Why does Tyson get a pass?

That's great.

Tyson gets zero excuses for the Douglas loss considering Douglas was dealing with far worse circumstances on top of having less talent.

 

Unfortunately, you don’t dictate the rules.

 

I do, actually. I am holding you to your own standards.

 

it's very simple. Either you accept that the odds for Tyson 1-42 are absurd and then your invoking this argument as you do is complete nonsense. Or you invoke this odds 1-42 writing that it is unforgivable and thus you admit that for some reason Tyson fought dramatically below his level. What don't you understand in this dispute?
Either we accept that Douglas was better than all 37 fighters Tyson defeated in the 80s and at least 35 of them were simply dominated and none of the victories were disputed or controversial, or we accept that Tyson fought dramatically below his usual norm.
Here the situation is very simple and the statements of some users who constantly hate Tyson but cannot admit - either Douglas should have been the king of the 80s and not Tyson or Tyson fought dramatically below his usual level are amusing.
What is your choice? Douglas was better than all 37 beaten by Tyson?? was he on the same level? was this 37th victory some kind of hoax that we all fell for? were all the experts fooled? The Ring made a fool of itself by giving Tyson the title of boxer of the year? were the journalists fooled by having Tyson as number 1 p4p before Tokyo? Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, Klitschkos - they were never number 1 p4p, not even for a moment.

 

I don't have to accept either of those parameters.

-Douglas wasn't better than every opponent Tyson faced previously. He certainly wasn't better than Tucker (who beat him), Holmes, or Spinx.

-I don't have to accept Tyson suddenly fought way below how he usually fought. I can accept that maybe he was off his gane to an extent, it happens to every good fighter. But Tyson fans act like he was a washed up old man who forgot how to throw a jab forgetting he was an undefeated 23 years who had beaten multiple world contenders/champions.

I do agree 42-1 odds were way too high, but Tyson still obviously should've been favored heavily given how he steamrolled through the division.

Here's option 3: Douglas stepped up his game motivated by the loss of his mother and a once in a century opportunity to fight for the title against a formidable opponent, and Tyson overlooked him going through the motions expecting an easy win and paid for it. Douglas was neither way better than Tyson's other opponents, nor was Tyson suddenly way past his prime.

 

The 42-1 odds, whether ridiculously high or not, are useful for reflecting the perception of Tyson as at the time - if the odds were too high then the perception of a fully capable Tyson himself as at the time was overstated also.

Imo, the 42-1 odds were primarily fixed on how much people thought of Tyson (not necessarily how little they thought of Douglas) and those odds equated to the belief that Douglas would be lucky to last more than a minute and half - obviously based on similarly fast victories over the likes of Spinks and, more recently, Carl Williams.

I think many analysis’ of the loss to Douglas incorrectly worked backward from the flawed premise that a fully capable Tyson was unbeatable - circular reasoning then dictating that, if Mike lost, then something had to be significantly “up” with him purely because the idealised perception of Mike prohibited the possibility of him ever losing.

The tools (skills and physical equipment) that Douglas brought to the table had been previously forecast to give Mike the most trouble.

Those tools alone wouldn’t do the whole job - there also had to be the fearless grit and determination Buster took into the fight.

Bob Sheridan made at least 2 great calls during his career 1) Foreman vs Ali and 2) Tyson vs Douglas.

Bob gave an extremely well informed run down on Douglas just prior to the fight - acknowledging Douglas’ obvious skills whilst realistically musing as to “which” Douglas would turn up - obviously in reference to Douglas’ less committed performances in the ring.

Based on the possibility of a properly prepared and committed Douglas, Bob forecast for a more competitive fight than most people afforded Buster.

As the fight began to unpack, just as he did for Foreman vs Ali, Bob accurately called the action and identified the early dynamic and emerging patterns of the fight.

With absolutely no timidity, Douglas was on Mike from first bell - many assessments don’t account for what was actually being put to Mike from the get go - rather, said assessments focus on Mike as if he was alone, fighting in vacuum without due account for Douglas’ actions and Mike’s reactions to same.

If Mike was as in poor shape as many might have it, then Tyson wouldn’t have lasted as long as he did, nor would he have floored Buster in rd 8 or staged a spirited fight back in rd 9 - but Douglas met and overcame said fight back, taking the play back from Mike.

After the fact of Mike’s defeat, I think some features to his game became over exaggerated in order to justify the observations of what was “missing” from his game.

Mike could display excellent head movement for sure - (and he did dodge a few shots from Douglas in the early going), but his accent on same lessened as fights wore on into the later rounds - not just vs Douglas.

It also wasn’t completely unusual to see Mike sometimes gradually fall off his combos as fights dragged on - going a bit more one out on his punches. And remember, he was being damaged and depleted by Douglas’ offence all the while.

Just my opinion of course, I know many would and have disagreed - but that’s half the fun of it. I do like Mike and think he still had a great career without any ifs, buts or maybes necessary.

 

again you avoid simple answers. The thread is probably 9 pages long and people still don't want to accept the fact that:
-either we give Tyson excuses for Tokyo
-or we give Douglas excuses for his entire career except for Tokyo

In which fight in his career did Douglas look as good as in Tokyo? The performance with Jesse Ferguson probably convinced only you and besides you think that Douglas was additionally weakened by the death of his mother.

I don't mean to criticize you but your view of this fight is typical of revisionists.

It's as if they couldn't imagine that you could be in your prime but after a party, a sleepless night, a training camp you simply don't use this potential. Even with dozens of proofs that this is exactly what happened in Tokyo people like you still claim - Tyson was simply always weaker than Douglas and at the same time they can't explain why someone better than Tyson wasn't even in the top 5 in his era. Complete nonsense and lack of logic.

 

Excellent post.

 

Thanks Boke. I appreciate that.

 

Agreed.
Pinklon Thomas had the potential to the man in the heavyweight division from 1983-to November 1986 if he had had say the application of a Holyfield and he would've given Tyson a harder time than he did

 

It's an interesting "what if" if contenders like Page, Dokes, Tubbs, Thomas, Witherspoon etc had had the professionalism of contenders of previous eras. I think Tyson defences would have been tougher, but on the other hand he would probably have dominated an era that would rank higher in fans' eyes .

 

Fwiw, this is the guy who was selling coke/crack to Toney Tubbs and Ray Leonard (22 minutes in):

This content is protected

 

No way, that’s so whacky the internet is great, I’m watching this.

 

Indeed. Each one had a certain rare quality and each was derailed by a non parliamentary lifestyle.

Dokes with his bewildering speed and the roses he threw ringside.
Thomas had the chin, powerful jab and boxing ability.

Witherspoon had everything.

They endured trials at the hands of King,Drugs,Food and women.

Each could've been the man as Holmes faded......all claimed Holmes post "83 avoided them.