How good was Tokyo Douglas

I am just going to put this here!

 

Better than Tyson.

 

He probably would have beaten a whole lot of the heavyweights most people consider "ATGs."

 

It would have been equally telling to see if Tyson could have repeated his.

It was a perfect storm of Buster hitting the physical and mental heights, Tyson hitting a physical and mental low and styles gelling.

Even so, as @Jamal Perkins points out later on, the footwork was incredible. Also the combinations were so fluid. Nothing that any of the other top names of the 90s did looked as if it was steeped in so much natural talent as what Douglas did that night. In fact, I honestly don't recall seeing many heavyweight displays that were so co-ordinated and fluid. Only one springs to mind, in fact.

And yet it is Buster's performance that gets talked about as if he were outclassing some 33 year old who was never that great to begin with, had been shot and nearly killed in the previous two years and had had to regain some 60lbs before fighting again, not Ali. Ali's display against Cleveland Williams gets lauded as one of the greatest displays ever.

He deserves that as it is the cherry on the top of an outstanding career. But if we just judge one fight independently of any other - let's say every boxer type heavyweight was allowed to choose one fight that we judge them by - Buster's evidence would provide a very compelling case for him having produced the best boxing performance in a title fight. The performance gets downgraded based on Buster's previous and subsequent career as well as Tyson's relatively poor form.

If that's the case, Buster may feel a bit like Sonny Liston did when he was lobbying Nat Fleischer for a title shot. Fleischer said 'You can't have a title shot. Not with your (criminal) record.' Sonny said 'What's that got to d with it?' And while the answer is 'nothing', it is also 'everything.' So while Buster's numerous lacklustre displays shouldn't take the gilt off what he did in Tokyo, they just do. Is that fair? No, not really. Is it unfair? Well, no again.

If anyone knows what the hell I'm on about, please drop me a line because I've lost myself here.

 

He was good, but he didn't have much to beat that night.

 

He was probably better, sharper, against a peak Tucker.

 

Douglas is a case which shows us how mentality means more than talent when it comes to greatness. Look at a guy like Evander Holyfield who is all heart. He lost big to Bowe and had that bad night with Moorer, and had to have so much heart to beat Cooper. And he kept coming back over and over again. Even Hearns who was an overachiever as was Evander. They both did a lot with perseverance and coming back. Many guys would have quit before they did. With Hearns,he was talented and a great, but he was a great because even after having some disastrous losses he came back and kept winning. Had Buster had that loss to Ray in 1981 he would not have been around much longer after that. Hearns wanted to achieve as did all the greats, and they had tough fights and came back. Look at Marvin Hagler getting his title shot so late in his career, and yet had he won earlier he might not have kept his title as well as he did with his experience. Marvin had so much drive. Leonard had drive, but he did not have the mental toughness of Hearns or Duran or Hagler. He had it in the fights themselves because he was competitive and didn't want to lose, but he didnt have their drive. But getting back to Douglas. He had skill to be motivated one night or other nights, but he did not have the mental greatness So I would say he could never have a been a great fighter. The greats persevere more and are more consistent. He was great that night and had a great night. At the same time he was so close to being stopped by Mike that night in round 8, some say he was. He looked at his gloves the same way he did against Evander. It was like he was looking at the gloves to see if he really wanted to fight. He was close to quitting against Mike in my mind. Even tonight you see a guy like Garcia who to me has a lot of heart and perseverance, and then Spence who has the talent and perseverance. Well the two things over the one advantage.. So he should win. A fighter has to have both talent and perseverance. Barkley more perseverance than talent.

 

It’s been years since I watched it but wasn’t he beating Tony Tucker and just got tired? I can’t remember. Then he goes into the Holyfield fight out of shape, gets dropped, and rolls over rather than get up. However, watch him in the 9th round against Tyson. He’d been down, Tyson was going at him & he backed Tyson off. That was a key moment in the fight. He was a warrior that fight.

Guy had talent but only put everything together against Tyson. Determination, great game-plan, skills, everything. That Douglas would give lots of fighters problems but getting that version to show up would be tricky!

 

James Buster Douglas was a very talented fighter who seized the moment to win the title. Like another talented poster pointed out that that boxing is ninety percent mental. Douglas had far worse distractions than a bothersome marriage hanging over him, his mother had just passed. the mother of his son was gravely ill. He had the attitude of, I Have Nothing To Lose But I Could Sure Use The Money. Mike Tyson on the other hand had lost all interest in the title, he spent his off time with Japanese street walkers until all hours, he was distracted ny his failed marriage to Robyn Givens and had trouble with her mother Ruth Roper. He did not train properly, hardly any sparring, kind of reminds me of the motion picture from 1982, Rocky III. Mike was not hungry any more, but Buster was for the money involved, not so much the title either, because in his next fight he was kayoed by Evander Holyfield. Experts were saying that Douglas laid out the perfect blueprint on how to beat Mike Tyson, because he was flatfooted. May were saying that a peak Muhammad Ali from 1964-1967 would have exploited Tyson's psych, which many said was very fragile and immature. But it boils down to Mike had too many Yes Men in his camp, he abandoned the corner who had brought him to the big dance. It was Feb 11 1990, broadcast by HBO for the whole world to see.

 

I went on a binge earlier this year trying to watch the Douglas fights leading up to Tyson. Watched the McCall fight, Williams fight, Wimpy Halstead fight, and the berbick fight. The McCall fight is especially interesting to watch because this is the fight right before Tyson. This must of been on the satelite feed of Tyson vs Williams I believe and the HBO announce crew are really negative towards Douglas and McCall and couldnt care less about the fight.

I think Douglas looked good but not im great shape against Mike Williams. They were hyping Williams as a potential Tyson opponent and Buster beat the daylights out of him. Douglas dropped Williams 3 times with jabs.

I read a good analogy of Douglas once. Hes the guy who you meet at work, thats really good at their job, but its not their passion so they never really try to get promoted and put in the extra effort, but the money is good so they stay at that job.

If you made a checklist of qualities of what makes a successful heavyweight, Buster hits many of them, almost all of them. He had good size, ring IQ, defense, beautiful combination punching, one of the best heavyweight jabs ever, thudding power(McCall in an interview in 2009 said Douglas hit him harder than anyone), good movement. His problems were 99% mental and 1% throwing an uppercut from too far out.

 

Better than Tyson by far. Tyson was in shape. At that age you never get out of shape. It just devalues his fanatics lives themselves who only see or show their manhood by living vicariously thru Mike.

 

See what I mean?

 

This content is protected

 

The point about Douglas providing a blueprint to beat Tyson is pretty correct to me. The assumption was the best way to beat Tyson was to move, jab, clinch, and tire him out. It’s like what Ali did in the 2nd Frazier fight. Keep everything in the center of the ring and use your reach. Problem was, no fighters during Tyson’s reign could execute that plan.

What Douglas did was use his size and aggressively box Tyson. He didn’t bounce around but rather stepped to the side & back when necessary. He attacked Tyson and made him hesitate. Had he run around, Tyson beats him. Retreating constantly wouldn’t have worked. He also wasn’t afraid to push Tyson and maul him some. No one who beat Tyson move away from him.

Give Douglas credit for the win. Ruddock was big, had power, & didn’t run but he couldn’t beat Tyson. He didn’t have the skills. Would Douglas have beaten an in shape, Rooney trained Tyson? The Tyson from Spinks back is so much different mentally from the Tyson afterward.