Was Mike Tyson good or great?

If a stumble is nearly getting knocked out

 

How was he nearly knocked out then? Please don't say him using the full count is proof of this........ ROFL.

 

About a dozen times but not from ringside as they did.

What we have here is both the associated press, and the three judges stating it was a lot closer than you say.

They also had the benefit of being right there,up close and personal,so to speak.I think you exaggerate the margin of dominance Douglas held in this fight .
ps I found that when I regularly went to the fights and my Missus taped them ,when I watched them later on TV, I often got a different impression of them,never one so different as to make me change my pick as to who won ,but often as to how convincingly they did so.

 

Or maybe the judges were in awe of Tyson and never expected this to happen, maybe Don King persuaded these judges not to let it happen? I've seen the fight enough times to safely say Douglas dominated him from start to finish.

 

I've seen it enough times to safely say you are less than objective on this fight.

 

Time for a poll?

 

One thing will NEVER change McVey, the ONLY time Mike Tyson fought Buster Douglas, he was KOd. This is true history! Nothing more. All yr hypocritical s mean NOTHING. TYSON KO BY 10 DOUGLAS. 100 years from now that's what the record books will say and 'nothing more.

 

You called it a stumble. It was more than that. Buster was knocked down by a solid punch and needed near a full count before he got up, he didn’t bounce up straight away like it was a flash knock down. It’s arguable either way, it’s not as simple as saying Douglas had his way the whole fight. The majority of it yes, but you detractors like to ignore certain details or brush little things like solid knock downs under the carpet. I’m all for facts but let’s be fair on both sides.

 

I've never suggested otherwise and there was nothing hypocritcal about my post. I just posted the straight facts of the press and the judges score cards.You seem to have difficulty following debates and often make remarks that have no bearing on the subject at hand ,usually negative ones about me ,which is of no matter.
To enlighten you, I don't like Tyson ,I was glad he got beat,I believe him to be a shitty individual and was personally pleased when Douglas got his just reward , the heavyweight title after outboxing him for most of their fight.
my only issue is Wass's statemment that he beat him," from start to finish ,"he didn't as the scorecards and film emphatically show , and any unbiased person would agree that is the case.Your opinion is without any value or interest to me whatsoever.

 

Whose to say a motivated ,focused Douglas would not repeat the result? He may just have been Tyson's kryptonite?

 

In a 100 Years people with just say Tyson had a bad night. Fair or not. His reign will be remembered more as well as it was more emphatic than most. Probably not fair either. It’s just funny you use the years from now theory because if anything history will be kind to Tyson.

 

It was a figure of speech, he could have got up much quicker but took the count like a true pro. I've seen fighters get straight up from a knockdown yet were still badly hurt and got finished in short order.

 

Tyson was great by either measure, however, his level of relative greatness varies based on the measure used. H2H at his absolute peak he is scary. I have become less interested in inter era debates as it often disfavors fighters based on factors unrelated to their performance.
In my book judging by accomplishment Tyson suffers due to his short prime, failure to avenge losses, etc. . .

 

Cant argue with that. Its pretty much how I see it, the loss doesn't effect his standing as a great fighter but does rule him out of being the high end of the top ten. I tend to bite when people underrate Tyson.

 

He easily could have been up at 2 yeah?