Could tillis have done a buster Douglas?

No, I think Tyson in February 1990 was probably a better fighter than Tyson in May 1986.

Tillis had his chance, gave Tyson a good fight but came up short.

 

No....Douglas was a more complete fighter with better power also

 

Tillis was pretty good. But I don't see him beating any of the prime versions of Tyson.

He could well beat the post prison version though.

 

No one thought that Douglas was going to do a Douglas either so who knows.

 

Tillis was the first fighter to show that Tyson was not some unstoppable monster, he gave Mike all he could handle that night. An extra two rounds would have been very interesting indeed. Tyson mentioned in his book Tillis hurt him badly to the body, if in shape and focused he would have always given Tyson a tough fight.

 

Tyson was 19 years old with umpteen number of bouts and yet to face anyone of substance. Tillis was in his late 20's and had the experience of having faced several notable heavyweights. The fact that a teenage Tyson had a tough time with a veteran fringe/gatekeeper meant fvckall in the grand scheme of things.

 

Except in less than a year he beat Berbick so it does mean fcuk all, Tyson struggled because of Tillis not because he was a novice.

 

Tillis was in good shape and boxed a smart fight.
I think the fight had been delayed so Tillis had been afforded a decent time to train, which wasn't always the case with him, and certainly wasn't the case with most those heavyweights on Tyson's busy schedule at the time.
Of course, Tyson had been ill (ear infection) sometime earlier causing the delay and perhaps was not 100% sharp going in, and he was stepping up really.
He was probably a better fighter against Douglas if anything, as I noted before, so I can't really give Tillis credit in ever be able to win against Tyson. He had his chance and made it close but Tyson was a deserved winner.

 

No it doesn't. It means Fvck ZERO. Most prospects have trouble along the way, let alone ones who are still in their teens and facing notable veterans. Ali got decked by Henry cooper and fought on even terms with Doug Jones just months before dominating an ATG for the title. And mind you Ali was 22, not 19. So does that mean the Jones and Cooper fights should be factored into his true prime abilities? No they shouldn't.

 

It should also be noted that Tyson fought 19 times within 14 months going into the Tillis fight. Under those circumstances a fighter is bound to have an off night.

 

Read tyson book undisbruted truth on more hind site why tyson lost to buster.
The tyson of the eighties was a hungry fighter.the tyson that lost to douglas was out of shape un motived and on drugs.
Plus the japanese pu..y mike was getting
Before the fight. Tillis would have never done a buster on mike. the tyson he fought was a hungry fighter.sure he gave mike trouble but mike beat him.what tyson down fall was he was 21 had milions all mike wanted was pu..y.now be honest if you were 21 had million what would you rather do get pu..y or fight ?

 

Its called a learning exprience. Tyson had trouble with tilis but he beat him thats all that counts. mike at the time had not fought a fighter like tillis miked learn from that fight. And most important at that time mike was hungry.you think tillis would have beat mike in a rematch ? Mike was no chump comming up.

 

Why bring Ali into it? that is a complete different specimen. Tyson was fully developed at such a young age unlike Ali. Of course you know all this but still carry out a meaningless comparison.

 

He didn't look to be having an off night, of course according to you whenever an opponent gives Tyson a good fight or beats him the cause must be Tyson having an off night.