How much of Mike tyson s potential did we see?

Irrelevant to the argument, as I haven't once argued that Tyson should have fought Douglas prior to 1990.
You've spent this entire time arguing against points no one is making.
You've totally failed to address the crux of the matter.

The fact that Douglas was not a fighter of a "new crop" but of the very same era .... the fact that Tyson fought Douglas once .... the fact that Tyson went 0-1 against him.

If a champion fights any ranked fighter of his direct era only once, and loses that one encounter, he didn't "clean out" that era.
It doesn't matter a shred if that fighter was ranked #10 or #9 or #1, or whether his average ranking over the previous few years was top3, top 5, or on the fringes. It makes no difference. He didn't clean out.

 

He could have easily fought Douglas in place of Tubbs. You seem to forget how close Douglas came to being the man that fought Tyson instead of Tucker....

 

But he didn't. He lost to Tucker and no one back then cared much about that vacant title fight as most considered Spinks the champion anyway. And no.. Tubbs was the better choice in March of 1988.

 

I wouldn't agree with that at all.

 

No I've addressed the Crux of the matter perfectly.. My argument always was and still is that Tyson defeated the men who mattered during that era and in that sense cleaned out his division. If your argument is that he failed to beat someone who happened to be an active "participant" during the same period then that's silly because it would have meant needing to beat practically every licensed professional in the world at the time... He beat his mandatories.. He beat his fellow alpha champions.. He beat the lineal champion. And he finished the decade as the champ...

 

I don't require you to.

 

The date "1990" and "1989" is arbitrary distinction.
Yes, I'm saying Douglas is of a "wave" or "crop" of contenders that is almost directly the same as Tyson's, including Tyson's rise and reign, it is that era.
You've been arguing that Douglas wasn't first-rate, which doesn't actually do Tyson any favours.
The point is, Douglas was of a crop of fighters than wasn't "new" to 1990. He IS one of the names knocking around the rankings in 1986-'89 and fighting on TV advertised as a contender, and his career climaxed and effectively culminated within 1990. Therefore, he's of that era, 1986-'90.
Whether the era exists objectively is not the point, the point is that Tyson's heyday and Douglas's years as a contender were almost directly identical in time frame.

Now, the idea that Tyson didn't have to fight him is irrelevant, since you could say that of Tubbs or Holmes, fighters who Tyson chose to fight anyway, and fighters who add to Tyson's resume.
Tyson also chose to fight Douglas .... and lost.

I have never stretched the argument in the manner you're describing. You highlighted 1986-'89 and I have said that Douglas in fact has credentials in that period that stack up equal to some of the names you mention. But none of this is central to my argument.
I really wouldn't have cared if Tyson had never fought Douglas. Tyson did not have to fight Douglas. On that point I agree with you.

But boxers do have to fight someone. And they take a risk in doing so. They can win and gain credit or lose and risk 'debit'.

 

No, you make a logical error.
I'm not saying Tyson had to beat Douglas (or, by extension, in your terms "every licensed professional" ... or even, more reasonably, every top 10 contender, because let's be real Douglas was not some mug off the street) ...,. No, I'm not saying that at all.

I'm not saying he had to beat Douglas simply because I don't even think he had to fight Douglas.

The problem is, having chosen/agreed to fight Buster Douglas (a boxer of his era), and by the act of actually getting in the ring with the man, Tyson DOES have to beat him to be able to boast he "cleaned out" that crop/era.

That's how boxing works.
Obviously, the flipside of the story is that if Tyson had won he could have boasted another win, another title defence, another win over a ranked fighter.
If he had continued doing that, and ducking no one, until losing to a contender of a "new crop" (eg. Bowe, Lewis) I'd have absolutely no doubt that he cleaned out his era.

 

I give up at trying to figure out this quoting format..

 

Anyway, getting back to my point.. I have and always will credit Iron Mike Tyson as flattening and defeating an entire division and dominating an era.

 

Being silly yet again, go look at the rankings of Douglas I posted earlier and come back to me....

 

Of course he dominated the HW division between 86-89, where has anyone claimed otherwise???

 

Agree.
I think by the time Tyson had beaten Tucker and Biggs he had beaten anybody who was on the rise and at their own peak ( and unbeaten) ( and later Spinks)
After that they had to resurect different fighters like Holmes out of retirement , Bruno and Truth Williams, who had both had to be built back up after earlier defeats.Tony Tubbs also . Holyfield and Lewis hadn't quite arrived at that point.
Regarding Douglas, he was clearly behind the likes of Bruno, Williams, Tubbs etc in the race to face Tyson.
If he had never faced Tyson and Tokyo had never happened, nobody judging Tysons' career from afar would be questioning why he never fought Douglas.
Arguably a bigger 'miss' would've been Witherspoon. By the end of 1989 Tyson had beaten everyone who could credibly be put up as a threat (except Witherspoon).Living it through in real time it seemed like Douglas was a 're tread' who they had dug back up to put on another Tyson show and given that peak Holyfield/Lewis/Bowe hadn't yet landed on earth, it did kinda feel like Mike had wiped out what had previously existed of the division.

 

How was he clearly behind the likes of Bruno, Tubbs, Williams?