Sure did, Roberto Duran vs Esteban De Jesus II on March 16 1974, TKO 11 for Duran. Before that Carlos Monzon TKO 7 over Jose Mantequilla Napoles on Feb 9 1974. I saw George Foreman TKO 2 over Ken Norton on March 26 1974. Then Muhammad Ali vs Joe Frazier II on Jan 28 1974, Ali by unanimous decision. Of course Ali vs Foreman on Oct 30 1974, Ali by KO 8, Ali regains the title taken from him in 1967.
Unbeatable Hell no. But a heavy favorite for most great heavyweights in history. Yes. Only a select 4-5 heavyweights in history I'd pick against him.
If any other boxer struggles but WINS, they got "exposed" even if they had plenty of legitimate circumstances leading to the struggle such as Foreman switching trainers, coming off a loss, and being mentally devastated. Tyson straight up LOSES to the better man with no foul play, here comes a 20 page essay explaining all the reasons he lost. It's comedy. Tyson is literally held to a different standard for some people. It's right there on display and he's certainly not the 1st, 50th, or even 100th person to make contradictory biased statements like that.
I was told Tyson didn’t train for Douglas at all then in the next sentence the poster also said he got dropped in sparring by Greg Page. Sorry but last time I saw sparring was considered training wasn’t it?? You could make excuses for the opponents in Tysons best wins too. Holmes (old and inactive), Spinks (inactive, too small),Thomas (drug addicted, past prime), Tucker (busted hand) Tubbs (fat) Williams ( premature stoppage, already been exposed) etc etc. I’ll bet you the Tyson fans would have none of that and they all lost because Tyson was so so awesome at that point. They’re just shameless hypocrites.
yes no excuses. Tyson lost . it is just a fight. Douglas was good boxer & produce strong fight effort performance for championship. there can be no need for essay analysis. Douglas boxes & punches Tyson until he fall down beaten. what else to say?
Better fighters than Tyson have lost fights too. Why all the alibis and cry babying over this hardly ignominious loss by his fans? Tyson took his beating like a man during the fight anyway. No shame at all.
I was born a few years earlier and though I still remember Ali stopping Foreman and beating a range of others I was too young to appreciate the qualities my dad and uncles said he had. Then Holmes came along and I remember winning shed loads of money from schoolmates when I was the only one to back Larry to beat Gerry Cooney. Holmes was my boy for a few years. Until Tyson came along and blew my mind. To a teenage boxing fan, Mike Tyson was like a superhero! He was Superman, he was Hulk, he was indestructible, he was unbeatable! Then Buster came along and in beating Tyson it brought me to my senses. Mike Tyson was not Superman, he was not Hulk and he was not unbeatable. But he was the most exciting and explosive boxer that I had ever seen.
I'm still not under standing how the question works! He can't be unbeatable in prime, cos he was actually beaten in prime. Or am I missing something??
I agree. Unless he had a condition that affected his speed, power and ability from 1990 onwards, I can’t see how he would have been anything other than prime. He was simply a fighter in his prime that fell well below his normal standards. Personally as a Tyson fan, I don’t care for excuses. He lost to the better man on the night, then he moved on.
Absolutely. Whilst he was not at his peak, with his age, ability, how long he lasted despite apparent lack of training and all other factors, Buster, with arguably even more distractions to contend with, beat a prime Tyson. Not a peaking Tyson but a prime one all the same.
Sean O’Grady once described the mindset of a fighter and how they deal with defeat: “When you lose you’re never at your best. Because if you were at your best, how could you lose?” Tyson fans seem to have this mindset for him.