No possibly about it, it makes a hell of a lot of difference. How the hell can I say that when I never saw a fully fit Tucker face Tyson?
Boxing is a strange sport. Upsets happen fairly regularly really but in high profile matches we all tend to exaggerate the unlikelihood of such occurrences. Rationally, there shouldn't be so much fuss over a guy deservedly ranked around #6 or #7 in the world defeating the man who's been ranked #1 for the last couple of years. It's never really expected but it shouldn't be seen as the shocking strange event the media builds mythology around. Everything that happens in heavyweight championship boxing seems to get magnified, and throw in the fact of the magic surrounding a thus far UNDEFEATED champion and the whole thing takes on ridiculous proportions. Douglas defeating Tyson just is. In my opinion, it puts Tyson down below the all time heavyweight elite, more so because it wasn't even a close fight. Others give him more of a pass on that score. But whatever your viewpoint on that is, the result itself is not as remarkable or needing of a special explanation as people make out. Boxing, and heavyweight championship fights in particular, just seem to lend themselves well to this drama of "shocking upset" when actually the nature of the sport produces all sorts of possibilities. Two big men throwing punches at each other, both of them among the very best in the world. It's not supposed to be predictable.
You could say the same regarding Tyson V Douglas though. A ill prepared Tyson, over confident losing to a guy he would normally beat. Not a injury as such but still as effecting. Just like Tucker only probably lost because of his broken hand. And it's not as if tucker proved himself better than Douglas is it???
Tucker being less than 100% doesn't prove he'd win if he was 100%. Tyson being less than 100% doesn't prove he'd win either. That's the point I've been making anyway. Unless a fight is really really close it's not correct to assume a "less than 100%" guy lost ONLY BECAUSE he was less than 100%. When we're talking about prime fighters too, not old washed up shells, there's really little point in speculating much beyond the actual fight. I know others have a different opinion on that but I think I'm making sense anyway. In terms of greatness and accomplishments, Mike Tyson is greater than Tony Tucker and Buster Douglas combined. But that doesn't always correlate with head-to-head results between the specific fighters.
I think a broken hand trumps the excuses of a few late nights and the odd shag, Douglas was seldom in shape.
It's a shame not every fighter can be 100% every time. Tyson's story captures the imagination the most and if you think about Douglas or Tucker or Holyfield or anyone you can imagine they could have had more luck/dedication and/or made better choices and achieved more too. But why dwell on the negative? Every fight has a winner and a loser. And every loser has a story to tell. It's a shame they can't all be 100% every time but boxing's tough like that.
Agree, agree and agree. **** happens in boxing, like u said it's unpredictable, that's why I like it. Fact is Tyson did did lose, fact is tucker lost to Tyson, fact is buster lost to tucker. Who's to say if all three fought each other 5 times they all have different results every time. That's the point I was trying to get across to Wass. It doesn necessarily mean cos one guy lost, in a rematch the results same.
Exactly. Like I've always said it gets too complicated when people are trying to ascertain who had the worst preparation and which fighter was effected most. There's too much unknown and it's usually impossible to weigh one man's struggle against another's. Life throws us all sorts of **** and we'll never know who exactly was effected most and how. It's always the guys who lost against the expectations who gets his problems discussed most, probably because so many people were wrong about it too. The fighter's excuse/explanation/reasons/mitigating factors for losing then become the COLLECTIVE EXCUSE for all of us who called it wrong ! Were all guilty of it, I'm sure. I happen to think Douglas-Tyson is the most extreme and widespread example of it but it's far from the only example. Plenty disagreed with me on this though, so I'm retired from actually arguing the case further of course.
It's the 30 year anniversary of Tyson v Tucker today, by the way. Makes some of us feel old I'm sure !
you say that you rank Tyson lower than the elite because of the Douglas loss, but other great fighters have lost big fights, and in a one sided fashion but they seem to maintain their position. I'd say Tyson is one of the most punished fighters in terms of losing a fight. at the end of the day I myself put him below a handful of great fighters but I always found this loss a little unfairly viewed by a lot of fans, different rules where suits etc....
