*How close in Percentage-Terms was Tyson to PEAK/BEST when he KTFO by Bummy Douglas?*

Lots of brave fighters took tyson head on. I firmly agree, but not one of them had anything to even the score anyway near the edge Tyson had on them. They were not within a fair chance against tyson. Douglas timed tyson and set him a puzle. schmeling worked out young joe louis it was the same thing.

they were not hall of famers either. thomas was poor losing the title to berbick, was no beter since and had not been a good fighter for a long time before he met tyson. berbick himself never realy made the grade and was not fancied to beat thomas, many said berbick was lucky to get thomas on an off night anyway. Tucker, was largely unproven -douglas quit on him, tucker never scored any good wins. Biggs had life and death with david bey -a larry holmes victim. Tubbs lost money just so he could come in out of shape against tyson!

 

He was peak physically, just not fully sharp and not fighting to his the pinnacle of his skills.

Its clear he was no longer 100%, but he was not down as far as his fans try to paint.

I'd say 85% to 90%, so I voted 90%. His skills, speed, and power were there, he just wasn't fully focused and tuned in, and his fighting style had developed holes due to incompetence and lack of discipline.

 

Still waiting to see the Tucker comment. Tyson definitely said he didnt prepare for Douglas in his latest documentary and even stated he didn't think much of him because he had beaten Tucker. Stop pulling **** out of your arse.
Additionally some of you guys should get a life. Making several usernames to make a point is so dam transparent and idiotic. You know who you are.

 

Quoted for truth

I couldn't have said it better. If Tyson really was the wrecking machine people claimed him to be he'd gotten rid of Douglas inside 3 or 4.

Nobody is shot at 24 and if external disturbances distracted him that badly then you have to blame his weak mentality. Being mentally weak is a death sentence against a fighter more badass than you.

 

tyson was interviewed in prison at a time when he was not sure if he would ever box again. It was for ring magazine and he ran through each opponent with a coment on each one. sammy scaff-"some big red neck" etc, on to tillis he said he got hit "some hard body shots, the knock down saved me, won me the fight". he was being very candid. then he came up to the title fights. for each one he said "I wasnt in any kind of shape" apart from tubbs - he said he knew he "needed to be in shape with him". For tucker he said he "shouldnt have even took the fight, I didnt want it, wasnt in any kind of shape" Now I dont know if he was simply repeating himself but he said it. asked about bruno and williams again he said "I dont know how they didnt beat me, I wasnt in any kind of shape" onto douglas "he fought a great fight". make of it as you will.

Tyson was a young man going off the rails even when he was sucsessful. You cant blame his preparations any more for one title fight than any other.

 

You don't have to be shot to be less than prime. Yes, he was distracted and lost his championship focus. This boards seems excessively forgiving of this trait in some fighters, particularly those born in the 19th century.

A lot of great fighters get dusted by mediocre opposition, especially in the heavyweight ranks. Jack Johnson got sparked at 23, beat by a Kentucky hillbilly at 28, and beaten down by a Kansas farmhand at 37. Dempsey, if the rules were to be enforced, was KO'd by Firpo, and certainly beaten by Meehan and cold-cocked by Flynn. Liston lost to Marshall. Foreman was beaten by the 2rd rater Young. Lewis got KO'd by two big, heavyhanded guys who were otherwise unexceptional. Wlad got KO'd by a golfer and a limited, albeit power puncher in Brewster.

This **** does happen in the heavyweight ranks, especially if you can't hold your focus. But realize by the time Tyson lost he had defended the unified championship 8 times. Marciano, for instance, defended the existing belt of his era 6 times, Dempsey 5 times. Is Tyson merely being chastised for not knowing when to hang up the gloves? Would Marciano be thought less of if he had stuck around for Patterson and gotten sparked? I just don't understand where the standard is here that is supposedly being applied equally along all eras?

 

So Tyson was in poor shape except for the Tubbs fight. He was in better shape for Douglas under Bright and Snowell than any fight leading up to it. Is that what youre saying? Never heard that interview.

 

Thats kinda of harsh, Marciano, Louis and other great heavyweight champions have been dropped in sparring before big fights. It happens.

 

Should have said post. I think tyson's chin is underrated. I think his preparation wasn't perfect and he suffered. I think had he trained as he should have done, he has a better chance of victory.

 

he was about 85%, but just thought Buster Douglas was some bum so he took him very lightly.

 

Thats not a fair comparsion, Tyson was in his prime, 24 years of age, and blasting people out.

Marciano was 33 years old when he hung the gloves up. Had Marciano been 24 years of age. I am pretty sure he would not have retire.

 

Had Marciano started at 14, turned pro at 19, won the title at 21, how would we phrase this answer?

 

I think it may have been harder to retire, if Marciano was on a unbeating run like Tyson was. I dont think he lose at 24. I give him about 30 or so. Until Liston hits the scene at least.

 

You do make some logical , well thought out points but you deeply discredit yourself by your manipulation of facts .. you don't need to do it .. your points are good enough to stand on their own. Just food for thought ..

 

What is being manipulated?

Am I the lone manipulator on this board?

Is objectivity achievable?