78 to 82 Holmes a Nightmare for Tyson

It's entirely possible, even if not the road I'd take personally. I don't think Holmes would lace him enough, as dmt said he's not really a combination puncher and he's not a hard puncher either. He rarely throws left hooks so it's only the right hand Tyson has to worry about, power wise. It's a lot easier to deal with when there's nothing concussive coming from the left side. He also won't be roughing Tyson up in clinches. There won't be enough accumulation for me. For me there's no doubt Tyson is going to get him in trouble at multiple points and i don't think he'd survive. Tyson at his best a different animal to Snipes, Shavers, Weaver, Witherspoon and co.

It a great match up tho, open ended and differing styles. I'd pay to see it.

 

Tyson becomes fearful that a more "prime" Holmes presents a better chance of him losing and gets him out of there in 1 instead of 4

88 Tyson does to Holmes what he did to Holmes

 

Douglas jab seemed more powerful too.

 

I think it was similar with Sonny Liston, Leon Springs, Riddick Bowe, Roy Jones and to a lesser extent Tyson Fury and AJ. Of course, none of them led such a crazy life as Tyson.
Of course, subsequent fights with Tillman, Stewart, and Ruddock confirmed that Tokyo was to some extent a coincidence.

 

Some primes do come to an abrupt end, but we know that by what they did after that sudden defeat that people did not see coming.

Sonny Liston was still a viable contender after Ali, but was blackballed due to belief that he threw one or both fights and/or tanked/didn’t give his best for some reason. Leon was a flash in the pan who beat an old man but on the whole wasn’t a different fighter before or after the Ali fights.

If Tyson had KO’d Tubbs, Truth Williams, Tillman and Alex Stewart in succession without fighting Buster in between, literally no one would point at the Williams fight and say ‘that’s the end of his prime,’ lol. Furthermore, we’d all be saying Ruddock was a monster who Mike chopped down but maybe he was beginning to lose a tad off his fastball … but not that he was on a major downslide.

He’s a 23-year-old wrecking ball going into the Douglas fight and the same coming out of it. The difference is Buster didn’t fall down and go boom and was determined rather than scared.

 

So it follows that Buster had something Tyson's 40 other opponents didn't have at the time. He had something Williams, Tubbs, Holmes, Spinks, Berbick, Frazier, Thomas, Biggs, Ferguson, Ruddock, Tillman, and the rest didn't. Hell, I'd say he had something even Evander Holyfield didn't know when he said in 1988 that he wasn't ready for Tyson. So if it was as you say, then Douglas is a much greater boxer than we thought, and Tyson's loss to him is no shame at all
By the way, it's interesting that you consider Leon Spinks a one-man show, and Douglas is someone better than Tyson, even though throughout the 1980s he couldn't prove he was anything close to Mike's level. 42-1 didn't come from nowhere, my friend.

Was Liston ever considered the best heavyweight in the world after Ali? Was Jones still a P4P star after Tarver 2? Because Tyson was... before the Holyfield fight, he was still the favorite according to The Ring experts.

 

“Considered” doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

I think most people figured Lennox Lewis would mop the floor with Mike when he gave up a belt to sidestep him and fight Evander instead. Most people to include Don King and Mike Tyson. And anyone who “considered” Tyson to be better than Holyfield at that stage was swiftly disavowed of that notion.

So yes, people can be wrong.

Buster was better than Tyson when it mattered — the one night they fought.

Holyfield showed emphatically vs Buster that he — not Douglas nor Tyson — was the best heavyweight in the world when he ran through Big Bus like a hot knife through butter.

I do not think Buster Douglas was greater than Mike Tyson over the course of their careers, but tying yourself in knots with pretzel logic to say ‘well the only way I can twist the reality that Buster mopped the floor with Mike is to decide that Tyson was like a Superman who swallowed a pound of kryptonite for one night and one night only’ is intellectually dishonest.

Mike Tyson was prime when he fought Buster — 23 years old coming off two quick KOs of contenders and about to knock out two more in similar, devastating fashion. Buster was just better.

I can link the video if you want to see for yourself that Douglas > Tyson. He have actual proof.

 

I can link you to a video where George Foreman goes through Frazier like a knife through butter, proving that he, not Ali or Frazier, was the best heavyweight of the time. I can link you to a video where Hashim Rahman goes through Lennox like a knife through butter, and a moment later, it's the other way around.

You wrote that you're old, and it seems to me you've been watching boxing for a long time, yet you're picking and choosing from its history, completely ignoring some facts at the expense of others. No, my friend, Liston didn't have a better career after Ali than Tyson did after Douglas. Wepner wasn't better than Bruno or Ruddock. I don't know if he was better than Stewart.

 

Where did I say Liston had a better career after Ali than Tyson after Douglas?

You’re arguing my point — Buster beat PRIME Mike Tyson. I’m saying Mike didn’t fall off the edge of a cliff the moment he disposed of Truth Williams. Take out the Douglas defeat and NOBODY says he’s post-prime in the Spinks-Stewart period, at the very least, and would only be saying Ruddock was a tough nut to crack and MAYBE say Tyson was just beginning to fall from his peak at that time.

The Tyson Defense League wants to say Mike was suddenly no longer a top guy when Buster beat him so that result doesn’t count. They have an excuse for literally every Tyson loss AND for some of his less-than-perfect performances like the Bonecrusher and Tucker fights as well.

 

Where did I say that the Buster-Tyson result doesn't count? It counts like hell. Simply one fight out of 41 Tyson fought before prison isn't an indicator of his class, just as Lewis's first fight with McCall isn't an indicator of his class, nor is Joe Louis's first fight with Schmelling an indicator of his class, and you can't judge Joe Frazier solely by his fights with Foreman, or Foreman's fight with Young. As a long-time boxing fan, you should understand that. We don't judge Ali for his fight with Doug Jones.

 

The whole ‘class’ thing came into this discussion when someone asked who Larry Holmes fought who was in Tyson’s ‘class’ — and steadfastly refused to identify what they even mean by ‘class’ (not going to comb through this to look it up, was that you?).

The implication of that was ‘well Larry never beat anyone in Tyson’s class.’ And since Buster Douglas beat Tyson, I would suppose to beat Tyson you’d have to be in his ‘class,’ lol. You can’t be inferior to Tyson and yet ragdoll him around the ring like someone play-sparring with a 12-year-old.

What I’m saying is that Tyson was not some mythical creature who could only lose to supermen. He lost to a guy who was just above journeyman ‘class’ while in his physical prime. There’s not much disputing that. Nobody considered Douglas to be anything special before he fought Tyson and he never did anything to change that assessment after he fought Tyson.

So if the idea is Larry can’t beat Tyson because he never fought anyone in Tyson’s ‘class’ … that’s pretty preposterous given who DID beat him.

Tyson was never, imo, what his supporters suppose he was. He was fast and a great puncher and he struck fear in a lot of guys, but he didn’t steamroll capable fighters who weren’t scared of him — see Buster and Holyfield and even Ruddock and some others. He didn’t punch holes through guys like Bonecrusher and Tucker. Those are all among Tyson’s fights we should consider in his prime.

I’ll take a battle-tested best version of Holmes over the prime Tyson who lost to Buster Douglas seven days a week and twice on Sundays. Larry could overcome real adversity — Mike never did.

 

Perhaps you've forgotten that Tyson lost seven rounds in a row, only to knock out his opponent for 14 seconds in the eighth. If that's not overcoming weakness, I don't know what is. I prefer a green Tyson who, while sick, destroys a prime Berbick in a ruthless display of power, than a prime Holmes who can't do anything to him for 15 rounds and then claims he fought the strongest fighter of his career. You can appreciate Larry for getting into trouble with Snipes, and I appreciate Mike for destroying guys like Snipes in a minute or two. Are they in different leagues? In my opinion, they're both ATG. I have no problem with someone putting Holmes above him, although personally, Tyson is better in my opinion. He doesn't have to be a superman; no one was. Ali and Louis weren't either. Each was great in their own way, and each was human, as evidenced by their fights, both great and less so.

 

Oh lord, we’re dipping into the made-up long count territory now. Ugh.

Buster got knocked down, he picked up the count, he beat it. He was not knocked out. He slammed his fist on the canvas over his carelessness of getting caught, dusted himself off and dominated the rest of the fight.

Tyson got knocked down, crawled around with his mouthpiece backward and did not beat it. He got stopped.

Landing one punch and then getting your ass kicked from the moment the fight resumes until you get KTFO for good two rounds later is not overcoming adversity. Overcoming adversity would be getting your ass kicked and turning it around to win — getting off the canvas and stopping the other guy. Something Larry Holmes did. Something Tyson never did. It’s a test of, among other things, character — how bad do you want it, how deep can you dig when the chips are down?

Winning a decision = winning. So what if Trevor was strong? … Holmes didn’t say he was the best he ever fought. He said he was the strongest. WTF does that prove, lol?

Snipes was not a 42-1 underdog and Larry didn’t get knocked out by him. Buster was a 42-1 underdog and Mike got taken to the cleaners by him. In his prime.

 

Do you understand the context in which I'm writing about 14 seconds? Again, read slowly, carefully, and ask if you don't understand:
Tyson was beaten for seven long rounds, receiving the worst punishment of his career, only to knock his opponent out cold. Do you understand? Look at the state Tyson was in when he knocked Douglas down... he was barely able to stand, and he did it. That's overcoming weakness! It fits perfectly, and at the same time, it completely debunks the haters' theory that Tyson couldn't do it.

Yes, Douglas was better than Mike in Tokyo. Jesse Ferguson would have been too; after all, he beat Douglas, so he would have beaten Tyson too. If Tyson had appeared in Tokyo every time in the 1980s, he would never have won 37 fights in a row.

I don't know how tragically narrow-minded a fan you have to be to criticize someone being a 42-1 favorite. It only proves what a damn coincidence this fight was.

Before the Tyson fight, Douglas was ranked No. 7 heavyweight. That's incredibly high. What other boxer would be a 42-1 favorite over a 7th-ranked boxer? In a heavyweight fight where one punch can change everything. It's insane and speaks volumes about Mike's dominance. Douglas's chance was a fluke. A lottery win.