33 years ago - Exactly how good was Buster Douglas?

Buster Douglas showed that all you had to do to beat Tyson was not be intimidated. He absolutely exposed "pre-prison Mike" by using a solid jab, and tying him up when he tried respond. This fight, as much as the lopsided losses to Holyfield and Lewis, show why Tyson isn't in the conversation of the best of all time.

Lewis got upset twice, both by one punch knockouts. Holmes lost two close decisions to Spinks. Ali fought in the greatest heavyweight era to date. Tyson got DESTROYED systematically by a journeyman who was essentially a tuneup fight.

Buster Douglas peaked in Tokyo, no doubt. But the real Buster Douglas was closer to the fighter that was stopped by Tony Tucker than the fighter that knocked out Tyson.

 

Although you said the split with Rooney wasn't the reason for the start of his decline but merely marked the moment in time when that decline began to unfold and his dedication waned, you also rightly pointed out as soon as they did split, Tyson stopped doing all the little things Cus D'Amato had ingrained and Rooney had maintained.

I do think leaving Rooney was pivotal - the good habits Tyson used to circumnavigate his disadvantages in size etc were no longer being honed by a trainer who knew how vital they were to both offense and defence...

 

I think using the word exposed is a little much for Busters win. Tyson's style was always there for someone to take advantage of. Buster was stopping Tyson in his tracks with his jab and right hand, when this happened to Mike he had a habit of standing straight up in front of his opponent. I agree with Rummy that that version of Buster would have been a tough out but he would not have beaten guys like Frazier, Ali or Holmes. Strangely I think he'd have been a bigger threat to Foremen than those others especially if he could get past the 6th or 7th round. Another thing, to me Tyson looked just like he always did in that fight. He comes in throwing bombs but this time the guy was still standing and he was being countered beautifully. To me he looked just like the Mike Tyson that beat Berbick, he just didn't have a cooperative opponent.

 

Douglass stood up to Tyson, was not intimidated, and beat him down in epic fashion. That fight was the pinnacle of his career. He was not a top ten heavyweight all in all, but on that night in Tokyo he rose to the occasion in dramatic fashion.

 

Why do people keep saying this ? "Douglas showed all you had to do was not be intimidated" that's absolute rubbish.

Plenty of fighters who fought Tyson wern't intimidated by him Pinklon Thomas, Frank Bruno 1st time, Mitch Green, James Tillis, Tony Tucker, Razor Ruddock, etc.

Tyson isn't the best of all time but for his achievements in the 80s, he's easily an ATG Heavyweight and comfortably a top 10 Heavyweight of all time based on achievements and H2H.

 

Douglas was'nt intimidated in the least and he fought his fight from the very first seconds of the fight. That version of Douglas beats any version of Mike Tyson imo.

 

No Sir, it has been shown time & again that many were NOT intimidated by Tyson & still lost.
That is a widely discredited stereotype. Tyson's skills, speed, accuracy, defense & power were very difficult for anyone to cope with.
Many were jab-heavy boxers, & some tied him up much more-like Green & Bonehugger, & they lost big time.
Tyson was significantly better in the 1980's-movement, combinations, accuracy, endurance-than when still World Class in the 1990's.

Rummy is not wrong that Douglas at his best was super & would give most ATGs competitive fights, beating some of them-& Tyson was reduced when they fought-& it was his fault.

Just like Joe Louis was complacent & under-trained & lost to a brilliant strategy & execution-by a fighter considered past prime, not likely to have been as good as Buster in absolute terms-in large part because of a dramatic size difference-but even an ATG around their prime cannot afford to coast against top competition.

Because just sometimes they will be able to be made to pay for their lethargic preparation & in ring efforts.

 

He dominated a poor on the night Tyson totally but was still close to being counted out.

 

As I said in the other thread people often forget Douglas was on a string of impressive victories prior to the Tyson fight. Having victories over the likes of Mike Williams, Trevor Berbick, Oliver McCall. The Williams fight in particular was a stand out fight, because Douglas knocked his opponent down 3 times with a jab. And looked as good as he did vs Tyson in Tokyo.

All in all looking at Douglas's form coming into the Tyson fight, with hindsight he should've been seen as much more of a threat.

 

Exactly how good was Buster Douglas? Never Before and After in Better Shape (Edition)
Exactly how good was Iron Mike? This is a question I don't have an answer to. I'll try though. Never in worse shape (Edition) in his pre-prison career.

 

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

Sure, because people ignorantly believed (and still do, to some degree) that early peak = better fighter. But prior to Tyson, Floyd Patterson (trained by the same guy, funnily enough) was the youngest heavyweight champion; that early peak didn't help him much against Ingo in fight 1 or Liston. 29 is a much better age for a heavyweight boxer than 23 because of the advantages in maturity and experience. This is especially true at the top level, where champions are subject to all sorts of temptations. A 23 year old is less likely to be disciplined in such an environment, and it was well known that Tyson was a wild character.

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

A terrified LHW Spinks and a scared, inactive, flabby, 2 loss streak, dethroned by Spinks 28 months prior Holmes (neither of which had anything close to Wlad's power). Cool. But let's not omit the fights with Tillis, Green, Ribalta, Smith and Tucker, just to suit your argument.

"nobody knew who was the number 1 HW in the world"

Joshua was not universally considered "the man" as Tyson was (especially after he lost to Ruiz, obviously) but he was the consensus No.1. It wasn't like people were completely agnostic about rankings. Joshua would have been the clear favourite in a matchup against consensus No.2 Wilder, rightly or wrongly.

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

So does Jake Paul relative to Roman Gonzalez and Beterbiev.

"You can try and spin it however you want"

Don't pretend that you're not engaging in spin. You are not engaging with my list of arguments (which you can find on the first page), you are purely stating your own, which I'm responding to.

You cannot refute, for example, that a 6', 270 lbs morbidly obese Mexican heavyweight destroying (to the point of quitting) a 6'6, 245 lbs 6 defence black heavyweight champion to become the first Mexican heavyweight champion in boxing history is far more of a shock than a 6'3.5, 230 lbs black American heavyweight beating up a 5'10, 220 lbs 9 defence black heavyweight champion. There is no possibility of arguing that point, so you ignore it. Prior to Ruiz, there had been just 3(!) Mexican heavyweight title challengers in boxing history and they'd never even gone the distance, being stopped 6 times in 6 challenges.

"I’m yet to see anybody agree with you."

Check my original post, several people clearly do. Show a non-boxing person both fights and ask them which surprises them more.

 

That's why you're known for your verbosity

Sayonara.

 

Sad that he never rose to the occasion or repeated that performance again. In prior fights he showed glimpses of his ability but lacked motivation to be a great fighter

 

It's a pity we never saw a rematch to assess whether it was a one off

 

I agree that Mike isn’t the best of all time.


But just a few points:

Tyson beat guys who weren’t intimidated by him.

Douglas didn’t destroy Mike.

Douglas wasn’t a journeyman.