Had they fought tyson in tokyo feb 90

You're way to logical for this thread, only Tyson has legitimate excuses don't you know that by now?

 

Don't forget Berbick was drugged in his loss to Tyson, he said it so it must be true.

 

I'm pretty sure Trevor Berbick was a paranoid schizophrenic.
He shouldn't really have been allowed to box.
So I declare all his fights "NO CONTEST".
That's one less win for Tyson, and one less win for Douglas.

 

Well, I understand now, Mike Tyson being the first man in history to have woman troubles, and the first boxer in history to have made changes with management/trainers, he's pretty much deserving of being deemed a special case.

Personally I knew he was done when I saw how a mediocre fighter like Carl Williams could take him into the 93rd second of the first round. Tyson really struggled there. There's no way Williams could have done so well against a prime Mike Tyson.

 

="Unforgiven, post: 18366578, member: 2761"]Every great fighter has had problems. In fact, every fighter has problems. Most ordinary people have life problems. Mike Tyson is not special in that way.
Buster Douglas had his own problems.
Many of the guys Tyson beat had well-documented problems too.

This content is protected

It's interesting you list all these things and then query if or why I don't think it's "enough of an explanation" .....

This content is protected

and yet, you completely failed to mention Buster Douglas.
You've totally closed your mind to the possibility that Buster Douglas (a living, breathing fighter with two gloved fists) is THE explanation of Mike Tyson's loss.

This content is protected

No, Ali and Louis didn't lose their championships in one-sided beatdowns in their absolute primes.
Louis had some bad days at the office and he prevailed. That's a difference.

This content is protected

..... and if he had, how would that be comparable to Tyson's loss to Douglas ? Are you suggesting Tyson could have been allowed to continue in round 10 ?
Tyson was thoroughly beaten. Holmes was just decked.

This content is protected

Holmes's "Buster Douglas" was actually probably Mike Weaver. An underdog who turned out to be much better than anticipated, with Holmes perhaps not 100% fit. And Holmes dug deep and prevailed.

This content is protected

Lennox Lewis never received the same level of hype as Tyson enjoyed.
I totally mark Lennox Lewis down for those losses. I don't make excuses. I don't rate Lewis as high as I'd rate Al, Louis or Holmes.

This content is protected

Douglas did fine against Oliver McCall. Douglas wasn't an exciting fighter.

This content is protected

Douglas wasn't reincarnated but he boxed well, took the initiative, and used his immense physical advantages against a short guy with stumpy arms. It's not rocket science, nor is it a mystery of the universe.

This content is protected

He didn't give Tyson the space or angles to launch those trademark attacks. He just went out there and bossed him.

This content is protected

For all Tyson's greatness, being short with short arms was always going to be a potential weakness, as was having to rely on a single high-intensity style or mode of fighting.

This content is protected

 

Nobody is claiming that MIke Tyson was the "first" man in history to have women problems or change in management or that he's a special case. And I listed a lot more than just those two things, all of which happened in a very short period of time.

 

Do you acknowledge Busters' illness before the fight or do you think it's irrelevant?

 

- When did officiating save Louis and Ali from a loss while they were being beaten down in their prime ala Douglas-Tyson ?
Name the instances where they lucked out of a similar situation because they got favours.

- If Holmes had been stopped upon rising against Shavers, most people would say it was stopped too early. People would question it. People would remark on that stoppage. Even if we deemed it in some way fair enough, we'd say it was not a one-sided fight at all, and considering Holmes had shut out Shavers in a previous fight, it would be wholly reasonable to hold that Holmes was still the superior boxer.

Tyson was thrashed by Douglas. If he'd have been allowed to continue in the 10th he would have lasted about 5 seconds longer at maximum, and he might have been killed. He'd taken a beating for almost the entire fight.
If you're seriously trying to say somehow Ali, Holmes and Louis had similar championship fights in their primes but caught some breaks with officiating, that's insane.

 

These excuses for Tyson are pathetic.
If you want to say "plagued with troubles outside the ring", then say the same for all those guys Mike Tyson beat who had known outside-the-ring issues.
If they count so much for Tyson why don't they count as much for Tucker, Thomas, Tubbs etc. ?
Douglas himself had known issues, his baby's mother was seriously ill and his mother had died and he had a bad cold/flu illness.

You don't know whether Larry Holmes had issues or not. The man was a professional and a private person. We don't know. Usually we just don't care to hear excuses.
If the case of Mike Tyson, we're supposed to sit there and consider about a thousand such excuses.

 

- I like how you try to bend the argument by inserting words like "prime" and " beat down", but the fact is Ali has been credited as receiving gift decisions by some against Doug Jones, Ken Norton, Jimmy Young, etc.. He also got away with a lot of holding behind the head and other tactics. Some of these fights were when he was around prime and others not so much but yes, officiating might have saved him from losing to lesser men. Louis was beaten down by Schmeling while being at a comparable stage in his career to Tyson and the man who did it was off for a year, in his thirties and had only won 4 of his last 8 fights. Sure he won the rematch but Tyson never got that chance. He's also been suspect of gifts against Walcott and Godoy. Holmes might definitely have been halted with a different referee against Shavers and that was a prime showing. He's also been credited as potentially being gifted against a 15 fight Witherspoon and a 16 fight Williams. Were any of the above men as inactive as Tyson going into the Douglas match? Any recent changes in management or trainers? Any ugly divorces or fights on the street breaking their hands?

 

You mention Douglas having family problems. Tyson lost either a member of his family or a close member of his team literally every year as a pro up to the Douglas fight. And like I said before, few fighters had the complete "conglomeration" of problems Tyson had going into the Douglas fight and for the few who did, they seldom did well or were lucky to be saved by officiating or facing a total no hoper.

 

Now you're bringing up fighting tactics of Ali. I suppose Tyson hitting after the bell, elbowing and hitting downed opponents doesn't count then.....

 

For the record, I never had any hopes or intention of changing your ( Unforgiven ) mind on this. Your position on Tyson losing to Douglas because Douglas was "better" is well documented and a mind set that you've been locked into for years. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I will continue to accept that Douglas beat Tyson on that night while also considering other possibilities for Mike's performance while you will continue to believe that same thing would have happened on literally ANY night they fought.

 

The excuses are no worse than the BS you are waffling on with. Tyson performed on a level myriads above Tucker Thomas and co which is why reasons are taken into account after such a shock loss. Tyson was a massive fave to beat Douglas and was favored over the others.

The two simple facts of the matter are firstly that Tyson's drama's were spoken of well prior to the Douglas loss and questions were openly asked as to whether it would cost him, sooner rather than later. Some experts were also noticing in ring drama's. Secondly the death of Buster's mother among lesser factors saw all the stars align that led to a sensational performance from the guy. His determination and performance were easily career high and he deserves great credit for that.

It's a combination of a poorer Tyson who was shirking training and losing dedication (as well as being complacent, overconfident and smug with his own press) and a fantastic Douglas. As for the fights pre Douglas 70% of peak Tyson's opponents were beaten before they entered the ring, particularly Spinks.

 

Well said and thank you.