Tyson vs Douglas - the ref should have counted Douglas out

The count was too long, but Douglas was simply better that night. Even if he should have lost, he deserved to win this time. Out of 10 fights, Tyson wins 9 easily, but not that night.

 

And they still cry about Holyfield supposedly deliberately butting him. Nothing about Tyson elbowing, punching after the bell, punching low and yes butting himself. Hypocritical flogs the lot them.

 

Mike Tyson himself admitted that he was butting Holyfield intentionally too, but was pissed that Evander did it better, lol.

 

rico woulda gotten the job done

 

Or maybe it’s just that some of us don’t blindly accept every excuse made for Tyson’s losses — excuses that never get made for basically any other fighter. Not pointing out double standards doesn’t make someone a “Tyson hater.” It just means they’re not buying into the mythology.

The entire premise of your argument collapses because boxing counts have never been based on stopwatch time. The referee’s count is the only count that matters, and pretending otherwise ignores the entire history of the sport. Across decades of fights, the average real‑time length of an 10‑count is about 10 seconds, not 8. Most counts fall in the 9–12 second range. That’s normal.

Douglas’s knockdown fits that perfectly. He got 9.6 seconds, not the “13 seconds” you’re claiming. Nothing about it was unusual or egregious — it was literally right in line with the historical average.

Meanwhile in Round 10, Tyson’s count was even slower — he got around 11 seconds to get back up. Funny how nobody ever complains about that. If Douglas’s perfectly normal 9.6‑second count is “egregious,” then Tyson’s longer one should be an even bigger issue, but it never gets mentioned.

 

People still think a 10 count is a 10 second count?

It s how long it takesa ref to count.Your opinion does not matter.

 

If a 42-1 favorite gets dominated, you always look for reasons, regardless of whether you like him or not, unless you're extremely biased.
Otherwise, all our boxing knowledge and experience are literally worthless, and we're nothing more than a bunch of nagging women who sometimes argue and sometimes agree.
If Michael Jordan didn't score 20 points in one game, no one claimed he couldn't score 50 in another, but sometimes he did, and sometimes not even half that. The difference is that no one claimed that if he didn't score more, it was a myth, while in Tyson's case, this is common. Tyson often won in dominant fashion against at least 10 players better than Buster, but in the opinion of the haters, this fight defines him. Not the fights with Berbick, Spinks, Holmes, Tubbs—hell, not even the fight between green Mike and prime Ferguson—that counts. Only the fight with Douglas. You'll hear about it far more often than fights with Pinkie Thomas, Carl Williams, Tyrell Biggs, or Marvis Frazier. It's like judging Usain Bolt's career by taking into account the one year when he couldn't break into the top 10 in any competition. Tyson was a street junkie, a guy with mental health issues and a completely unhinged personal life who fell in love with boxing, and after achieving everything he had, he just as quickly fell in love with partying. That's all you need to know about his excuses.

 

Good post!

 

if it was a 5 second count he could have gotten up at 4.

The count wasn't as important as the condition

 

Bus just got carelees. Douglas for once was in great condition. Hard to keep a good man down as Tyson found out.
Did Tyson ever get his mouthpiece in?

 

I notice that you posted the topic on the first day you became a member of the forum. Me too.
If not on the first day, then in the first week I posted the topic "Tyson Vs. Douglas; long count" (similarly called the topic).
The answers were similar. Unfortunately, I can't prove it, because the forum remembers only a limited number of topics that I set.

 

A lot of Tyson sycophants out there who wrongly think he was the unstoppable GOAT all things being equal.