How long does Jim Braddock last vs 1988 Mike Tyson?

Douglas is miles better than Braddock, not no mention a lot bigger too.
And Tyson was not prepared for that fight at all.

 

I can't see Braddock taking Tyson out early, it would have to be late if he was going to stop him.

 

Buster Douglas was talented, big and had an excellent jab and footwork. He also had a perfect game plan. Until that night he'd been an underachiever. But on this night he believed he could win! It was no fluke when he beat Mike.

 

Oh got it. Thanks

 

Mike was sufficiently prepared. Excuses. If he was all that he was cracked up to be, even at 90% of himself, he still should’ve beaten Douglas.

The point being, the perception of Mike’s invincibility was busted in his actual career - but somehow it’s still alive and well in the fantasy realm.

Tillis and Holyfield were also different fighters to Douglas (and Braddock) but they also defied the odds set against vs Iron Mike. But there’s an excuse at every turn for Mike - not so for other fighters.

 

I like your perspective.

 

Top post Vic. Much needed context and perspective.

 

Thanks Pug. I think the “past prime” 23/24 year old Tyson myth needed dispelling.

I think the problem Tyson fans (me included) had/have is that the Douglas defeat was never avenged so the slate was never wiped clean.

Had Tyson have rematched Douglas and beaten him, there’s no way this “past prime” nonsense would ever have been mentioned. The other excuses/reasons for the defeat in their first meeting would still be used…even more so actually!
But past prime at 23?? Not on your life.

 

He was a great fighter, no question but the excuses and false parameters for his prime and assessments otherwise do become a bit tedious imo.

Particularly when other fighters aren’t afforded the same hearing on their own primes or what might’ve detracted from their own performances - that includes fighters across the board and especially those Mike beat.

When Mike won, it was apparently ALL about Mike. When Mike lost, it was apparently also ALL about Mike.

When Mike’s alright he doesn’t lose. When Mike loses, he wasn’t alright. Very circular.

 

Tyson was not at 90% vs Douglas, he was at 50% tops.
As for Holyfield, he faced a post prison Tyson, who was a shadow of his former self.
Plus Holyfield is a world class boxer that was roided to the gills, and he's miles better than Braddock.
To suggest Braddock stands a chance cause of what Holfield did is laughable.

 

I do not see Braddock ever winning against Tyson, but neither do i see him being blown away in the first round.

However on a side note, Braddock sure knew how to be a winner even if losing, lost the title to Louis, but on top of his purse he got for the title defence, he also was guaranteed 10% of the promoters profit from promoting Louis over the following 10 years, a nice little earner indeed.

 

Haha! That made me chuckle

 

3 rounds. I think Mike comes out fast and overwhelms him.

 

WB - Don’t forget what chance we’re talking about.

As it pertains to your forecast, he’s a vey good chance of lasting longer than 30 seconds.

Fifty percent - Mike was half the man he used to be?

That’s actually a great example of taking excuses for Mike well beyond the truth.

As to his fights vs Evander, what are the percentage odds/probability that Mike was on the roids himself?

Anyway, who cares about the quality of Mike’s opposition, be it the impact of their own excellence or their own tales of woe. It was always, unrealistically, all about Mike.

For instance, what percentage of himself was Michael Spinks when he faced Mike - 1%?