33 years ago - Exactly how good was Buster Douglas?

Definitely the most shocked I've ever been watching a fight. Back then I never thought we'd ever seen Tyson hurt, nevermind lose a fight.

In hindsight, the writing was on the wall the way his life was spiralling out of control but at the time there was disbelief about what happened.

I'd say Tyson was at 70 percent but Douglas fought an amazing fight that night.

 

Buster was not easy to hit in that fight and he was also ready and willing to engage in a war that night. Not easy to hit=Byrd fighter in warrior mode=Lennox Lewis. The two fighters that beat Vitali.

 

"I think that you’re one of the most argumentative posters"

You then proceed to write an essay arguing your point, lacking any self-awareness.

"he utterly dominated most of his opponents in a way that AJ didn’t"

Gary Cornish, Kevin Johnson, Raphael Zumbano and the other 11 ineffective opponents prior to Whyte were dominated to a similar degree that Tyson's early opponents were, Joshua stopped everyone in 3 rounds prior to Whyte and was barely hit. Martin, Molina and to a lesser extent the punching bag Breazeale too. Joshua was a titlist in 16 fights, only Whyte and Wlad gave him fights that weren't one-sided in his first 19.

"Nobody thought that AJ was absolutely invincible did they"

Most thought he was invincible against Ruiz, hence 1/25. If people actually believed that Tyson was invincible then why was Berbick merely a 3/1 underdog on fight night? Why was Tyson "only" 2/15 to beat Bruno 1?

"Whereas Mike was blasting out guys who’d never been blasted out before."

And Joshua wasn't? I must have imaged Kevin taking Vitali, Fury and everyone else the distance or beating them. The four opponents after Kevin were all undefeated and Joshua was blasting them out. Four opponents took Tyson the distance prior to the Douglas beatdown and the 10th round Ribalta stoppage was political.

"An old Wlad made AJ look vulnerable."

31-8, 208 lbs, 3 loss streak backfoot Tillis made Tyson look vulnerable. Several others did too but people weren't paying attention.

"It was monumental."

You're not getting it.

I know Tyson was absurdly overhyped, thus it feeling monumental. But when you take the media manipulation away and just look at the facts, it wasn't nearly as big of an upset as it seemed. One big buff ultra-motivated black American contender beating a vastly smaller, overconfident champion, it's what you expect. But imagine making a Rocky film where Rocky is Mexican, looks exactly like Andy Ruiz, then proceeds to wallop a 6'6, 245 lbs, cut out of marble version of Apollo and make him quit. Prior to Ruiz beating Joshua it was virtually inconceivable, absurdist.

Tyson was initially 1/25 to beat Holyfield after spending 4 years in prison, having been walloped by Douglas, parted with Rooney etc. Was that really such a huge upset? And Tyson was still the favourite after Holyfield had destroyed him in addition to Douglas, though not as big a favourite as Joshua was post-Ruiz 1, partly because he only had one loss, partly because the "experts" believed that he had the attributes to make it a relatively easy fight.

 

Great video Rummy!!

 

Undisciplined and not good enough to defend the title...

 

I understand exactly what you’re saying.

You’re saying that in hindsight, it shouldn’t have been the shock that most thought that it was.

However, if you were living through the era at the time, then you’d know that it was no surprise that everyone had got caught up in the hype.

Most of the hype was justified. Yes, many people overrated him. Many people thought that he was invincible. But this wasn’t Jeff Lacy like hype. It had real substance.


Joshua never had that same aura.

Yes, he bombed guys out. But they were LOW level guys and gatekeepers.

You cannot compare Joshua knocking out Charles Martin, Kevin Johnson and Dillian Whyte etc, to Mike having knocked out Spinks and Holmes etc.

Those fights of Mike’s were far more popular.

They were higher profile fights.

Mike and Larry were great, ATG fighters.

Spinks had proved himself to be a credible HW and was undefeated.

Holmes had lost 2 controversial decisions to Holmes, but had never been stopped in 50 fights.

You can look back with hindsight now, where you can say that Larry was faded and Spinks froze etc, but Joshua never had wins like that.

Mike took them both out in just 5 rounds combined.

Mike had unified the division by 22.

He destroyed great fighters in world title fights.

Yes, his odds were different to many of Joshua’s fights, but that’s because he was fighting fellow world champions.


When Joshua was knocking guys like Cornish out, he was just seen as being an exciting prospect.

His coming of age fight was then against a faded and inactive Wlad.

Sure, people bought into the hype. But again, he never had aura and the reputation that Mike had.


When Ruiz beat Joshua, it shook the boxing world.

Yet when Douglas beat Mike, it shook the boxing world, but even parts of the rest of the world.

It was just on another level entirely to Ruiz-Joshua.

It resonated with a much bigger audience.

 

"Mike had unified the division by 22."

That's not an advantage for Tyson relative to Joshua, it's actually an argument against it being a bigger upset than Joshua-Ruiz 1. 23 is hardly ever prime in a psychological/experience sense (let alone for such a star, with so many distractions), Joshua had far superior amateur pedigree and was a lot closer (29) to what's considered a HW's prime age when he fought Ruiz.

"but Joshua never had wins like that"

Joshua didn't blow through Klitschko (though Tyson didn't blow through a fair few opponents either: distance fights with half a dozen at that point) but he was an "ATG" and a gold medallist. Povetkin was also a gold medallist and arguably a more proven heavyweight than former LHW Spinks, who most thought lost to rematch to Holmes (and some thought didn't win either). The fact that Tyson blew through Homes and Spinks was evidence that they were in some way compromised (and/or stylistically overmatched), that the likes of Tucker and Thomas were better fighters at that point.

"his odds were different to many of Joshua’s fights, but that’s because he was fighting fellow world champions."

Bruno wasn't a world champion when he fought Tyson the first time, yet he was given a considerably better chance than Andy Ruiz, who had not failed nearly as badly as Bruno when he challenged for a world title. Biggs wasn't either and the odds were also much closer. I can't be bothered to go through all of them in depth but Andy Ruiz was given less of a chance of beating Joshua than the vast majority of Tyson's contenders were of beating him, champions or otherwise.

Simplifying it, your arguments for Tyson's upset being bigger are that more people were interested in Tyson (based in America) than Joshua (based in Britain), that Tyson was more hyped and rated more highly than Joshua and that he typically ended his fights more quickly (though on the other hand, he also went the distance with far more frequency than Joshua).

They are fine arguments but I don't think they trump the arguments that I made in my first post in this thread. Ruiz destroying Joshua has a beyond bizarre quality to it which Tyson-Douglas simply doesn't. Show a non-boxing person the fights, ask them which is the crazier upset and they'll say Joshua-Ruiz. This will only increasingly be the case in the future as fewer people remember Tyson losing in 1990.

 

This content is protected

 

Douglas was tough enough to resist and force Tyson to adjust his game, but Tyson doesn't adjust, ever. He has no other plan other than to go forward all in. Tyson lost to himself more than he lost to Douglas, who was just a solid B fighter.

 

Buster Douglas was at the right place at the right time.

 

Of course unifying the division by 22 was an advantage for how Mike was perceived.

He’d knocked out 2 great fighters who’d never been knocked out before, where he had all 3 of the major belts.

Going into the Douglas fight, Mike was the clear no.1 HW in the world.

Joshua wasn’t. He’d looked vulnerable in his biggest fight, and nobody knew who was the number 1 HW in the world, as Wilder was on the scene, and Fury was making his comeback.

When Ruiz beat Joshua, yes, it was a huge shock. But the boxing world didn’t universally agree that Ruiz had beaten ‘The Man’ at HW. A guy who’d only had 23 fights, with only a handful of those opponents being considered top level guys.


Yes, Mike didn’t blast everyone out. But the guys he did blast out were great fighters.

Joshua didn’t blast out any great fighters, and again, he’d looked vulnerable in his biggest ever fight against a faded and inactive Wlad.

You can try and spin it however you want, but Mike Tyson had beaten more proven fighters in spectacular fashion, and he was the undisputed HW champion and the consensus ‘MAN’ of the division, with no rival.

He had a higher profile, and he fought more high profile fights to a much larger audience.


I’m yet to see anybody agree with you.

I understand your argument. But Mike was far more popular and far more respected than what Joshua was.

 

Douglas was underrated and a very good HW. His jab was excellent, he had good footwork and also a pretty underrated ring IQ. But beating Tyson was both the best and worst thing that happened to him. He didn't care to fight after getting like an eight-figure amount to fight Holyfield.

As for Tyson, people who say he is overrated DKSAB. He is the most complete HW I've seen but given his life circumstances, he was never going to keep it all together for a long time.

 

Ruiz beating Joshua was upset of the year and a shock, Douglas beating Tyson may have been the biggest upset ever, everyone was talking about it even non boxing fans.

 

Tokyo Douglas was good but he would have lost to Holy like the non-Tokyo version did.

 

The mouth of a fool is known by its many words.