Why does Tyson get a pass?

Tyson got whooped by Buster because Buster had a good plan, prime or no prime in shape or not in shape I give Douglas good odds that win is as legit as they come, Holyfield whooped Tyson then after that… eh, I think he wasn’t the same after prison and I think that’s obvious but Holyfield had the right plan and if they met in 1990 or whatever it’d be a close one.

 

perfectly written!!

people are making up a strange ideology where it is not needed.. If we accept that the Tyson-Douglas fight is not a coincidence then we have to accept that at least 10 other Tyson fights are a coincidence because a fighter who cannot defeat someone like Douglas has no right to dominate in such a style Holmes, Berbick, Stewart, M Frazier, Bruno, Thomas, Tubbs and many others.

We also have to ask ourselves what Douglas was doing outside of Tokyo, the guy beat Tyson but was unable to beat Jesse Ferguson?

can we come up with some excuse for Douglas-Ferguson/Tyson-Ferguson? or maybe the style of the fight?

 

Every champ's opposition has similar asterisks. Name me the champ I will give you the asterisk.

Pinky had a single, very debatable loss, and otherwise was a top operator with victories over Witherspoon, Weaver and a one loss Tillis... as well as a draw with Coetzee.

 

Kind of hard to keep track of when, precisely, a person was engaging in an illegal activity behind closed doors

 

I agree. I'm just saying it's funny how Tyson himself gets a million asterisks, but his defenders rarely offer the same courtesy for his opponents.

 

Just in its own right, I do appreciate the distinction between an excuse and an explanation.

Technically, an excuse can be an explanation (eg a valid excuse) but generally the connotation for the term is negative in so far as excuses being false and based on illegitimate reasoning.

An explanation can have a material point to it.

Hypothetically, I might’ve attributed Lewis’ KO losses to McCall and Rahman to Lennox’s lack of due prep and focus.

Not an excuse per se for those losses in isolation but a reasoned observation that would’ve led me to believe (as well as Lewis himself and his trainers) that a fit and properly prepared/focused Lewis would prevail in the rematches - which he did in fact do.

 

Have you ever counted the asterisks on Dempsey, Jack Johnson or Marciano?

 

They are claiming Tysons prime was over at 25 when he was undefeated. Logic isn't in the discussion. Yeah its a double standard that should be apparent they would never treat a different fighter with the same fact pattern the same.

Pretending Buster Douglas was a one fight wonder("Tokyo) is one of the more disrespectful things I've seen. Way to invalidate someones entire life so you could tell a David v Goliath story for the culture.

 

What do you mean pretending? Buster wasn't committed , thats basic common knowledge.
He gave everything he had to give just for the Tyson fight.
Many other guys applied that dedication and commitment to every fight , no matter who they fought.

• This content is protected

This content is protected

• This content is protected

This content is protected

• This content is protected

 

I agree that could be seen as a kind of explanation.

The question is why they're needed. Louis most likely wasn't always optimally focussed and prepared for all of his 25 defences, but still he made them.

As for Ali, great preparation seems to have been the exception rather than the norm in the 70's (even for FOTC by some accounts), but he still came out on top of that era.

Often when these excuses are made they seem to come with the implicit understanding that not having your best night is some kind of rare occurence, almost abberation. It isn't.

 

I don't really understand what you want to convey.

I always have more or less the same thing to say about this fight:

Either Tyson fought drastically below his norm with Douglas

Or Douglas fought drastically above his norm

Or both

If not, then Douglas should have been the conqueror of 3 world champions, 3 Olympic champions, he should have crushed Holmes, Ferguson, Spinks, Tubbs Betnick etc. Why didn't he do it? He lost to 3 fighters beaten by Mike, all these fights were a coincidence, only Tokyo is ok? Tyson's haters are completely blinded, completely.
Tyson's prime has nothing to do with age but with his approach to sports and life. You can be the most athletic man in the world at the age of 25 and at the age of 26 be a wreck of an athlete. There can be many reasons.
Leon Spinks was the champion in 8 fights, in 18 fights he was yourneyman. Walcott and Louis were peers, fought at the same time and look how different their careers were. Who would have said in 1939 that JJW would be the successor to Louis?

 

Perfectly put. Shows that the naivity of thinking and believing in narratives sometimes can blind even the most reasonable people. I remember reading about Charles the Bold - the last semi-independent Duke of Burgundy. He died in battle but many people, having the view of him as a great monarch and skilled warrior, just flat out refused to believe it. Even after his funeral some people (even those considered intellectuals) lend money to others with the deadline of "when Charles the Bold returns". In our eyes they just gave the money for free, but they were 100% sure the deadline is real and Charles will return someday.

 

Tyson was on coke, drank a lot and shagged street whores all throughtout his mythical prime between 1986 and 1990. Hell, he fought Berbick while having gonorrhea he cought during the drug infested party. But he won then, so he doesn't need any excuse, does he?

 

For that one night Douglas was no longer a journeyman-but a formidable opponent who was totally locked in. Tyson thought it would be an easy payday and paid the price for his overconfidence.

As they say in the NFL..."On any given Sunday."

 

You had to go into the late 90s to create that misleading statistic.

Douglas barely lost to Tucker. Tucker was Tysons best title opponent other than Holmes. After this Douglas didn't lose again until Holyfield.

Douglas lost a close 10 round decision to Jesse Ferguson 5 years before the Tyson fight.

Douglas lost to Savarese in 1998 during his 2nd career. Saverese was the best opponent Douglas encountered post Holyfield. Incredibly 24 year old Tyson can write off his loss to Douglas because he "wasn't in his prime" but 38 year old Douglas can't do the same. Ah double standards.

Louis and Walcott were not peers. Walcott was not a peer of Louis's best opponents in general. Walcott fought Louis at the most oppurtune time when Louis had lost his power that had previously made him unbeatable. Otherwise hes never getting to the end of a decision.

Note-Douglas almost shut out Berbick. Some would consider that crushing him.