trever berbick could have beat Mike Tyson

The era was pretty solid.
Tubbs, Spinks, Ruddock, Bruno, Smith, Tucker, they’d all have good chances of winning a belt in the last ten years which has been dreadful.
Tyson went 45-1 until he was 30, his short height and style was never going to be great much past 30.
Tyson is done dirty too much for losing to Douglas, a fight which he by all accounts didn’t take seriously and came up against an opponent who was motivated beyond belief and had the best night of his life.

When he lost to Holyfield he’d lost that edge that made him what he was, he wasnt much more than half the fighter he’d been years earlier really.

 

Berbick had already been stopped, punchers weren’t his style. A bit like Ken in that way, he could be a great spoil to boxers.

 

It's the opposite. Tyson gets a pass for the Douglas fight strictly because "he didn’t take seriously" like it's some kind of excuse that he didn't do his job as a fighter. Fights are won outside the ring too, in the boxing gym. People also forget that Buster wasn't also 100% on that night - fought sick on antibiotics and had personal dramas. So he definitely should get a lot of stick for it. But it doesn't change the fact that his 3 year reign was one of the most amazing in the history of the sport and in 3 years he managed to achieve more than 99.9% of the fighters in 10-15-20 year careers.

 

Me neither. Would of liked to of seen it

 

I think if Trev had fought like to normally did he would of lasted longer but I can see him winning. Why he stood and fought for only God knows.He was a total nutter so maybe that's it.

 

I can see your point but disagree. He gets a lot of stick for that loss, Douglas was very good when he was motivated.
And it’s the only blot on Tyson’s record until he got to 30 where I would argue he was well past prime and his problems had caught up with him, but that’s another thing.
Wlad, Lewis, Louis, plenty of other great heavies lost at least once to guys that you wouldn’t expect them to, I say that Tyson is done dirty because he seems to get more than his share of heat for that loss than the others did.

 

Wlad gets way more heat for his losses. For some people, they are the only fights he was involved in. I think a boxer that gets the least critique for his losses is Lewis, which is strange as he got one shotted twice. Louis lost to Schmeling but he avenged that in style and didn't lose again until he came back from retirement.

 

Because Lewis avenged all his losses and Ross Purrity is of a lower level than anyone who beat Lewis, although think you're exaggerating about him getting critiqued the least, he also got up against McCall but wasn't given a chance. Holyfield probably has the least criticism on his losses.

 

Agreed with Holyfield. Sure, Lewis avenged the losses, but it didn't earase them, especially the McCall one, as the rematch was the weirdest fight ever showed on screen. Wlad got up every time too. He never was shot down.

 

A KO loss is still a KO loss yes, Lewis beat everyone he faced though. Also Wlad got his brother to beat Sanders, and Brewster brutally finished him off, to the point you had to feel sorry for Klitschko

 

Of course, Trevor could have won on a bad day. If he caught Mike on a bad day. If he got incredibly lucky and something special happened. But realistically, out of 20 fights, he's been knocked out in 19, just like in their real fight. He might last longer, he might last shorter, but a KO on Trevor is the most logical outcome.

 

...but he didn't.

/thread

 

This content is protected