IF IRON MIKE WAS UP AND COMING NOW,WHAT WOULD YOUR THOUGHTS BE?

I comment on lots of other threads, you fool.
You only see me in Tyson threads because you're always here looking to stalk my posts with these same old tired lines.

I've argued many hours with Thomas Hearns fans who make excuses for his losses to Leonard, Hagler or even the first one with Barkley. These are prime and near prime losses. KO losses, uncontroversial.
That's just one example.

Donald Curry is another one. His loss to Honeyghan is a particularly bad case of fans making excuses.

The truth is, no loss ever gets as many excuses and brushed off so flippantly as Tyson's to Douglas.

Yes, all boxing fans make excuses at some time. I used to do it too. It's childish and not objective.
Why can't we all agree to stop making excuses for fighters losses in their primes ?
Would you sign up for that ?

 

Tyson wasn't at his best but very few fighters are at their bests every fight in their primes. Sometimes they lose.

The point is, Douglas wasn't a great fighter and he absolutely exposed prime Tyson's weaknesses when Tyson was having his bad day. It wasn't a close fight.
That doesn't mean Tyson wasn't a great fighter but it limits how great he was.

A lot of people are still living with the illusion that he was something like the greatest heavyweight fighter ever in a head-to-head sense, and that even a fellow great like Holyfield was oh so lucky to defeat him too, but the facts suggest Tyson was never quite in the top class of ATGs.

 

Sangria seeks my attention constantly and recently I've been kind enough to oblige him. I try to spare a few minutes for him every day.
I think he appreciates it.

 

You are a long way left of center in your view of losses tho, most times.

You refuse to acknowledge facts which undeniably mean the difference between winning and losing even when they slap you in the face.

Lewis - Rahman is an obvious example. It's plain to see you don't like Lewis much and even with all the evidence and factual accounts out there you refuse to acknowledge he didn't beat the best Lewis. Lewis came back and absolutely obliterated the guy simply because he was way underdone in the first fight, but fully ready in the second. The facts are out there. Now it's 100% LL's fault that he wasn't prepared and he paid the price however blind freddy knows he never beats a prepared Lewis.

Tyson - Douglas is another. I wish i could find the article but well before this fight sages such as Futch, Steward and co. noted the decline and differences in him even at this surprising stage. They were also quoted in an article post Douglas dwelving into what had happened to Tyson and the how's and why's. We also have plenty of evidence as to how poor his training camp was. Now this is 100% on Tyson and co. but it's obvious Douglas didn't beat him at his electric best. Futch, Atlas, Clancy, Steward and god knows who else are all on record about this. You will have to excuse me but with all due respect i will accept the words and opinion of these great trainers over your own. I'm sure you understand.

Curry's loss is another. Anyone with any idea about boxing could see Curry was dead in the water and nothing like his usual self. Again this is tough luck for him but it's also easy to see.

Strangest thing is however you give John Mugabi of all people a complete pass post Hagler citing he was never the same. You freely pick him in fantasy matches citing the version pre Hagler.

At least Curry, Tyson and co. actually beat live contenders and champions at some point and had reigns lasting years.

 

P.S. I'm no Tyson nuthugger. I freely pick Holyfield and Lewis to beat him peak for peak. I like to think i am in the middle ground when it comes to him and more than happy with where i sit. He polarizes so many and in this thread we certainly have the extremes of hater and nut hugger well and truly covered.

 

I believe he was a better fighter against Berbick.

But that doesn't mean he could have ever done to Douglas what he did to Berbick.
In fact, it doesn't say anything about how he'd ever gave coped with the Douglas of Tokyo.

Douglas fought a great strategy for Tyson's style, whether it was 1990, 1987, 1988, 1986 ....
And Berbick, well, he probably fought a pretty poor strategy and he never had the same tools and abilities as Douglas.

I give Tyson full credit for beating Berbick. Was that the best version of Berbick? Maybe but I doubt it, but Tyson destroyed him anyway.

I give Douglas full credit for beating Tyson. Was it the best Tyson? No, but that doesn't mean Tyson was ever going to win against a Douglas boxing like that either. Apart from a few seconds, Tyson had no success at all.

 

Flu is a viral infection. I'll take Douglas's word over yours,nothing personal ,but it seems the sensible thing to do.
Now please explain what knowledge you have of Tyson that I lack.

 

Flu is a vital infection yes but the tonsilitis and bronchitis that stemmed from it are not, hence the Penicillin.

You were ignorant of Douglas' ailments prior to the fight, it's a bigger deal than any of Tyson's excuses is it not?

 

You're wrong.

Lewis wasn't in shape against Rahman. I'll state that now.
But going 1-1 with Rahman doesn't prove superiority head-to-head.
Going 1-1 is even.
This is objectivity.

I know the article you refer to regarding speculation that Tyson could lose. The whole angle of the article is born out of the NOVELTY of considering he might in fact be losing before anyone expects it, but when push came to shove those pundits expected him to beat the guys who were around at the time.

The thing is, you're not objective. I concede Tyson was diminishing. I know he wasn't at his absolute best for Douglas. Yet when I've pointed out the same thing can be said for Pinklon, Tucker, Tubbs, Biggs, Bruno etc. when they challenged Tyson, you scoff.
That's simple favouritism and bias on your part.

I suspect John Mugabi was damaged from the Hagler loss.
In real life a war like that can damage a fighter mentally.
Either that, or Duane Thomas and Terry Norris are better than Hagler.
Maybe.

But, see, I believe a BAD LOSS can diminish a fighter. You're saying that's silly but you're arguing somehow Curry and Tyson, undefeated, unscathed, coming off emphatic KO wins deserve to be seen as the damaged goods.

 

But wh

But what makes you so certain that a Tyson at 100% would have defeated Douglas, there's not one shred of evidence to support this. He was obliterated right from the start. Also who's to say Douglas couldn't get any better if he put more effort in and wasn't recovering from a nasty illness?

 

You're not a Tyson nuthugger but you're prone to support bias towards any famed/great/name fighter.

Reasonably, I think you deduce that if a recognized or established "great" lost to someone without that career-based status there must be mitigating factors to uncover.
But, in fact, you could look into almost loss for the second-tier types and find good reasons and excuses too.
That's how sports works.
Guys who lose often aren't having a great day !

My view is that we should limit the amount of excuses and "explanations" around losses, especially when guys are in their primes, young, coming off good form recently, etc.
There has to be some objectivity, not fishing around looking for sparring partners tales and mysterious hexes and common tales of partying, battling the scales, and excuses like my wife ran out on me and took the dog, my manager took all my money etc. ... Because, let's face it, those tales are a dime a dozen and just part of the game, and they don't just happen to great fighters who lose against our expectations.

 

Exactly, eveything is fine and dandy when you're winning. When you lose the long list of reasons why go on and on.

Tyson's life was already a mess prior to the Spinks fight, of course nobody cares because he knocked him out.

 

I'd need a primary source about that and I have the interview with Douglas directly contradicting it, so, as I said I'll believe Douglas.

 

JohnThomas,
In my effort to strive for more objectivity I'll reconsider the case of John Mugabi.
For my part, I do tend to believe a loss like that can ruin a fighter mentally, especially a guy who trades in imposing himself straight away.
I also believe Mugabi looked good against Hagler and I don't believe Hagler was shot.

So, for those reasons, I think Mugabi had a bit of prowess knocked out of him from the Hagler loss.

BUT ..... I'm guilty of giving Mugabi too much of a pass.
Looking good in defeat against a great fighter isn't really enough to say he beats anyone better than those he really did.

So, while I don't believe his loss to Duane Thomas or Gerald McClellan or Terry Norris are representive and suspect pre-Hagler he would have done better, I retract any claims to say he ever actually beats anyone better than Curtis Parker.

I'll admit my bias there, a mistake born out of childish enthusiasm for Mugabi, a favourite of mine in my youth.
I wont deny it.

In the case of Mugabi, I concede.
No excuses.