What's Douglas being knocked down got to do with Tyson being "destroyed" ? Your argument lacks logic. It's like saying Japan and Germany weren't destroyed in WW2 and then citing battles they won to back up the statement. In fact, it's more extreme than that because you're citing a brief few seconds of a 10-round fight.
Yeah and how many other nights of his career did we see this "superhuman" version of Douglas ,who you believe would have "beaten any version of Tyson"...I have no issue with your opinion,but to suggest it is one "most" people agree with is wrong. And not being callous but how many other nights of his career had Douglas"s mother just died?... The more familiar face of Douglas at championship level was the guy who quit against tucker and holyfield...you really think that true face of Douglas beats any version of Tyson.....hell a non training,trainerless,heartbroken,Japanese prostitute chain f****ing tyson very nearly beat Douglas in the 8th round. My opinion is tyson from 86-88 beats any Douglas, so does the 89 version and the 1991 version who showed incredible desire to win would have pulverized Douglas...
Fair points -- and I agree that people here routinely sell Douglas short -- but looks can be deceiving. Even the version of Tyson who fought Douglas conceivably could have altered the fight completely had he landed a couple good punches or combinations early on. A few seconds of action and the fight could have looked very, very different, especially given what we know about Douglas' career-long propensity for folding.
Lets not forget Tyson was the champ and Douglas was the chump going in to that fight, you make it sound as if Tyson hadn't faced skilful opponents before, which he had. Tyson vastly underprepared, he was in nothing like the condition he was in for the Holmes fight, the Biggs fight or any of those fights in the late eighties before he completely changed his training methods. This is a mathematical certainty. He didn't come out with speed and ferocity, he wasn't a sharp puncher, he wasn't gliding in the ring like he was when he was correctly conditioned, he wasn't moving his head properly, he threw one punch at a time, he wasn't using angles, he wasn't using his jab properly, he wasn't throwing combinations, he was getting caught with extremely silly punches and wasn't landing his own punches. It comes down to an accumulation of punches, The Tyson who fought Biggs or Holmes wouldn't have been caught with a QUARTER of the punches Douglas landed on him, he would be too sharp to be caught by them, he would also be throwing and landing many more punches which would make for a completely different fight. These are not opinions, its logic, theres a reason Douglas never did ANYTHING again in boxing. I suggest you read the book written about the fight it will enlighten you on what the true facts and the real myths are about the Mike Tyson VS Buster Douglas fight.
Tyson may not have been far from victory at all. Douglas struggled getting up and was probably quite fortunate the bell rang before another punch was thrown. If the KD happened to happen mid round or sooner it would have been fascinating in hindsight to see what played out. Now if my auntie was my uncle she'd have balls, and full kudo's to Douglas for actually managing to get up but i refuse to call a fight containing such a moment a "destruction". Douglas was almost counted out and barely beat the count, it was extremely close. Too close for a man in complete control (as projected by some) for mine. Again credit that he recovered well between rounds and came straight back to resume control. Foreman destroyed Frazier. Tyson destroyed Spinks and many others. Hearns destroyed Duran and Cuevas. My thoughts would be you could say Douglas schooled Tyson excepting late in round 8. He put on a clinic, excepting a knockdown late in round 8.
Well, that's your personal opinion and definition of "destroyed" but I think "Douglas destroyed Tyson" is a fair description too. Douglas waited there for the "9" count anyway listening to the referee, suggesting he was composed and clear-headed and doing what professional fighters are supposed to do but are usually too hurt or shocked to do properly. Really we're talking about one very good solid punch that Tyson threw in the mist and misdst of being battered. It's fair to say Douglas schooled and destroyed Tyson.
It doesn't matter how many other times we saw that version, that one night was enough. I here all these excuses with no evidence to back your claims up, you do know Douglas trumps all those excuses as he had just suffered a spell of illness...... A peak version of Douglas beats a peak version of Tyson imo, the evidence backs up my claims not yours.....
Where's your evidence a "peak Douglas beats a peak tyson"?? Your comments are illogical cheerleading as the only time they fought we saw a "peak Douglas " fight tyson it was against the worst,most non trained most in disarray out of the ring tyson with an inept corner to boot.a tyson who just as Douglas was spurred on by the death of his mother tyson was depressed by the terminal illness of his sister.
You do know Tyson looked his deadly best the fight prior to Douglas The evidence is there for all to see in their fight that actually took place in real life not in someone's mind...... Can you show me evidence or proof that Tyson was non trained or that he was depressed about his dying sister???? Me thinks you're an illogical cheerleader......
the thing with Tyson detractors is they look for evidence for certain things and if it doesn't exist they assume the worse, instead of saying "well maybe Tyson would have won under different circumstances". Its always "Tyson would lose 1000 out of a 1000 times against so and so". Its always clear cut for them when discussing Tyson. Whereas get them talking about a different fighter and they are happy to look at grey areas. They have other rules for mike. He lost a fight, so he would always lose etc etc. Douglas Destroyed Mike in Tokyo, he beat up nearly every round, he was also not near getting knocked out himself imo, he probably could have got up sooner but was just following the count. I can deal with that as a Tyson fan. I can also deal with the fact that Tokyo Douglas might beat any version of Mike. So I really don't get why its so difficult for some people to agree Tyson was not at his best, your "evidence" is all there pre fight, no Rooney, bad camp etc but that stuffs ignored to suit the Tyson detractor. So Tyson was at his best in Tokyo, fully prepared for the biggest fight of his career? I just cant take that seriously. As said I can agree Mike may always lose against that version of Buster but I'll never agree he was in his great primed shape for that fight.
Even though Douglas was almost certainly at the best condition he was ever in there's no saying he couldn't have got in even better shape either.
In a fantasy sense I guess you could say that but in all truth, the idea of Douglas being even better than he was in Tokyo seems impossible. He was brilliant, what else could he possibly have done to look better? He never again got in that shape again, one bit of proof that says Buster was a one off and in all likelihood wouldn't have had the motivation to do a Tokyo on Tyson again.
Tyson was so thoroughly defeated that to claim any other version would wipe the floor with Douglas is pure fantasy. Douglas would have the blueprint to beating Tyson from the first fight and I would fancy him to do it again in a rematch.
