Buster Douglas was a great fighter outside of the Tyson fight

I mean, frankly, anyone who would pick him to beat Tyson while watching the McCall fight and McCall from that fight to beat Lennox would be completely insane, on paper. Paper insanity affects a lot more of the population than diabetes.

 

You’re on fire today. No, he wasn’t.

 

Douglas's run from 1986 to 1990 is underrated he went 11-1 during that time with only a single loss to Tony Tucker in which he was ahead on points.

Douglas's performance vs Mike Williams is one of the best jabbing exhibitions of all time where Douglas amazingly knocked his opponent down 3 times with the jab.

Douglas also handily beat Page, McCall, Berbick, that's 2 former world champions and a future world champion in McCall.

I've always said Tyson and his team should've seen Douglas as more of a threat as he was in red hot form not to mention being almost 6'4 with an 83 inch reach.

 

Buster was one of the great underachievers in HW history. He was impressive against Tucker until the abrupt ending.

In three consecutive bouts, he beat Berbick (who stopped Jeff Sims in his next bout), future Champion McCall, then dethroned Tyson. Greg Page was a reputable win at the time, one match after Page dropped the WBA Title to Tubbs over the Championship Distance. And he did get off the deck to knock out Tyson (something front running Mike himself never did).

For one of his late 1990's knockouts (had to have been Brian Scott or Quinn Navarre), he suddenly went to his toes, and everybody knew he was about to end it, because he went to his toes to find the right angle and then power away plyometrically with that upward rip of his toes off the floor. It was a flash of what he should and could have been.

 

Not one of those three men was world champion.

 

Aside from Tokyo, Douglas could be a very good boxer otherwise.

Col. Bob Sheridan’s preamble on Douglas prior to opening bell was quite prophetic - Buster’s talents were known but his questionable motivation from one fight to another was also no secret - so it came down to the question of “Which Buster” was going to turn up - as Bob Sheridan famously mused.

The difference between very good boxers and ATGs can often boil down to the intangibles Buster took in with him for the Tyson fight - unconditional courage, commitment, desire etc.

However, can any fighter be viewed as an ATG even if only for just the ONE fight?

I would think that, by reasonable definition, the affording of ATG status would require a body of work at a prescribed minimum, also requiring a reasonably broad variance (stylistically) in the quality opposition prevailed over.

 

Yes they were.

 

That is outrageous.

How can I sh%# post under these conditions, Mods!? You’re not gonna get away with this. Greg Page was as useful as a chocolate tea pot.

 

No it's not outrageous at all your "criteria" means diddly squat they were all officially world champions whether you like it or not.

Oliver McCall KO'ed Lennox Lewis.

Trevor Berbick beat 26-0 Pinklon Thomas who was undefeated for 7 years.

Coetzee KO'ed Michael Dokes who was ranked number 1 and 26-0, Greg Page KO'ed Coetzee.

They were all legit wins and each fighter deserved to be world champion even if it was only for a short period.

 

They were strap holders for fragmented, crooked organisations who manufactured belts solely for fees. How do you not know this?

 

Your criteria is a moot point they were all officially world champions and beat legit fighters for that claim. This is a silly argument to be quite honest your arguing a factual statement because it doesn't suit opinion on what is or isn't legit. The fact is they were all officially world champions albeit for a short time but still world champions and beat legit fighters hence they were deserving of being called a world champion.

 

You seem to only have a very surface level understanding of these belts & the organisations behind them. If you’re gonna argue hard & fast you ought to put some research in. Holmes was the champ during this time. Then Spinks, then Tyson. That a bunch of belts were all floating around purely in existence to create money isn’t an opinion - it’s a straight fact.

Of course they called those holding their belts world champions - in an attempt at legitimacy. What did you think they’d call them? Trinket holders?

 

So according to your logic Tyson is not the youngest Heavyweight champion because you don't consider Berbick a world champion.

Tyson is also not a 2 time Heavyweight world champion because he beat Bruno who beat McCall who you also don't consider a world champion.

They were world champions whether you like it or not your opinion or agenda on the matter doesn't change a fact and it's pointless trying to argue something which is factual.