Tucker's hand broken or just an excuse ?

Height fluctuates and a measuring tape does not jump from 6'7 to 6'8, so most of these guys if not all of them did top 6'7, however incrementally.

I'll make your job easier and narrow the category down further to heavyweights who were 6'7+ and named Mike White. Mike White is TBE of this category and it goes without saying that Douglas wouldn't stand a chance.

 

You’re trying to pivot on excuses for Tyson, period. Let’s not pretend here.

You’re asking questions re Douglas but you’re clearly predisposed to rejecting the well rationalised answers that you have been given.

Due respect but your own analysis lacks any depth.

As much analysis as you’re applying, you would also ask how could Foreman have so easily crushed the two guys - Frazier and Norton - who gave Ali hell, - BUT still have ultimately lost to Ali himself.

So, obviously, part of the equation for Douglas’ win is the fact that styles make fights - a fact that you have completely not accounting for.

And, unlike some other Tyson opponents, Douglas fought without one shred of fear - he came to actually win, not merely survive.

As well as being a high level fighter in general when duly conditioned and focused, Douglas possessed the perfect size, reach and skills to beat a fighter like Tyson. The perfect antidote.

Do you think that blown up LHW Spinks’ obvious fear did not contribute in some measure to the ease and emphatic nature of Tyson’s victory over him?

Or, do you believe that victory purely reflected Tyson’s sheer superiority without any consideration of the possibility that his opponent might’ve been under par himself - a consideration you’re clearly only affording to Tyson when it came to his own defeat?

As I said before, the examination of any excuses is your objective - and that examination is only meant to advantage the interpretation of Tyson.

Yet again, take away the question of any excuses and all you’re left with is a defeat (of Tyson) that you appear to be unable to accept without injecting myriad excuses for Mike.

 

Yeah after your post I had a quick check myself but could only find a broadcast that begins at the start of the fight - it didn’t include the preamble before the fight when I recall Sheridan musing about “Which Buster” we might see.

 

agreed

 

He said immediately after the fight that he wanted a rematch.

Does that mean he didn’t ’demand’ it hard enough?

He hurt his hand in training and reinjured it in the second round. “Iron” Mike couldn’t get a one-handed guy out of there. (Go back and look at postfight interviews and you’ll see Mike is the one making excuses.)

 

I actually think white might be better than Yoka, I watched that Moorer fight last night

 

Sugar Ray Leonard’ opponents are the same way …they all have an excuse why they loss …even Floyd Mayweather Sr

 

ok, I accept - the tall 6.7 was kryptonite for Buster Douglas. Buster outclassed the best HW of the 80s considered ATG but the tall yourneyman was too difficult for him. Space but ok. And Ferguson? What did he have that was so special that Tyson didn't have and what was kryptonite for Douglas?

Yoyce, Dubois, AJ - we are writing about classy rivals. Every nuance matters here. Do you think that the difference in class between Yoyce, Dubois, AJ is as big as between Tyson and Whyte???? as between Tyson and Ferguson??

 

I reject all excuses for Tyson!! I REJECT!! I'm writing this probably for the 18th time. I mentioned the New York Times article, I mentioned Tyson's testimony, Bobby Brown's story, Greg Page's statements but of course I take into account that it could be a conspiracy, lies invented by these people before and after the fight, really no problem and get both of them into your head before I have to write this for the NEXT time!! I can even, like this moron, think that Tyson was much more ready for Buster who was lost in despair after his dead mother, sick and broken, was in the worst shape of his career - I can't assess the impact it had. I look BROADCAST!! at the whole career/ and I ask this question for the 20th time at least - how could a better fighter than Tyson not be able to do 10% of what Tyson did? how could Buster who was better than Tyson not be able to beat White, Tangstadd, Ferguson?? Was Tyson a lower level than Ferguson??

Usain Bolt ruled the sprint for almost a decade. He outclassed everyone. But he had one year when he didn't exist in the top 10. Did that mean that the remaining 6 or 7 years of his career, when he was the best, were fiction? Or was that one season normal and all the medals he won in other years were counted because in one season he was average despite being at a great age, the series won for itself, etc.? How do you explain that in one season he was number 1 and in another number 15? You won't write it because it will all be excuses, right? He's a comic book character like Tyson. Every day of his career, in every performance, he is THE SAME?? How on earth did Tyson outclass at least 10 rivals who were ranked higher and more valued than Buster? Are those 10 fights a hoax and a coincidence?

 

Look, Tucker fought a clever survivalist fight. He clinched and held and at most won two rounds despite huge height and reach advantages. Every fighter has excuses after every loss. Maybe his hand was damaged but he still. Fought to survive and then did nothing for years later, essentially threw away a career many thought would have been so much better based on his skills and amateur pedigree. Maybe if he dedicated himself to maximizing his talent and bounced back instead of floundered he’d get more of benefit of the doubt but the way he followed up his career post Tyson made no one care one way or the other . He’s the poster child for 80’s wasted talent as he might have been the best of them all .. he just started to underachieve and drifted.

 

No, what you do is to ask really dumb questions while being predisposed to REJECT all the common sense answers that you receive.

Don’t be calling anyone else a moron because that is exactly what you are, a moron, no one else.

Without bias, I have drawn my logical conclusions as to why Douglas defeated Tyson - without needing to employ the excuse that Tyson was woefully under par.

I gave you another chance but you have continued to wast my time. No more chances.

You’re clearly a Tyson tragic who can’t get past his own biases and your obvious inability to apply due analysis.

 

calling someone an idiot I didn't mean you or Piguy or the One. I ignore idiots and usually I don't even know what they write, but I don't ignore you because I hope for a substantive discussion, nothing more.. I ask normal questions but I get answers to something else, I still hear about Tyson's excuses which I am not interested in at all. I can believe them, you can't, it doesn't matter to me - that's not what I'm talking about!!

A simple example - there is a high jumper who regularly jumps above 8 feet, does it 10 times and wins Olympic gold medals.. Later he loses the bar at a height of 7.5 feet. Are we supposed to call him a 7.5 foot jumper and claim that he would never jump 8 feet? that it's too much for him?

Tyson regularly outclassed opponents of Douglas' class, he did it a dozen or so times.. Maybe we should find excuses for Spinks, Williams, Bruno, Ruddock, Holmes, Thomas, Tubbs, Biggs, Stewart, Ferguson and all the rest?
So far the only metaphorical statement I've heard is - Douglas knew how to control Tyson. The mystery remains how. He wasn't considered better than Ferguson, Ruddock, Bruno, Tubbs etc. Simply - Tyson seemed free because Douglas controlled him, thank you, that exhausts the subject.. and if you want to pick on him, you must be a Tyson fanboy. All questions of this type cause aggression and hysteria, extremely

 

Tyson was a monster from Marvis Frazier through Carl Williams even thought mentally he was breaking down and seriously distracted as far back as the Tubbs fight .. the funny thing is he was already slipping mentally for his biggest carer win (M. Spinks) ... Tyson probably peaked at the Holmes fight ... after that the endless distractions of being the complete crossover celebrity of the age completely screwed with his focus and edge ... that said his run was insane and for that brief window he was an astonishing fighter.

 

He wasn't a 6.7 he was a 6.10. I said hes one of the best HWs ever north of 6.7 because there aren't many decent HWs taller then that. An impression that No Necks response just further reinforced.

And no he wasn't "kryptonite" for Douglas because Douglas outboxed him over a long period. A fact you keep dancing around.

Jesse Ferguson and Joyce are certainly comps in their respective eras.

 

I know, the skipping over of Douglas’ domination of White before being stopped himself is deliberate or reflective of unwitting, superficial analysis.

I’ll just say that it is very arguable to view Douglas, as he performed on the night in Tokyo in his own right, as being Tyson’s best opponent to date.

That’s accounting for all the physical tools, skills and commitment Douglas clearly upheld during the fight.

Some prior opposition might’ve brought a little bit of this and a little bit of that in the same regards - but Buster brought it All to the table at the same time.

Throw into the pot that Buster, per his own style, was arguably stylistic poison for a fighter of Mike’s own ilk.

Buster even survived a brutal KD in rd 8 only to come back with a vengeance after same and pick up where he left off. Mikes own resume doesn’t uphold him as ever having done same.

Compare Douglas’ resolve to Mike’s prior opponent, Carl Williams, who at least imo, mentally surrendered after Mike dropped him -

Many figured that Douglas would be just another 90 sec victim also - based on another, prior 90 sec or so victory over a **** scared Spinks, we saw the instalment of insane 42-1 odds - yes, Superman odds - unrealistic.

However, we can see with our own eyes WHY majority pre fight forecasts didn’t come to fruition - and it was very much to do with Buster himself and his own performance therein.

It was clear that Buster didn’t come to fold so easily as Carl Williams. He also didn’t come just to survive, he came to win for better or worse - not fulfil his own prophecy as another hapless victim.

Conversely, until Tokyo, Mike hadn’t found himself placed in a position of true adversity which he came back from.

Mike definitely thrived and looked at his very best as an early to mid front runner before lowering the boom on his opponents.

Fighters of Mike’s type can often appear invincible in such fights but the perception is always exaggerated due to the emphatic nature of victory over certain levels of opposition.

Against fighters a level or two above, complexions and outcomes can drastically change - as was the case in Tokyo.

In Tokyo, Mike was simply unable to overcome the superiority and control Douglas exerted from opening bell - and Buster was mindfully proactive in establishing that control from first bell, not least with a brilliant jab.

See Ali’s own opening rounds vs in two prior monsters in the forms of Liston and later Foreman, sensational starts to fights that sent a clear message and set the tone.

It was Mike getting hit first and often, so why wouldn’t his own plans be naturally disrupted in some measure - a reaction he so famously claimed of his victims?

After Tokyo, we have a few other examples of Mike ultimately being unable to overcome true adversity to suggest that, in that very regard, Tokyo wasn’t a one off.