How good was Tokyo Douglas

none of these guys were good enough on the night TYson fought them to win a world title fight against anyone else.

Mike was not turning away would be champions here. Can you name anyone those guys might have defeated to win a world title on the nights Tyson beat them?

based only on the where they all were at that time, it’s a pretty pitiful bunch. Inactive. Unprepared. Retired. Douglas was really the only in form challenger.

But I will give Tyson credit. Before Douglas He took care of business. Under those circumstances He looked mostly fabulous tearing through the division. And it’s what the fans needed.

 

And Pink? Pink had a heavier jab than Douglas, comparable lateral movement, and significantly better durability. He had Angelo Dundee with him. It didn't matter.

I also refuse to say that Douglas was better than 88 Holmes. Holmes had the jab and savvy to expose Tyson but it never happened.

Tucker beat Douglas.

Spinks did carry power at heavyweight. He ****ed up Cooney. And he fought aggro against Tyson, not scared, but it didn't matter.

I agree that Douglas was better than Bonecrusher and Biggs, but I never said they were better. Biggs was not a drug addict. Tubbs was the only guy messing with drugs who Tyson fought during his reign.

 

For starters, they all would've beaten the Douglas who showed up against Holyfield. And several would'v beaten any Douglas.

 

Okay, I just watched the first round round of Tyson against Tucker and Douglas. It's night and day for Tyson. He lets off about 20 left hooks against Tucker and barely throws any at Douglas. His energy level for Douglas is at about 50 percent and his defense is terrible. No same person could say it was the same Tyson in Tokyo. And Tucker and Douglas were extremely similar.

 

Tyson had been slipping technically and was in ordinary shape, absolutely, but Douglas fought head and shoulders above everyone else that Tyson beat.

He stifled Tyson. His movement early on when Tyson was at his most dangerous is the most overlooked part of his performance. He was lightning for a big man early on dancing out of range effortlessly to take away Tyson's offensive opportunities. He let both hands fly at various intervals to punch Tyson off. His jab was superb and backed by excellent footwork and he slipped and blocked punches most impressively when Tyson did actually get the chance to let them fly. Douglas also bossed in clinches.

None of Tyson's previous opponents could have fought anything like that. He was on fire while Tyson was off a step or two. Thomas had not much of a right hand and his footwork isn't in the same stratosphere as Douglas. Douglas' jab was backed with pristine footwork and defense as well as the odd right hand after it.

Douglas was the full package. He was good at everything. The others aren't the all round fighter he was. The only place he struggled was desire unfortunately.

 

Just watch the first round of Tucker and Douglas back to back. Won’t take long. This one is obvious and Tucker came to win and we know what he did to Douglas.

 

Well put. Reminds me of the discussion in a thread from a few years back:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/buster-douglas-performance-against-tyson.561780/

 

I fully agree the Tyson of the Tucker fight was more dynamic and on song. I've basically said that. Absolutely.

What i am saying is that you vastly undersold Douglas and his own efforts and indeed overall abilities.

Douglas fought well against Tucker but imo gave up somewhat. Regardless that result has no bearing on a Tyson - Douglas dynamic.

That Douglas would have been a damn tough fight for any version of Tyson. His all round game was unreal and he did things that no-one before him was able to do. He not only came to win but he had the tools, dynamics and strategies in place to potentially realise it.

It's a combination of Tyson being off kilter comparative to well earlier and Douglas being totally on fire. Buster's talent was immense.

 

Yes just revisited. There was another more heated thread a while back too with the usual protagonists from both ends of the scale LOL

 

Pink's movement and combination punching was not in the same stratosphere as Douglas.

88 Holmes better than Douglas? Come on. Holmes was no longer able to dance and was mostly fighting stationary. Douglas's movement was ten levels higher. than this version of Holmes. Douglas also had a terrific uppercut whereas Holmes didn't, at least at that stage. Douglas was putting together powerful 4-5 punch combinations with incredible speed and precision. Larry was more reliant on the standard 1-2 combination (jab right hand). This isn't close. 90 Tokyo Douglas is several levels above Holmes.

Spinks did not carry significant power at heavyweight. He stopped Cooney who had fought sub par opposition and had basically 3 fights in 3 years before. Even if Spinks landed his hardest shots on Tyson, it would have done nothing. There is a reason why Spinks was not being matched vs guys like Witherspoon, Thomas, Tucker etc. and was instead matched vs an aging Holmes and a completely past it Cooney. Did Cooney beat any notable contenders post 1982? No. Cooney was not even close to being one of the best heavyweights in the world in 87. Spinks was an ATG light-heavy, At heavyweight, there are several guys at that time besides Iron Mike who would have beaten Spinks, albeit less empathetically than Tyson did.

Tucker beat Douglas but if you watch the fight again, you will see that Douglas was the better more talented fighter. Douglas was a head case and thats why he lost to a lesser fighter in Tucker.

 

I'd rate Tyson's reign opponents like this:
1. Spinks
2. Tucker
3/4. Douglas and Holmes
5. Pink
6. Smith
7. Tie between Biggs, Bruno, and Tubbs.

I'd probably put Ruddock at 2 or 3 and Berbick 6, if included individually. That isn't disrespectful to Douglas, but Tyson wasn't special on that night.

 

Going into their fights with Tyson, Douglas never beat up a serious heavyweight int he same way Spinks did Cooney, who was the favorite.

Holmes started to use his legs right before he got caught.

Tucker wasn't a lesser fighter. He outlasted Douglas and tko'd him in a close fight.

Combination punching wasn't the greatest asset for beating Tyson. Combo punching opened up counter opportunities for Tyson, to a lesser extent in Tokyo because Tyson was awful.

 

again Cooney was not a top heavyweight in 87. Douglas would have smashed him if he showed up that way. No one would rate Cooney as a top 10 heavyweight in 1987. I am willing to bet more than 10 guys in 1987 would have done the same or worse to that version of Cooney

Holmes's legs were shot. Tried to use doesn't mean he could use. He did not have the energy or speed to dance so he couldn't. He had nothing offensively to bother Tyson with, and he was never a bigpuncher.

Combination punching does matter, even vs Tyson. Holyfield showed that albeit vs a lesser older version of Mike. Yes, it opens you up for counters but it is a better tactic than just throwing a jab and a right hand. No one is beating Tyson just by jabbing and throwing a occasional right. You have to take chances. You have to land big combinations to make him hesitant in coming forward.

 

1. Cooney was perceived as being a serious heavyweight. He wasn't ranked near the top due to past inactivity, but looked good in his comeback fight a year before fighting Spinks. Spinks put the nail in that coffin so it's pointless guessing if Berbick or whoever would beat him. Cooney was favored to beat the number one heavyweight in 1987 and looked good for four rounds. Deal with it.
2. Holmes had legs. Watch the fight. It's on YouTube. His legs were probably lighter than Buster's. Holmes also had a good uppercut btw.
3. Accurate punching trumps combinations against Tyson. Douglas wouldn''t have had success with combos if Tyson were moving his head and throwing with him like he did to past opponents. Buster would've been clipped. He almost got knocked out as it is.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

2. I have watched Holmes-Tyson at least half a dozen times. Holmes had no legs. He was trying but he had to fight stationary. Saying his legs were lighter than Douglas is highly inaccurate. Douglas was an athletic 29-30 year old in his physical prime and was moving with incredible speed and precision. Holmes was 38, well past his physical prime, and had to fight stationary because his legs did not allow him to move at that speed anymore.

In fact, Holmes had been fighting increasingly stationary from 1983 onwards. He simply could not move like his younger days. Holmes did not have the legs to dance no matter how much he tried.

3. Douglas's punching was accurate. Accurate combination punching is key vs Tyson. You will never beat him any other way.

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree.