Tyson was referred to as "the black Marciano"

If you’re kinda short, can punch and you move your head sometimes you get to pick up the nickname “XYZ Tyson” and have commentators mention your “similar styles” whenever they run out of stuff to say. fighters such as Dwight Qawi, David Tua and Tommy Morrison were so similar weren’t they?

 

Smoking Joe was described as this .

 

So you’re saying reject the reality of what happened because it was unexpected and proceed as if Tyson had knocked Douglas out since people expected him to?

That’s practically insane.

The fact that Tyson got beat up and bullied by Buster while Mike was in his absolute physical prime of youth at 23 tells us that he wasn’t everything he had been cracked up to be at that point. He was on a tear but it was mostly through leftovers of a poor (outside of Holmes) previous generation of 1980s heavyweights.

We can’t reject results because they were unexpected — that’s when we should most pay attention to them because they’re actual evidence that the expectations weren’t in line with the reality.

 

Good, good I'm glad there is someone who will enlighten us. If Douglas was better than Tyson, why do you think he didn't dominate the heavyweight division from 1986 to 1989, why he didn't unify the titles, beat Berbick, Spinks, Tucker, Holmes, Williams? If Tyson easily knocked out Berbick, what would a better Douglas do with him? If Spinks broke Holmes' dominance, what should Douglas do with him since he made the guy who Holmes and Spinks knocked out without any problem cry to tears. so why didn't Buster do it??

 

But fellas, Mike Tyson lost his prime at age 24 by losing to James Buster Douglas on Feb 11 1990.

 

If Tyson was better than Douglas, wouldn’t he have beaten him? LOL.

Douglas was better than Tyson on the night they fought. There can be no dispute about that — Mike got beaten like a rented mule. That’s all that mattered.

Mike had a better career, but not the kind of career he could have had if he was what you (and other stans) seem to think he was.

 

please don't laugh at me, just explain to me that if someone is a high jumper and regularly jumps 2 meters high with a lot of margin and then knocks down the bar at 2 meters and it seems that it is too high, you will assume that he is a weak jumper and these 2 meters were always out of his reach but those crossbars were magical? in one night Ali was worse than Spinks, Liston than Marshal, Duran than Laing, Hearns than Barkley, Jones than Johnson, Lewis than McCall, Klitschko than Purritty etc. etc. This is not a computer game where your hero is always the same, he has these same parameters. Was Tyson worse than Douglas in one night? That's right

 

They only fought the one night. (Was it even night in Toyko, lol?)

That’s what we have to measure them H2H.

Make had a better career. I noted that. Doesn’t mean he’d beat Buster if they fought 1,000 times … styles make fights, and a big, fluid, strong guy with a jab like that probably gives Tyson problems (and maybe bests him) every time at any stage.

Mike was 23 years old. Most of your other examples aren’t prime vs. prime and to suggest that Tyson wasn’t in his prime at that age is intellectually dishonest.

 

Holyfield was the black Marciano ,Holyfield had that obscene endurance like Marciano ( the warrior formula) Tyson lost mojo in his latter days

 

Lol! Tyson never came from behind to win.

 

this is very interesting what you write. So not one of Tyson's previous 37 opponents resembled Douglas, right? none of them were big, strong, fluid guys with good jab ? Douglas was the first and the only one in the 1980s? He didn't have the style for Jesse Ferguson, but he had the style for Mike Tyson?

 

Not one of Tyson’s previous opponents had as good a job as Buster with as much heft behind it. Holmes would have if they had fought closer to Larry’s prime, or perhaps he had been allowed a tuneup and a proper amount of time for a training camp but Team Tyson just threw enough money at him that Larry grabbed it and took it on short notice with all that rust. Probably at any stage they could have actually met, Tyson wins anyway (as it would always be a well-past-prime Holmes) but that’s the only jab that remotely resembled Buster’s.

Of course, James Tillis gave Mike a pretty good tilt and he was kind of a poor man’s Douglas in a way.

Buster was very inconsistent. He was motivated and at his best the night he fought Tyson. He completely bullied and dominated Mike aside from a flash knockdown, got up from that and then beat Tyson from pillar to post. That’s what actually happened. There’s video of it if you want to check it out.

Once again, yes, Mike Tyson had a better career. That doesn’t mean he’s better H2H … in fact, since this isn’t a fantasy fight and it actually happened, we have a result to tell us and we can watch it and see it was no fluke. Mike was 23 years old … not 33 or 43. He hadn’t been sitting in jail for 3 years. He was in his physical prime, he was fighting regularly and his results prior to that show he was formidable. But Buster manhandled him and beat him like a rented mule.

 

Well, think about it in the context of the era.

Until Douglas, Tyson was considered invincible, beating him was seen as impossible for that crop of Heavyweights.

 

I understand, so you have a simple explanation: Douglas had features that none of the rivals Tyson beat had: Homes 88, Spinks, Tucker, Bruno, Williams, Ferguson, Smith, Frazier, Berbick, Ribalta, Biggs, Thomas, Tubbs, no one he knew earlier that, unlike the others, he had very unique skills and features, i.e., as you said: height, strength and good jab, which none of them had and that didn't suit Mike. Douglas didn't have the qualities for Jesse Ferguson, but it worked perfectly for Mike. Either way, Douglas was significantly different from all those I mentioned, since he dominated the player who dominated them - the difference must have been.. COLLOSALL !!
HOW is it possible that no one noticed it before???? that Douglas is so special, so unique, so different? none of the experts who predicted Tyson's easy triumph, none of the bookmaker analysts who make predictions before the fight, some of them did not even open bets on this fight, none of the fans like us noticed that Douglas could be completely different from Spinks, Berbick, Tucker etc. It's amazing, isn't it?
I wonder what's the point of discussing fantasy fights and their place in history if people like us, people who passionately analyze and discuss fights, can't predict such obvious things, can't properly evaluate the fighter, it looks like we don't really know **** . If we cannot see that the 42-1 underdog has features that can help him dominate the fight with the favorite, then on what basis do we predict, for example, that Ali would win against Tim Whitearspoon or that Usyk would be better than Oliver McCall? Neither would be a 42-1 favorite if such a fight took place.

 

They did try to market him as a Joe Frazier, from what I remember. They put a lot on his left hook and Tyson mentioned that's not even his best punch, as far as he figured. I don't remember the Marciano thing. But it's all nonsense and there's never been or will ever be anything like Tyson or Marciano or Frazier again. Because Asians are going to take over and people will be completely baffled when they hear whites and blacks used to run the show. The time of the Asian heavyweight is now.