How much of Mike tyson s potential did we see?

why not? an older more shopworn version gave prime riddick bowe a very good fight.
wasnt tubbs actually picked because of his durability? because he was most likely to extend the fight out of all the options they considered for that date in tokyo?

Sidenote, tyson pulled out of a fight with razor ruddock and fought douglas instead lol

 

Not really, what the hell had Tubbs done in the year before facing Tyson?

Oh yeah he beat the highly touted Mike Jameson, Jerry Halstead and last but not least, the legendary Eddie Gonzales.

 

And Douglas got his clock cleaned by Tucker

 

Exactly and thank you.. He beat the top fighters who Mattered in the late 80's which was when his reign existed.. He lost to Douglas in the first 6-7 weeks of 1990 and the reign and era were over. Douglas was not relevant to the title scene from 1986-1989.

 

Yeah the same Tony Tucker who faced Mike Tyson after beating the unknown nobody Buster Douglas......

 

Fact of the matter is that as someone who didn't truly love the sport, he was never going to improve beyond what he thought was necessary to beat his competition.

 

Yes and rightfully so. Tucker was a 35-0 professional and the IBF champion. And Douglas was........

 

But he'd only just beaten the nobody Douglas, a no-mark that happened to compete very well against this undefeated champion......

 

Losing to Tucker doesn't make Douglas a "somebody" and it doesn't in any way shape or form justify Buster getting a shot at Tyson before Tucker or before Tubbs. Buster eventually DID get a title shot after he had done something to earn it by which point the era was over and those other guys had rightfully taken their turns...

 

So, would a win over Douglas have been listed as a legit title defence ?
Would a win over Douglas have added just a little bit of credit to his record ?
I think it's obviously YES to both.
Just like Frank Bruno, Tyrell Biggs can be listed as "resume" wins.

Well, Douglas was from Tyson's era. As I keep explaining. Douglas's best years were 1986-'90.
Douglas wasn't at any age/"era" advantage.
They fought once, and Douglas won.

You want to make the cut off before Tyson fought Douglas simply because he lost to him.
If Tyson had lost to Bruno a year earlier, you'd be saying the era was 1986-'88, not '89.
(We could then cite the fact that Bruno didn't matter, he'd already been KO'd by Bonecrusher, and he was unranked by the magazines and was treated as a joke by many in boxing. )

If Tyson had defeated Douglas in 1990, no one would say that it was a "new era", it would be accepted as just the "Tyson era" and business-as-usual, Tyson defeating more of the same.

No, I'm not saying Tyson "should have" faced Douglas prior to February 1990.
The key point you're failing to grasp/accept is that Tyson faced him and lost to him, hence no "clean out".

 

If you were into boxing at that time and knew a bit about the game you'd know that Douglas put in a good performance against Tucker and was easily a match for him.

The era only ended when Tyson was on the floor looking for his gumshield.....

 

The " clean out " claim remains both now and forever.. 1986-1989 was its own era and Tyson defeated TEN title challengers who were either #1 ranked mandatory opponents, current title holders, lineal champions, or former champions with name recognition. At no point was there any justification for fighting Douglas over these men and Tyson's unexpected defeat to him came later in the 90's. I've already addressed all your other arguments and now this is just turning into a merry go round. We're gonna have to do something rarely seen on this forum.... Agree to disagree.....

 

Exactly.

40 minutes earlier no one was saying "let's see if Tyson can dominate another era", it was just a continuation of his era, against a guy who'd been fighting on TV for years ..

 

That would have been entirely up to the governing organizations. If he passed on one of their mandatory contenders to fight Douglas and been stripped for it then obviously not... You seem to systematically forget that practically every one Tyson fought between 1986-1989 was either ranked above him or holding a title or had some sort of legit claim for challenging him that went beyond anything Douglas offered. Jesus, its amazing how selfish pride can take precedence over acknowledging the obvious.

 

A fighter's title reign and an "era" are often two different things. Wladimir Klitscho has arguably fought through 2-3 eras in the sport and you yourself once said has seen " 3-4 waves of contenders come and go." Tyson had dominated his division and cleaned it out in a different decade than the one he lost to Douglas in.. And at times you've even tried to stretch the argument by debating that Douglas was just as worthy as the contenders Tyson face at the time he fought them... Now if your argument was that Douglas in 1990, was as worthy of a challenger as say Tyrell Biggs was in 1987 that's different. But you seem to feel that Tyson could have just as easily fought Douglas in October of '87 IN PLACE of Biggs and that's not the reality.