Tucker's hand broken or just an excuse ?

Buster was one of Tyson's most talented opponents and came to the match with a better gameplan than anyone else did pre-prison.

 

They were all talented. He was similar to Biggs, Williams, and Tucker, who beat Douglas.

 

He wasn't, he was miles better than Biggs and Williams, and was beating Tucker pretty soundly before gassing out. He also had the physicality they lacked, hence why he could actually decipher Peek-A-Boo.

 

Nothing about the guy’s career suggests he was better than them apart from one night. And he wasn’t soundly beating Tucker.

This is a case of you wanting it to be one way, when it was another way.

Slinks, Holmes, and Thomas were better.

 

signs of wear and tear don't matter if you don't take your job seriously. Tyson Fury being the leader of his category went out to an inactive, older MMA fighter who was making his boxing debut and was almost knocked out fighting for his life with an unclassified boxer.
Does this mean that Ngannou is a top HW? Does this mean that a 37 year old, inactive MMA fighter is on the same level as a world heavyweight champion? Yes or no? This is a simple question but it requires an honest answer and this has its consequences

 

Beating Mike Williams, Berbick and McCall back to back is better than what those guys did. And no, he was absolutely winning against Tucker before gassing out. It was competitive but he was winning.

Spinks was a light-heavyweight with bad knees on his way out, Holmes was 38 and retired for two years with no tune-ups and Thomas was hardly impressive leading up to the Tyson match.

Douglas was the first big, skilled and actually-strong HW that actually stood his ground against Tyson instead of trying to box off of his back-foot. And the results showed.

 

Douglas was Tyson's least valued rival since Berbick. He didn't invent gunpowder. Thomas, Berbick, Ruddock, Bruno, Tubbs took on Tyson hard, some of them he simply didn't give a chance. Any of them could have beaten TokioTyson. and then we would have said - oh, Tyson was good but Carl Williams with his reach showed how to fight him.

 

What's your scorecard of Tucker vs Douglas ?
The judges had it basically even.
Douglas started better but Tucker rallied strong and overwhelmed him in the 10th round.

 

McCall and Williams were unranked. Williams would never be relevant. Berbick was Truth’s leftovers, so that one doesn’t fly. Beating Holmes and Cooney was obviously better.

You just moved the goalposts significantly on the Tucker fight from claiming Douglas was way up. It was a close fight and Tucker came on and got the stoppage. That shows that Tucker was better.

Douglas was good enough to take advantage of a flat version of Mike whereas Bruno and (hypothetically) others weren’t. That isn’t disrespectful to Douglas.

 

Bruno was as big as Douglas, hit harder and stood his ground, he even wobbled Tyson and still ended up getting destroyed. Ruddock was bigger than Douglas, had way more power, underrated skill and timing. Went into a firefight with Tyson and still came off second best. Savarese was big fringe contender and a past it Tyson still washed him in a round. Tucker had larger dimensions than Douglas, just less fat. This idea that big determined heavyweights are all wrong for Tyson is a myth.

 

Bonecrusher was as physically strong as any 80s heavyweight and his power was up there too.

 

I dont care about their rank all that much, McCall had a better career and was a better fighter than 90% of the opposition of the remaining ones. Berbick wasn’t anybody’s leftovers, he lost a decision and didn’t lose to anybody but Douglas until 7 years later. Beating those two back to back is better than beating the worst version of Gerry Cooney. I actually rank the Holmes win very high but he lost the rematch and Michael isn’t half as proven at HW at Douglas.

It was a close fight Douglas was winning soundly, not sure what you dont understand. That fight only showed Tucker’s superior conditioning and toughness.

It is very much disrespectful to reduce the win into Mike being flat. Douglas fought an amazing fight against the Peek-A-Boo style, Mike would always have a rough night against the way Douglas fought.

 

Ruddock and especially Savarese weren’t half as skilled as Douglas. Tucker retreated the whole night. Bruno was the closest that came to Douglas and even he was too fragile to stand with Tyson despite his impressive performance in the first match. Tyson struggled with anyone that could stand in the pocket with him without retreating or chinned, and lost to anyone with elite skills that did so.

 

And yet Tucker beat Douglas and had a better chin. Tucker has faster legs than Douglas and fought Tyson plenty in that fight, he was just backpedaling. Ruddock has superior offense and power to Douglas at the end of the day, he was destroying guys with that hybrid uppercut. Bonecrusher Smith was bigger than Douglas in earlier pro fights and trimmed down, hit harder too and couldn't do anything with Tyson. It was Douglas tactics of smothering Tyson, limiting his offense, timing sneaky uppercuts and building points every time he had the range. Holyfield employed similar tactics and he was a small heavyweight.

Douglas got sparked out as many times as Bruno btw, so who's the fragile one ?

 

Just stop. McCall was just learning how to box. You box rec’d that fun fact about Berbick’s longevity. The reality of it is that he didn’t get any really notable wins after Thomas.

Spinks literally has a better heavyweight resume than Douglas and easily beat a guy who Douglas failed to beat.

Mike didn’t really even have a peek a boo style. He was explosive at midrange.