As long as you stand up to Mike Tyson you can beat him

There's a difference between having fallen into favouritism, and outright advocating or justifying favouritism "for ATGs".

I have probably favoured dozens of fighters and made excuses for them.
But I am not justifying that. In fact, I am saying we shouldn't. We should strive to be even handed. Not latch onto every excuse and rationalisation to explain away losses that don't fit or sit comfortably.

That's my outlook anyway.

 

There's a Horace Notice v Dillian Whyte thread currently, if you're interested JT.

 

Well lets just say you hold Tyson and Lewis to a far different standard than you do Holyfield. That's not up for debate.

Yes fair, very fair.

We are what we post. If i go out and post say, 20 things that respected consistent posters lets say "strongly oppose" i won't be surprised if it bites me here and there. If i go running around saying Tyson has the best resume in heavyweight history and Hagler isn't a top 20 middleweight then i'll expect the odd ripple.

Don't try and put yourself above me or make out i am not meeting your expectations. You've had a shot, I've had a shot and we've both sure as heck had shots on occasions over the years. Childish? I've seen you go the route many times, i have too. Don't put yourself above it.

There's posters i really rate highly. There's posters just about everyone rates. Guys that show great knowledge and insight again and again and again with very little to zero bias. Their points are strong and thorough. They know their stuff and it's great to have them here. The odd one over the years have become authors and had columns etc. There's a lot of quality here and a lot that's been grown through here. If i come off as a bit of a fanboy so be it, i really enjoy the convoes in here, even with your fine self! Just about everyone makes good points at various times. As with just about everything there are levels.

Yes, yes be sure to let me know. I await with potentially baited breath. Put me on speed dial.

 

I can't believe you didn't link it up when you know how important it is to me.

 

It's not true though.
I don't make excuses for Holyfield's losses if they are close to prime. Even against Moorer, where Holyfield was very visibly clearly "off" to some degree, it counts against him. It effects his standing, it reveals some limitations. But then I don't consider a close debatable points loss as bad as getting beaten from pillar to post and KO'd. That's a general and logical rule.

Bowe won the trilogy clearly. Even the second fight, which Holyfield won, is debatable. And the two Bowe wins were much more enphatic results. This effects Holyfield's legacy.

The same standard I use with Tyson and Lewis.
I count those losses against them.

I don't count Holyfield losing to Toney or Donald. But I don't count Tyson losing to Williams or McBride either.

Same standard.

 

It's been great discussing with you anyway, JT .
I have to go now.
I'll check it again sometime to bump the Whyte v Skelton thread.

 

Yeah mate for sure, you too. That will be one of the great bumps of the classic forum. In the mean i'll just enjoy the latest Whyte thread you alerted me too.

 

If Douglas ever fought as well as he did against Tyson, I see him being as much as a problem for Evander as Riddick Bowe was. Every bit as much.

Admittedly, I stupidly bet on Douglas to beat Evander before the weigh in.

 

I'm thinking of times where a fighter has been dominated - not just lost, even by KO, but dominated throughout the fight - and then came back to avenge that.

The one that best fits the bill is Louis-Schmeling. I guess you could make a case for Bowe-Holy, but Holy did have the upper hand at least for parts of it. Robinson losses wasn't that one sided, I think, at least not those he avenged.

Must be some more that fit the bill, but can't come to think of any right now at least. Dempsey came close, but no cigarr. I'd say it's probably rare.

Come to think of it, McCallum-Kalambay fits the bill pretty well also. Not that Mike took a bad beating the first time around, but he could hardly lay a glove on Sumbu and lost just about every round on my card, so I suppose that could be called a dominating win that was reversed in a rematch. The rematch was much closer, though, and both were getting on in years. But McCallum did reverse a one-sided loss to a win.

 

I can definitely see that jab giving Holy fits.

 

Nelson - Fenech is the one you are looking for. There were potential factors with each fighter in their loss but the fights absolutely fit your bill ignoring the highway robbery. Most cards seem to give Fenech 9 rounds in that first fight and that's pretty conclusive.

 

Holyfield was a completely different style to Tyson.
The way Holyfield boxed 246 pound Douglas is the same way he'd box 230 pound Douglas.
What would Douglas do? He could do better, but I think Holyfield knew what to do with him. He planned to counter the long uppercut, and boxed his way in. Peak performance from Holyfield.
People make a big deal out of "Tokyo Douglas" and how he'd do against X, Y and Z .... but Tyson was a very unique fighter. I'm not taking anything away from Douglas, but I can't see how beating Tyson translates into beating other ATG heavyweights who had vastly different styles and physical dimensions.

Bowe was a different fighter to Douglas. His hooks and uppercuts were short and he dragged Holyfield into the brawl.
Likewise, Bowe beating Holyfield doesn't mean he'd beat Tyson.
Styles make fights.

 

It happens. But with those kinds of physical disadvantges? 5 or 6 inches in height, huge reach deficit, 10 to 15 solid pounds.

Tyson has a puncher's chance in any match.

If Douglas had turned up for the Tyson rematch 246 pounds, and IF Tyson had KO'd him in 3 rounds, I'm sure in that alternative universe Tyson gets more credit (on the alternate universe of this forum) for his 1-1 series with Douglas, than Holyfield gets here and now for doing the job 1-0.
That's just how it seems to work around here.
It's skewed standards and I will get called biased for calling it out.

 

When someone does something as unlikely as Douglas did, and unmatched by any other achievement by that person, people tend to dismiss it as a fluke. If it was a close win, Douglas might just have gotten more credit, ironically.

That goes to some degree for fights like Honeygan-Curry and Tiberi-Toney, as well. But in this case the sheer adulation that Tyson gets like perhaps no other fighter today, of course, makes this case special. On this board, I think this adulation only factors in for a few posters and JT isn't among them, tbf.

I personally think that Douglas looked so great that it can't be dismissed. And Tyson had shown earlier that he could be frustrated to some degree by a good jab and/or clever boxing, even though no one had been able to take it all the way before (even though Tillis arguably earned the decision), but none of them had displayed the complete package like Douglas did before either.

 

The way Douglas feinted Tyson onto the jab that night was really something. He made that space nobody could quite find with Tyson. He hooked off of it. Stepped back then lead Mike back onto the next sequence.

As you say it worked on Tyson, a great fighter, who fought out of a programmed style that Douglas, for one night, could forecast and pre predict the moves Tyson would instinctively attempt.

But that use of the jab, would work on Evander. We have seen flashes and moments of Evander stranded centre ring by the long jabs of Larry and Lennox.

Bowe didn’t exactly break Evander down with the jab..but I didn’t see Bowe on his best night particularly do anything better than Buster either. And Douglas was pretty physical too.

I think what we have with Douglas was an overlooked fighter. He had all the tools, but his career peaked for but the smallest of windows. A last roll of the dice to get his ass into gear one more time.

Douglas really had good footwork and timing in Tokyo. He worked Tyson out and he was good that night.

we never saw that against Evander who rightly took care of business in top style.

I agree Holyfield was at his best against Douglas. Whereas Douglas was probably just his regular self and not the one who could raise his game under the right set of circumstances.