1990 japan douglas vs 2002 tyson ???

jokes aside, people often say that Douglas was a jorneyman but somehow became great in Tokyo and beat Tyson.

They forget that Buster was very good, skilled fighter who beat Page, Cobb, McCall, Mike Williams, Berbick and others and was winning vs Tucker.

He wasn't Everett Martin or Donnie Long at the first place, he had the skills and physical attributes to give Tyson great fight.

 

I think he went through spurts in his career where he could have played the role of either journeyman, fringe contender or world title challenger, and that's exactly what he did. Upon losing to Jesse Ferguson and picking up the third loss in his career back in 1985 I think most wrote him off as being a journeyman. But in a career which eventually entailed gathering wins over Mike Tyson, Greg Page, Trevor Berbick, Oliver McCall, and Tex Cobb I think most can agree that he was a bit more than that.

 

I'd like to watch his early fights and figure how did he manage to lose to White and Ferguson. Looks like he definitely became a better fighter after that.

 

I think motivation was key. He was known for showing up disinterested and at times even quit in fights where he was ahead.

 

:verysad There is a lot of straw-man going on with the rampant Tokyo Douglas bashing, which seems to have become très chic on here (at least more fashionable than admitting that on that night Buster was a very formidable head to head fighter and probably outdistanced most of the other performances in his up and down hot and cold running career, by some margin).

I can't remember the last time I saw anybody grossly overestimate the h2h capabilities of Tokyo Douglas. That's for the most part a wild misrepresentation of people who buy into the kind of (not unduly) romanticized concept of the legend of Tokyo Douglas. Show me where anybody tips him over any of the usual consensus top 5 h2h sort - the Holmes, Lewis, Ali, Louis, even Marciano... (note: there's a difference between suggesting he might on that night have been at least competitive with this or that high-ranking ATG; that isn't and shouldn't be sacrilege, I don't think)

Yes, there were mitigating factors on Tyson's end. Yes, the wheels had begun to come off. Yes, it was P.R. (post-Rooney). Yes his focus was slipping.

Still. It was prime Tyson.


...and that happened. Can you blame people for, even 25 years later, celebrating the upset and giving Buster plaudits for that singular display of form that did undeniably see him rise so far above himself? (even acknowledging that he was underrated and probably always had the latent potential to be a solid contender if he weren't such a lazy and complacent sparring-partner-mentality kind of guy) Especially with the moving back story involved?

I don't get the issue some have with that performance still being talked about in reverent tones. It was an immortal showing (by someone who, for all intents and purposes, was otherwise light years away from immortality but for that one night - making it all the greater a sports & human interest story) and it deserves to be. :conf

 

I too genuinely believe Douglas was a formidable force on that night (and perhaps on a few - but very few - other nights in his career).
I do believe he beats prime Tyson - because he did it.

I think where he gets overrated is when people fail to factor that Tyson was stylistically and physically very different to MOST of the great heavyweights.
Sometimes people talk about Tokyo Douglas doing the things he did to Tyson to completely different - for example, great 6'3 and 6'3 boxers or punchers - styles of heavyweight.

 

I'm on the verge of doubting it seriously.

 

Fair enough but I also think we're shortchanging Tokyo if we say his elevated performance that night was only enough to capitalize on the flaws and body type advantages present with Tyson in particular, and that giving that super-Buster a chance to be competitive with other greats of different styles or builds isn't reasonable.

The one that jumps out at me, that seems to be very divisive, which is baffling (as he is hardly as sacred a sow as, say Louis or Ali...or Holmes, or Lewis, or Marciano, or Dempsey or even Johnson) is Bowe. The guy was every bit as lazy and inconsistent an underachiever as Douglas, in all honesty, and but for their disparate Holyfield results I don't think you could say Bowe's career was all that much greater. He so happened to best Holyfield (best two of three in a trilogy, no less) and Buster didn't, but aside from that not too much separates their resumes. As for h2h, I think Douglas, especially doing some of the never-before-or-after things he did that night in '90, actually gives most any version of Bowe lots of problems. :conf

People saying TD knocks out prime Louis, yeah, they are getting carried away with the mystique and taking it too far.

People saying that he stands no chance against someone like a Bowe (who encountered problems any time he faced someone close to his own size with a modicum of skill: frustrated to no end by Donald, beaten up by Golota...), though? IMO that is just as silly on the other end of the spectrum.

 

Reminds me of how folks on here consider Corrie Sanders the 2nd coming of Muhammad Ali, just because he waxed Wlad many years ago..

I would bet the house that if someone made a Rahman vs Sanders fantasy thread, Sanders would win, even thou Rahman whipped his a$$ prime for prime, and his KO over Lewis was way more impressive than Sanders win over Klitchko...

 

Co sign, Tyson in 2002, was a coked up, circus act, who was only in it for the money, no stamina, no upper body movement, and if he became frustrated, would start fouling..

Douglas by DQ..

 

1990 Douglas knocks out any version of Mike Tyson, next thread....

 

tyson 86 . 88 kos douglas quickly and you can have that for free .:good

 

Yeah right because there were signs in the actual fight that he would have done that....:rofl:rofl