Buster Douglas was not a one fight wonder and the "Tokyo" label is borderline disrespectful

Strike off whatever you want mate. Strike them all off.

 

It’s amusing when the first Bruno fight is offered up as some sort of evidence of Tyson being on the slide.

It irrationally works backward from the conclusion that “best” Mike was invincible.

Therefore, based on that backward thinking, any performance that wasn’t emphatically dominant for Tyson from go to whoa was viewed to have somehow signalled a measure of deficiency in Mike’s own, usual game.

That’s an obviously circular argument.

Tyson was Tyson vs Bruno and very nearly secured a KO inside of the first round - people seem to conveniently forget that.

If Tyson had secured the quick KO - a manner of victory for which he was primarily famous for - there would be no dramas - the conclusion would’ve been invincible Mike is still invincible.

Tyson’s lesser performances are often assessed as if Mike was in the ring alone, fighting in a vacuum - with little or no deference to the quality of the opposition at hand and what was actually being put to Mike.

Bruno had extreme power with which he later buzzed Mike badly with and he also gave Tyson moves otherwise that he hadn’t yet been exposed to - all be many of those moves being not so legal.

Still, after the initial KD, the holding and hitting, hitting on the break etc. clearly broke the rhythm that Tyson usually enjoyed - it also provided a preview of the frustration that crept into Mike’s game when things weren’t going all his way.

Mike wasn’t immune to his own favoured axiom that everyone has a plan until they’re punched in the mouth.

I dispense with the view that Mike “wasn’t himself” for that fight.

Rather, I give Tyson due credit for overcoming the legitimate obstacles that Bruno presented and Mike returning to sharpened focus and his already tried and tested means to see Bruno off.

Personally, I think that fight is a great watch and tbh, I find it bemusing that any time Mike didn’t enjoy the perfect fight, the default proposition is always that something had to be “up” with Mike.

And, FWIW, many had previously forecast that the exact tools, strategy and commitment that Douglas brought to the table in Tokyo might very well be what was required to prevail over Tyson - and that forecast was accounting for even the most ideally self empowered Tyson.

 

Norris wasn't rated just a couple of months prior to their fight so it's a safe bet he wasn't when they fought. McCall wasn't rated one month before they fought so it's an even safer bet he wasn't rated either.

As i said, Tucker's list of top 10 heavyweights beaten is incredibly thin. Almost non-existent in fact.

 

Most felt the Norris fight was a gift decision for Tucker hence it has a huge asterisk over it I scored the fight last year and had Norris winning.

Regardless neither McCall or Norris were ranked at the time.

 

This is what I was trying to say in this thread, but I think people misinterpreted it and thought I was saying he was some ATG or something.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...at-fighter-outside-of-the-tyson-fight.725506/

 

I agree with most of your post.

However it cannot be denied that Tyson's defence was subpar and that he favoured walking in with big shots instead of jabbing and using combinations.
While it was not the first than he fought like that (especially in the Thomas fight), he never did it to that extent and not so sloppily.

But of course, Bruno grappling tactics like you said and probably a bit of rust (it was Mike longest layoff at the time) contributed to that.

 

Buster did to Mike what the Native Americans did to Custer.

 

He pretty much was a journeyman with one great fight. His best wins prior to Tyson were over a rapidly declining Greg Page and Trevor Berbick and a young, inconsistent 14-2 Oliver McCall. Those names do look impressive but when placed into the context of when he fought them - not so much. Sprinkled in were stoppage losses to Mike White and Tony Tucker, and a decision loss to Jesse Ferguson.

Kudos to him, though, for catching lightning in a bottle and defying the huge odds to defeat Tyson and cement a legacy for himself in terms of name recognition and an opportunity to cash in (24 million} against Holyfield.

 

Fair and it’s all just our opinions carrying equal weight.

I just don’t think Mike’s defence was necessarily sub par on that occasion - and I do think Mike’s defence, even when viewed at its perceived “best”, has been overrated at times.

He was slipping in his usual fashion but once he got in close enough to do any damage he was being clutched down.

He also became frustrated and put off by those tactics - as well as him being held and hit at the same time and being hit on the breaks.

Frank clearly came in to make it rough and not so legal and, as a strategy, that worked for a time.

Later, Holyfield, of course superior to Bruno, also made it rough for Mike and we saw how that unpacked in fights 1 and 2.

Again, I just feel that whenever Mike didn’t dominate as much as people expected or in fact lose, many people put it down to Mike being subpar rather than paying sufficient heed, if any at all, to what the opponent in question was actually putting to him.

 

All fair points.