tyson "ducked" Douglas. But they're disputing my claim that Tyson wiped out the very best of a division between 1986-1989. And they're argument is that this isn't true because he didn't beat douglas during that time and evenutally lost to him in hindsight in 1990.

 

Nobody is claiming Tyson ducked Douglas, Magoo is trying to claim Douglas was an unknown nobody which is complete bull****.

 

Was that the same Tucker with a broken hand or do excuses only count for Tyson....

 

Unknown to boxing experts? No.. unknown to most of the boxing world? Yes. A mandatory challenger? No.. A challenger of any real value during the time frame I proposed? No..

 

OK, so now you're admitting Frank Bruno is not a notch above Douglas in that period. Good.
I'll also say Tony Tubbs wasn't either. Tubbs has a loss to Witherspoon and loss to Tyson and no wins over any contenders in that period until the end of 1989, I think, when he beat Orlin Norris (changed to NC for drugs).

Still, this is all a diversion from the central point of the argument : that Tyson DID in fact face Douglas, who wasn't a new face, and Tyson DID in fact lose to him. Tyson has a 0-1 record against the guy.

Therein lies the problem of "cleaning out". You want to say losing to Douglas is irrelevant because Tyson had already cleaned out. But the fact that he lost to a contender of the era (or a fringe contender, as you claim) invalidates the claim that the place was cleaned out.

Tyson (or King) chose to defend against Douglas.
He was a guy Tyson hadn't fought before, he was considered worthy enough to challenge Tyson, he was not a new face.
He would have counted as a legitimate successful defence, and further proof of Tyson's ongoing dominance, had Tyson won that fight. Don't you agree ?

 

How

Complete bollocks, if he was unknown to the boxing world then the people who didn't know him weren't fit to be a part of the boxing world.

 

I think Tubbs was more legit in March of 1988 than was Douglas. He was 24-1, had never been stopped and was a former champion. Douglas at the time was 25-4-1 and had no real notoriety.

 

No, no one is claiming that or even anything remotely like that.

 

No I don't agree.. Because he was already fighting plenty actively and beating the sons of bitches who were ranked ahead of Douglas.. Not to mention unifying a title, cementing lineage and all that other good stuff.. How hard is that to understand? 1990 was a new era.. 1986-1989 was a previous era. And Tyson beat the best of THAT era.. He cleaned out a division. By your logic he ALSO should have faced Francesco Damiani, Orlin Norris, Willie D'Wit, Nat king Cole, Michael Jordan, and the president of Rwanda.

 

You're just being awkward and nitpicking, Tubbs didn't deserve to be in the ring with Tyson and you know it!

 

I know you're completely ignorant to what was going on back then and I realize you can't help it due to the year you were born. But people back then didn't have internet, boxrec, youtube and most didn't have cable television. There were very few casual or even semi-comitted boxing fans who knew anything about James Douglas prior to his beating Tyson. And for the few who HAD heard of him, virtually NONE considered him a viable contender. I remember being in highschool back then and people making jokes about the champ fighting some dude named "Buster." I even heard sportsfans making off claims about Douglas working part time as a painter and having records as bad as 35-10-2 or 23-9-1, etc.. These are not the sort of comments and rumors that are spread around about someone highly known and revered in their given industry.

 

I'm not arguing weather or not he was deserving.. Only that his status in early 1988 was higher than that of Douglas.

 

And these same people knew who the likes of Tony Tubbs and Carl Williams were, yeah alright.

 

Tell you what... Come up with an argument as to WHY Tyson should have fought Douglas in March of 1988 instead of Tubbs and another supporting WHY he should have fought him in June of 1989 instead of Wiliams. Let's start there. K ?

 

Ok. I see.

But I think it's fair to say that say that Tyson beat the most relevant fighters during the late 80's. If someone is missing it would rather be Witherspoon I think. And, yes, Douglas in late 1989 was perhaps more relevant than Tubbs was when Tyson beat him. But that's all a bit nitpicking really.

Did he wipe out the division in the sense that he beat everyone who was ranked top 10 during those years? No, of course not, but that hasn't happened in the history of boxing I think, not at HW at least. Well, Ali came close during the 60's, but there was Thad Spencer and he didn't beat Quarry, Frazier, Ellis and Bonavena until the 70's.

What we can say is that very few did a better job of establishing his dominance over any division than Tyson did over the HW division during the latter half of the 80's. I think that's what's meant when the term "wiped out the division" is used, and I think most understand that. The rest is a bit nitpicking, really. It's useful if someone claims that Tyson wiped out the division more thoroughly than anyone else, but not very much so otherwise.