Could Buster Douglas Have Gotten A Win Over Vitali Klitschko?

Not.
I don't think Douglas is the quality of a fighter that Vitali is.
It's just that Douglas' best win is far better than Vitali's best win.

 

I have no reason to favor Douglas, no. Of course an upset is possible in literally every matchup you can think of but that doesn’t compel me to pick him initially.

 

Doubt it. There's nothing about Douglas that makes me think he has anything that would trouble Vitali.

 

In my opinion, yes. I know this opens me up to the anti-Tyson and pro-Vitali cohort but I think the best version of Buster was almost without any major flaws.

Exceptional movement, fast hands, a jab that was nearly as quick and as spiteful as Larry Holmes', decent stamina, good power, two handed, strong. Someone on here mentioned Buster working the pads - Buster holding not hitting - when long retired and him not budging as he was hit.

He was a natural and fighting would have come naturally to him, if he'd wanted it. Same, though to a hugely lesser degree, as the likes of RJJ, Mayweather or Benitez. Boxing was in his life from childhood. Tyson didn't just lose because he was a) never really that good b) had terrible preparation c) Cus had died and Rooney flown the nest; although cases can be made for all, those scenarios. For me, the main obstacle to Tyson winning was the opponent he was facing. He was a top fighter. And he showed it in other fights too. He wasn't a total flash in the pan. There's more to Buster than Tokyo.

Vitali never looked anything like that. He was comparatively stiff, robotic, lacking flexibility of movement. He got as close to greatness as being strong, tough and determined can take you - which, in his case, was a long way. But he never looked like he was born to be a boxer to me. Boxing was just one of the sports he could have excelled in with the right training.

If I was a betting man, I'd bet Vitali. He was almost always at, or near to, his best and that was good enough to best the version of Buster that would probably show up. But if Buster gets it right, physically and mentally, I think he can pull this off.

 

What reason to you have to pick Vitali when you brush aside Vitali's loss to Lewis at a time when he wasn't as good as Tokyo Buster , his best win being washed up Sam Peter who lost to 6 foot non-heavyweight Chambers and his other best win a decade past prime Sanders who was knocked out in his prime by Rahman...
Moreover , Douglas has better skills , faster , better jab. And he is looser , more fluid , better combo puncher. How exactly does the slower and stiffer Vitali deal with such disadvantages?

 

Perhaps in an alternate universe.

 

The trouble for Douglas here is that Vitali is extremely likely to not go away. Douglas really didn't wear much against Tyson (yes a heavy flash KD when he'd been in total control for some time and the round was ending) and certainly nothing sustained. Would the old tendencies have surfaced if he did? Buster was in really good shape and looking superb against Tony Tucker and matched him all the way if not shaded him in the eyes of some before basically capitulating. He was fighting for a title too.

So my worry is Vitali wearing him down mentally and he'd be just the type of guy to do that. Alternatively we do have Vitali quitting against Byrd but one would think those conditions wouldn't be replicated.

I think Buster is the more talented fighter. If you put Larry Holmes desire and determination into him i think he'd beat Vitali. As it is i'd have to favor Vitali with the caveat that if we were talking a 10 rounder Busters chances improve noticeably. Some might say but he was beaten in the 10th against Tucker but the point is this was scheduled for 12 rounds and there was no finish line remotely in sight.

 

You’re hand picking two evenings in these guys careers to extrapolate across the board what types of fighters they were. Which do you honestly think was more consistent ?

 

Good stuff, JT. Great counters to my suggestions and you're right that, if it comes down to their psyches, Vitali has a massive edge. Poor old Buster's mum can't keep dying.

I should admit to being biased. Nothing against Vitali who seems a perfectly okay bloke but I really like Buster. What a great guy he has always seemed.

 

Hi Buddy.
Excellent post, well written and making a lot of sense, you have done Buster proud, for decades most of the boxing fraternity felt that Tyson had not trained as well as he should, and was out partying, and well he might, at this stage of his career his reputation was playing a large part in the way his fights panned out, lots, not all, were almost done before the fight got underway, such was the fear and foreboding Tyson instilled in his opponents, not Douglas, allied to the skills you outlined perfectly, he proved to be more than capable of beating Mike, not that anyone felt he would of course, so yes he was a good fighter, with no fear of Tyson.
Stay safe Eddie, look forward to your next contribution.

 

Consistently means nothing in h2h fights.
Why do you think Vitali kept winning until he retired at 41 and Wlad retired with 2 loses at 41?

Can i answer? Because one guy was fighting the cream of the crop and the other guy was fighting creampuffs.

So yes , Vitali was very consistent ,over a a slew of mediocrity. When faced against his two best opponent he lost.
Douglas was faced against undefeated Mike Tyson and WON. Yet you ignore that to pick the guy you want to win

 

Cheers Eddie.

You'd be one of few not biased against Vitali in here and i'm probably not totally in the clear myself lol.

Busters a good guy for sure and one of the biggest wastes of talent despite his historic turn against Tyson. He had all the physical assets and was just so well schooled excepting the odd risky uppercut.

 

It depends entirely on which version of Douglas shows up. Fully ripped, fully prepared, clear headed and ready to rumble Douglas is a handful for anybody.

How many times did we see it though?

 

It’s not about who I WANT to win. It’s who I THINK would win based on styles, physical attributes and a pattern of consistency. Douglas lost to guys at ALL levels of his career. Vitali lost twice to two world class fighters. Once by doctor stoppage due to a cut and the other because of a torn rotator cuff.. you even tried to claim that Peter was past his prime which he wasn’t. He had never been stopped and was WBC champ. He lost to chambers in his next fight because he was a grotesque 265 lbs due to not training. The ain’t how he showed up for Vitali. Do you think Tyson was at his best when he lost to Douglas ? Do you think Tyson bares any semblance to Vitali ?