Why does Tyson get a pass?

Douglas was never a journeyman. The media just made that up. Douglas had one close loss in 5 years to Tony freaking Tucker. By that standard every fighter in the HW division was a journeyman except Tyson,Holmes and Spinks.

 

As I recall the Vegas line had Douglas as a 42-1 long shot--he may have been better than that but the oddsmakers at the time sure didn't think so!

 

Tyson was a dominant champion that doesn't make Douglas a journeyman or an undeserving contender.

Douglas had a 12 inch reach advantage. He'd done well against Tucker who'd done the best against Tyson. He hadn't otherwise lost in 5 years. Vegas was being stupid here favoring Tyson that much.

 

Wasn't Douglas beating Tucker before he gassed out? And thanks for reminding me about a gem of the fight which was Buster vs Berbick.

Regarding Mike, Jim Lampey had a great take on him in his recent interview with Mannix:

This content is protected

 

I certainly can't dispute this in hindsight. (LOL!! I suppose like 99% of planet Earth I got suckered into the "invincibility" aura surrounding Tyson prior to this fight and overlooked Douglas and what he brought to the table.)

 

Check my post history.

No champion's record gets glossed over when I assess their historical ranking. I take the good with the bad.

 

all good, but let me understand ten train of thought:
Yes Douglas was indeed better than Tyson in the 80s as evidenced by the fights with Berbick, Ferguson, Tucker and Douglas should have been the champion but for some reason it was Tyson. Everything went back to normal in Tokyo 1990 only Tyson's fans come up with excuses for Mike.
Do I understand this point of view correctly? No irony my friend, best regards

 

Perfectly put.

Tyson has become one of those athletes who represents something that transcends mere athletic competition to his acolytes. IMO it’s because …and there has been conversation along these lines here … the whole primal, animalistic vibe he gave off in his very short prime was what they think boxing should be.

 

I think Douglas gets unfairly labelled as some type of journeyman who lucked out vs Tyson.

He'd been a top 10 contender for numerous years and had beaten the likes of Greg Page, Oliver McCall, Trevor Berbick.

Not to mention the standout win over Mike Williams in which he knocked his opponent down 3 times with a jab.

His form coming into Tyson was good and Tyson and his team should've seen him as much more of a threat.

Douglas only suffered 1 loss in 3 years leading up to the Tyson fight which was the Tony Tucker fight as you already pointed out and even in that fight he was ahead on points.

 

What I'm really saying is that Douglas deserves to be viewed as one of the best fighters in the era opposed to superor to a Tyson or even a Tucker. Not that I'd neccessarily disagree with that but thats not the point. People think Ali is better than Norton and Frazier but no ones going to call Ken Norton "San Diego Ken". And Norton wasn't nearly as proven when he fought Ali as Douglas was when he fought Tyson. Tyson and Douglas aren't as good but its the same principle.

Tyson almost won the Douglas fight and its the only comeback of Tysons career even though he didn't win. It was not a bad performance at all.

Tyson had a better resume in their era then Douglas but thats a given Tyson was a champion while Douglas wasn't(in terms of reigning). A tenured champs resume should always be better than a top challenger. But for a challenger in his era Buster Douglas's resume(up to that point) was great once you get the past the 3 losses. If he didn't have the 3 losses and it was 1 loss to Tucker people view him totally different. Many wonder why fighers don't fight each other early. And Douglas being labeled a journeyman is exactly why. It proves people simply can not forgive early losses anymore.

 

Yeah if we just look at the wins how many 80s HWs have a better 3 non title wins than Page, McCall and Berbick? I don't think anyone does tbh. He would have had the Tangstad win too if not for the point deduction. But people see those 3 losses and the Mike White loss and think "bum".

I was hoping Dubois would lead to people having an epiphany on this issue. But one has not seemed to be forthcoming.

 

Great points.

Unless there is/are qualified, particularly serious impairment(s ) going into a fight, like say a broken hand or such, perhaps excuses should be left out altogether, ensuring the most equitable career comparisons.

Obviously those who have proffered more excuses than most lose out on this uniformly applied standard but that actually speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

Louis is a great example of taking the natural highs and lows, the great and the not so great.

There are possible valid explanations supporting the belief the Louis might not have been quite at his best for the first Schmeling fight.

However, those explanations/excuses aren’t required (as you said) nor built into the perception of his career. Louis’ career stands perfectly, exactly as it was. No ifs, buts or maybes.

Loosely speaking, the first Schmeling fight might’ve been viewed as Louis’ own Tokyo downfall as at the time - but Joe came back from that loss and was arguably a better fighter for it - it’s all part of the game .

People often talk about the qualities of maintained dedication, focus and preparation as if they’re abstract, easily acquired qualities in minor support to all that makes a fighter great.

We often hear/read laments such as - “If only he kept his focus or took the sport more seriously”.

Fighters who do apply themselves seriously and maintain their focus for the greater part aren’t so common - and that comes down to all important character - which counts for a LOT in boxing, of course.

I think the guys who did put the work in, leaving little or nothing to doubt in terms of 100% application of themselves could be rightfully offended by the ifs, buts and maybes templates applied to some fighters careers.

Finally, one thing I notice re fighters for whom more excuses than average are offered - in fantasy fights, all their real life career flaws are conveniently patched/corrected - and their hypothetical fantasy careers often well exceed their actual careers - based on a relative small sampling of their best outcomes against a lesser opposition. Lol.

 

Yet those qualities around discipline and dedication make the difference (when all the other ingredients are there in ample supply) that separate the true ATGs from the ‘shooting stars’ who crash back down to earth or are flashes in the pan.

It’s preposterous to think Cus D’Amato didn’t emphasize to Tyson that he’d have to keep working hard and not take days off from the gym or nights off in the ring to reach his full career potential … but Mike didn’t care.