Tyson was referred to as "the black Marciano"

What exactly is your point? That Douglas didn’t beat Tyson, lol?

He beat him up. Knocked him out.

He obviously possessed something that others didn’t have — maybe he just wasn’t afraid. Maybe he had more fire in his belly that night than they have. Maybe he was more motivated for this fight than any fight in his entire life (that would seem to be the case).

You’re basically saying because Tyson beat other people he’s better H2H than a guy who beat him. I noted that Tyson had a better career but that doesn’t mean he didn’t lose to Douglas and that doesn’t erase that loss. Douglas stood up to the bully in ways the others did not and we saw the result.

So again, what is your point? Are you saying Tyson had a better career than Douglas? We agree. Are you saying the result shouldn’t count? We disagree. Are you actually saying Douglas didn’t beat him because of Jesse Ferguson? Lol.

We see fighters who had lesser careers beat favored fighters all the time. What they accomplished in their comparative careers doesn’t nullify the result.

 

hmm, the fact that Douglas beat Tyson is a fact that everyone knows, a child can Google it. You must understand that my question from the very beginning is - what does this mean? Ali lost to a guy who had 7 fights under his belt and lost to every good opponent except Ali. Duran lost to Kirklaind Laing, Wlad lost to Ross Purritty, Hearns was beaten by Barkley, Jones was beaten by Johnson, etc. etc. Tyson was damn undisciplined, but what does that have to do with what he did to Holmes, Berbick, Spinks, Williams, Tubbs and several other high-level fighters? yourneyman? Tyson Fury almost lost to a 37-year-old who was making his boxing debut and was inactive in sports. So who exactly did Usyk defeat on Saturday? someone on Ngannou's 0-2 level?

 

Point by point:

1) Ali was ancient by this time and (we learned) in poor health with early stages of a major disease. Nobody, including me, much counts Tyson’s KO losses to nobodies late in his career when he was past it against him (although tbf at least Ali avenged his defeat and didn’t get stopped and Leon was ranked, not a complete nobody).

Tyson was 23 in his physical prime when Douglas punked him and knocked him out.

2. Duran, likewise, was well past it and a few divisions above his best weight when he lost to Kirkland, who flitted around the ring like a bird avoiding a fight to steal a decision. He didn’t KO Duran in Roberto’s prime.

3. Wlad losing to Puritty absolutely does count against his legacy. Anyone will tell you that. He was soft. He did recover from that to become a really good fighter.

4. Barkley was a world champion in a couple of weight divisions and Hearns was a few divisions above his prime weight. It’s a heck of a lot better loss. If Barkley had never fought Hearns he would still be considered a really good fighter in his era. If Douglas doesn’t beat Tyson, he’s a never-was … but he dominated Tyson and made his name.

5. Roy Jr’s decline was pretty rapid after the Ruiz fight, although he had a couple notable wins.

6. Fury ‘almost loss’ isn’t the same as losing. It was a bad performance for sure.

7. Tyson being ‘undisciplined’ didn’t seem to be a factor until Douglas punked him. It’s an excuse. “He had sex in Japan, the loss doesn’t count!!!” Sure, I’m sure he was a virgin before that lol.

He was in shape (about a pound heavier than his previous defense and two pounds heavier than when he fought Spinks … basically he could have taken a dump before the weigh-in and been what he was for those fights). So he wasn’t ‘undisciplined’ enough that he didn’t train at all or he would have been much heavier.

Your point seems to be ‘he beat other guys so the Douglas loss really doesn’t count.’ Otherwise I still don’t understand what you’re going on about. It’s 100% a blight on his resume and legacy that he got dominated, beat up and knocked out in his absolute physical prime. To say ‘well he beat Biggs and Pinklon so we’ll overlook Douglas’ is pretty much a joke.

Answer me those two questions:

1) Have you watched Tyson-Douglas?

2) If so, who do you think was the better fighter that night? (If not, go watch it and answer.)

 

It's funny because I wanted to ask you if you watched Douglas-Tyson. I really thought not.
Point by point:
1. Before the fight, it was said that Tyson was not in shape, his sparring partners said that something was wrong (Greg Page, who threw him on the boards and said that he didn't know what was happening), during the fight, commentators said that Tyson was different, after the fight everyone said Tyson was different. You are one of the few people who do not see that Tyson moved slower, was much slower, threw fewer combinations, was in worse condition, was unfocused, had no idea how to fight and had probably the weakest corner imaginable. But for some reason you think otherwise. He was 23 years old, so he couldn't feel bad, he couldn't be poorly prepared, he couldn't underestimate his opponent, he couldn't have a bad day.
2. Ali was still the world champion, he was 36 years old, not that much. If he was sick in the first fight, did he recover in the second? I don't know if you know, but after the first fight with Ali, Spinks did what Tyson did after Berbick - he gave up boxing, stopped training, started going to clubs and spending all night long. 25-year-old Spinks is a champion, 30-year-old Spinks is yourneyman. Can you tell your shape by your scale? Tyson gained and lost weight, which is always bad for his form, before the fight he lost a lot of weight, but it had no effect on the ring. You can be lighter and worse - see Wilder's experiments.
3. From what I understand, Douglas was the only one in the 1980s who was tall, had a good jab, moved well and was not afraid of Tyson. I keep asking you what the difference is between Douglas and Holmes, Spinks, Williams, Biggs, Berbick, Smith, Ferguson, Bruno, Thomas etc. You still haven't mentioned anything that's hard to notice - power, size, good apple... did that make him different from the rest? were they all cowards? It's funny that Holmes, fighting carefully, lost the rounds to Tyson, but he was doing well, he started fighting bravely and immediately there was something wrong with this strategy. Were Tucker, Bruno and Ruddock, who landed very strong punches at the beginning of the fight, afraid of Tyson? was Thomas afraid of him and Dundee shouted at him to get away from this guy and stop fighting with him? Tubbs and Biggs who won the first round? Berbick who was hitting like crazy, also fouling?
to answer your questions:
yes, I watched the Douglas-Tyson fight
yes, I thought Douglas was better that night. In the form from Tokyo, Tyson would not be able to cope with Berbick, Biggs, Holmes.
But honestly, after winning 37 fights in a row, knocking out legends such as Spinks and Holmes, unifying all HW belts, outclassing 3 Olympic champions, winning 10 title fights, Mike could lose to, for example, Mickey Mouse. He could even be outclassed by Micky... and it wouldn't even occur to me - damn, if Micki won against Tyson prime, he must be an exceptional fighter. No, I would think that Tyson is simply not a character from a computer game, but a flesh-and-blood man, with numerous weaknesses, who approached Micki without being himself. Otherwise I'd have to give Mickey over Holmes, Berbick, Spinks, Thomas etc... or assume he has something so special about Mike that he could be considered Tyson's true kryptonite.

 

If you can’t see a difference between Tokyo Douglas and Jesse Ferguson, I’m not sure what to tell you.

Yes, he was a big, solid guy with a monster jab who had some durability and was amazingly fluid.

Frank Bruno was stiff as a board and scared to death. Thomas was a heroin addict. Tucker broke his hand early but I don’t think he presents any particular challenge to Tyson other than being big and durable either way … maybe wins another round or two at most. I could go on and on.

Go watch Tyson-Tubbs round one and Douglas-Tyson round one. I don’t think you’ll see a different Mike. I think you’ll see that Tony fell down and it was over as soon as he got hit solid. Buster didn’t. Mike was too busy getting beat up to throw combos. He was a front runner and Buster took the play away.

Buster was a better fighter when they fought. You seem to want to dismiss that because Tyson … beat Tyrell Biggs? WTF does that have to do with it.

Mike had a better career. I’ve said it more times than I can count.

Buster was better H2H when they fought.

What in those two sentences are you disputing?

I guess if there’s a difference, I think the Tokyo version of Douglas (he was inconsistent and never showed that form and willpower and drive in any other fight that mattered … he didn’t even want to really be a boxer from what I gather) gives Tyson fits at any stage of Mike’s career and apparently you don’t agree.

OK, we disagree. But even you point out Mike’s flaws … let’s say that Mike getting beat in Tokyo was at least in part to him not preparing properly — whose fault is that? Being a great fighter includes being ready to fight. He’s defending the heavyweight championship of the world. If he wasn’t ready to fight, shame on him. It proves he wasn’t all you seem to think he was.

 

I guess it's not that bad if we get to the point. I agree that Douglas was better in Tokyo, you agree that Tyson had a better career. it's ok, but just let me understand your way of thinking and don't avoid simple questions and we'll definitely get to the point.
1. Tyson won 37 fights before Douglas, right? he had outclassed the current Olympic champion, won against 3 current world champions, knocked out Holmes as the only one in Larry's 30-year career, won against 3 Olympic champions, won against 5 former champions, etc. and yet none of these rivals had what Buster had , Do I understand it correctly? Bruno was too stiff, Tubbs hit too weak, Tucker broke his hand, Thomas was a cuck, you can probably find something for each of Tyson's 37 rivals that was his flaw that Douglas didn't have, right? for Berbick, Biggs, Ferguson, Frazier, Holmes, Spinks, Williams, etc. To sum up, everyone had some flaws and Douglas had none, so he was better than them, right? much better because he destroyed someone who was destroying them, am I right? is this your way of thinking?
3. last point, the most important! If Douglas was better or different than 37 previous rivals Mike, if he had advantages that they did not have that you noticed, if they had disadvantages that you noticed and Douglas did not have them... HOW is it possible that they were all so wrong? that they valued someone so special at 42:1? that no one noticed that Bruno was stiff and Douglas wasn't, that Tubbs hit weakly and Douglas hit hard etc etc... isn't that the strangest thing you've ever heard? everyone was wrong - publicists, specialists, coaches, journalists, analysts, fans, and so much so. Can you explain this phenomenon?

 

I see a point 1 and a point 3 but I don’t see a point 2.

You’re all over the place but for kicks and giggles:

1. Yes Tyson won 37 fights. His record is easily available.

I don’t care how many Olympic champions he beat, that isn’t a mark of professional success. His opponents should be taken on their merits as professionals, not what they did as amateurs.

I will point out that one of those, Michael Spinks, was a middleweight Olympic champ who made his bones at light heavyweight but held the lineal heavyweight title. His knees were shot, but he still had that. It’s an historically significant win, but not a ‘great’ win imo.

Tyrell Biggs, an actually big-boy Olympic champ, was a cocaine addict at the time. What did he have, 15 or so pro fights. Lot of skill but what was his major pro accomplishment? His management rushed him into the title fight because the way he was going with drugs they figured better take their shot then or he’d self-destruct. Tell me what makes him a great win based on what he did as a pro boxer.

I’m blanking on who the third Olympic champ was whom Tyson had beaten before he fought Douglas. But if we want to rate Tyson as an amateur, he lost in the Olympic trials to Henry Tillman so I guess those guys were better amateurs than Mike was. (Evander Holyfield, another Olympian … at light heavyweight … did beat Mike up and stop him twice.)

Mike definitely cleaned up the leftovers of the non-Holmes 1980s scene. Of the three ‘champions’ he beat (before Spinks) how many combined successful defenses had they made? The answer is zero. Tucker won a vacant title that Spinks walked away from and never defended it successfully. Bonecrusher was 19-5 and hadn’t made a defense. Berbick had a KO1 loss to Bernardo Mercado and been beaten by cruiserweight ST Gordon. He was, indeed, a belt holder.

I don’t really think any of the three — Berbick, Tucker nor Smith — were heavyweight champions. They held belts. They were never The Guy nor did anyone seriously consider them champs.

Every fighter, including Tyson, has flaws. Douglas beat Tyson when they could not. So I guess he did have something they didn’t have. I think the best version of Buster whips all of the above (and did whip Tyson).

You keep asking what Buster had that they didn’t. Well, on his resume he has a KO over Tyson. As for what he brought to the ring at his best, as I have said repeatedly he was a big, fluid guy who threw great combinations and had a hammer of a jab that kept Tyson at bay. He also had the fire in his belly and lack of fear that most of the above lacked.

3. (Since you didn’t have a point 2 enumerated) The boxing (and betting) public bought into the hype that Tyson was invincible. I guess they were wrong — how could they be so wrong, lol? They thought he’d beat Buster Douglas and he got beat up by him instead. So what does it matter what people perceive or believe as opposed to the REALITY of what we saw when they fought?

We have their beliefs proven wrong by the two men themselves in a boxing ring and yet you build your house of cards on what they believed rather than what actually transpired. They were 100% wrong as the result showed. That is the FACT of the matter.

 

I don't know why you're avoiding the answer. Too difficult questions? did all the experts also believe the hype around Mike? None of them saw anything in Douglas? Is that how you see it? no one knew that his rivals had problems with being overweight, lacking abs, broken arms, weak punches, drugs? Are you really not surprised by such a contrast? Can you find another big mistake in the history of boxing?

 

What questions?

The experts were wrong. Does the result not tell you that? Who cares what they think and what does that have to do with anything?

Try to articulate your point: Explain why it matters to you what the ‘experts’ think and why that’s more important to you than what happened in the actual fight.

 

The experts were wrong about what? that Douglas isn't a few miles better or a few miles different than Tyson's 37 previous opponents? In your opinion, he is a few miles better or a few miles different than Holmes, Spinks, Tubbs, Smith, Thomas, Williams and all the other boxers defeated by Tyson from the 1980s, right?

 

No, he was a few miles better than Mike Tyson when they fought.

I still don’t understand what your point is and it’s exhausting.

Let’s say I agree with you — what exactly am I agreeing on … that Buster Douglas was a terrible fighter? That just makes Tyson even worse for losing to him at age 23 in his prime.

 

just try to draw conclusions from your own conclusions. If Buster was terrible, and Tyson was even more terrible because he lost to him, what to say about the entire top of the 80s, which Mike went through like a bulldozer? And if this top title was so terrible, what about the top 1990s, where the terrible Holmes in 1988 was competing against Mercer, McCall, and Holyfoeld? Do you understand the lack of logic in your arguments? how much less likely is the fact that NONE of the well-known boxing trainers and analysts recognized Douglas at all and claimed that this was the easiest defense of the title against the possibility that the boxer known for his great discipline did not prepare at all for a weak rival? 1000 times? 1500 times? this was visible before and during the fight, this is confirmed by observers and every objective viewer of this fight. Only Tyson's haters claim that he was in great shape and on this basis they should consider Douglas as much, much better than each of Tyson's earlier rivals, which they do not want to do in order not to expose themselves to ridicule.