Had they fought tyson in tokyo feb 90

Fair enough.

 

I reckon Tyson would have been very interested at the end of the first round. Maybe just maybe he was never the same fighter because Douglas knocked it out of him physically and mentally?

 

You're preaching opinion and guesses as facts, that is the BS.

I don't think he'd always beat Holyfield nor Lewis, but that is my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Making out excuses might be important for fighters that were clearly 2 levels below peak Tyson is absurd. Next we will be looking to see if Scott Frank was 100% for the Holmes fight. History shows us Holyfield was a great warrior and an absolute ATG heavyweight. History also tells us Tyson was Buster's best moment in the ring. It also tells us Tyson was much much better than guys like Tucker, Biggs, Tubbs etc.

It is indisputable that Buster's mother dying was a blessing performance wise to Buster. Anyone with half a clue knows this thru researching the works of those that do actually have a clue. Those that knew Douglas, were close to him, etc. They can then watch the fight and see Buster fight with a clarity and manic determination they would not overly see before nor after. He turned this fight into his Everest and damned if he didn't climb her - for his mother.

On the flipside it had been mentioned by those actually in the know that he was going off the rails, losing dedication, sliding technically and may have been in danger career wise if he didn't shape up. This was before Douglas, a couple of fights prior from memory.

So we had one guy going one way and the other another around fight time. I'm not saying Tyson was 40% of what he was a few fights earlier or anything, but he wasn't what he'd been when he spectacularly burst thru the title scene. As things went on this was somewhat camouflaged due to plenty of guys being beaten before they walked into the ring, and the fact that Tyson was so much better than them.

Buster Douglas imo rose to a level much much higher than any guy Tyson had ever fought rose to. I thought he was the most gifted of all the challengers after seeing him lose to Tucker but thought he was another Greg Page et al who would never put it together. He was somewhat uninspired and didn't look to have the heart and determination to realise his imo tremendous potential. On this night he did. The guy really does have tremendous skills and ability. He's got taht one legendary night but it's a pity he never put it together over a prolonged period of time.

 

Rather than go back and forth endlessly i will just put forth some material from someone that does actually know the facts and is qualified to speak authoritively on them. It's all in there from Tyson's slipped dedication to Buster's manic determination due to his mothers death. Over the weekend i'll also try to find that article put on here a few months ago where the experts noted Tyson's in ring drama's and dangers before he'd actually lost.

CIANI: Now just two fights after that, Mike Tyson would of course meet Buster Douglas in Japan who was a big time underdog, and he shocked the world and what is widely viewed as the biggest upset in boxing history, if not sports history. What were you thinking at that time going into that fight, the fight itself, and the immediate aftermath? With that whole scenario, what were your views on that during that time?

STEWARD: I was kind of shocked with how the fight turned out. I had a strange feeling going into that fight, because I had known Buster Douglas all of his life. His dad Bill and I were on the National Team together. I was the National Golden Gloves champion at 118 and he was at 160. We had fought representing the United States for a couple of matches together. So I had known Buster all of his life, and I was kind of surprised because he has always been an inconsistent fighter, both as an amateur and a professional. But for that particular fight everything was just right for an upset. Buster was extremely motivated to the point where he was like, “If I never win another fight in my life, I will win this fight” because he was doing it for his mother. He was very closely and emotionally attached to her and she had just died. So when a guy is in that state of mind, he is a very, very tough guy to beat. The fact that he crawled off the floor, even with possibly a long count still, but he crawled off the floor after being seriously hurt and still came back—he was just on a mission that night. At the same time, Mike was going in the opposite direction, riding the crest of just the glory, and his abilities, and the aura about him, and fans going crazy over him. I know he didn’t train that serious and he had no real dedication to boxing the way he should have, so everything mixed up just right for a major upset where one guy underestimated his opponent and didn’t train and the other guy was totally on a mission and thought he was going to win that fight even if he never won another fight. It was a major upset. If you look Buster Douglas never did anything major after that. That was the highlight of his career that particular night, but that happens in sports.

 

I'm not. I've been pretty clear to point out I'm explaining how I assess fighters and how all of us here on this forum generally assess fighters, their wins and their losses.
The people who are concerning themselves with excessive speculation and guesswork are the people who are pulling up a zillion reasons or excuses as to why Tyson lost to Douglas, and that is something we generaly don't do for other fighters.

My point is simple enough. When two fighters meet in their primes or near primes and one fighter wins in conclusive devastating fashion we tend to accept that head-to-head the fighter who won the fight has the beating of the one who lost.
In the absence of other evidence (ie. other meetings between the pair) that is the reasonable position to take.
For some reason, when I take this position with Mike Tyson re:his defeat to Douglas, people object.

It's not me who is making out excuses as important. I'm questioning the use of excuses.
Explain : Why would excuses for Tony Tucker losing to Tyson be less important to you than excuses for Tyson losing to Douglas ?
Seeing as Tucker actually went the distance and won 3 or 4 rounds, and claimed a broken hand (reported pre-fight, though that doesn't make it true either) against Tyson .... whereas Tyson was outfought all but about one second for 9 rounds and KO'd in the 10th by Douglas and had a zillion excuses, why would you dismiss the former and accept the latter ?

Your stock answer : you simply say "clearly 2 levels below peak Tyson", so basically what you do is you decide a fighter's quality before the fact of the result, and if the result doesn't conform to that perception you look for whatever excuses may be flying around to explain it away. Is that it ?
In other words, once a fighter is labelled "higher level", that's it, it's final. No one can ever prove themselves truly capable if you've pegged them at a lower level based on previous results. Lke some sort of Victorian class system or hierarchy there is little mobility.
If they do prove themselves capable of beating someone in the higher level, it's open season to accept and consider a multitude of excuses for the man who "should have" won ?
But if they "know their place", follow the script and lose, they have no recourse to any excuse whatsoever, they simply don't belong to the privileged class of fighter ("levels above") who is allowed excuses.

You see, to me, that's just not a fair way to judge fighters.
I hope you can understand that.

No one cares if he was. He was outclassed. That's the point.
It's funny you become almost indignant at the idea that anyone not Tyson (or another star fighter) can have an excuse, but you'll defend the excessive excuse-searching exercises going on around Tyson's loss to Douglas.
You don't even seem to see the contradiction.

Holyfield and Tyson had better careers than Douglas, Tubbs, Biggs, Tubbs, so, yes, they were better fighters over the course of career. They rank as ATGs or greats, no one disputes that.
But Douglas was better than Tyson in the direct head-to-head confrontation.
By the same token, Riddick Bowe was better than Holyfield.

Yes, but that is subjective. Douglas made it work for him.
From an objective standpoint, having a mother die before the fight isn't an advantage.

If you can understand that you might actually begin to question whether all Tyson's apparent "disadvantages" or "problems" were in fact factors in his defeat at all. It's simply assumed they were. Mostly after the fact of defeat.

Again, I don't say Tyson was 100%. I do say he was still prime.
I also point out that most champions have similar ebbs and flows of dedication and form when they are on top, and have some off-nights and periods of overconfidence, staleness etc.
That doesn't stop us from judging them on their results and performances.

The idea, for an example, that Joe Louis was some sort of clean living fully dedicated athlete with no crazy problems outside of the ring for his entire 11 year reign would be a ridiculous idea for people who have a clue. But because he didn't lose during that time in a shocking defeat people assume he must have been blessed an easy ride or something.
So even his bad nights when he won are commonly used against him.

 

So now you're bringing Emmanuel Steward into it, a man who wasn't in neither man's camp? Gets better this.....