James Buster Douglas

No, when watching the fight you can tell tyson was not at is best.

 

After? Yes. Before? No

If you watch that fight from start to finish, and then watch his earlier fights with such opponents as Berbick, Thomas, Tucker, and Spinks, you'll notice a significant difference in his focus and persistance. The simple fact of the matter is that Tyson did not show up to fight James Douglas that evening. The fact that an unmotivated Tyson was able to floor Douglas in what would later be discovered as a long count, is a telltale sign of what he probably would have done to him on a night when he TRULY showed up to take an opponent's head off.

 

The Tyson from two years earlier would have put up a better effort, but would still have came off second best in my opinion. Why was he trying to brawl and land a big bomb?. Because Douglas' stratgey offset him being effective. Lateral movement, a crisp jab, mixed in with 3-4 punch volleys would always have been troublesome for Tyson.

A good guage to use, Tyson's performace against Tucker. Probably the most motivational fight during Tyson's reign, excluding the Spinks fight. He was stepping into the ring that night with the undisputed title up for grabs. So much at stake, with history on the line. Tucker gave a prime Tyson trouble for 5 rounds. Tyson seldom got off with the kind of ferocious assualts that night which demolished many other foes. Even during the rounds which Tyson dominated down the stretch, he never had Tucker anywhere near a stoppage. Sure, Tucker was looking to survive by grabbing, but his movement played a key role. Douglas would have beaten him that night.

 

All good points,

The only thing that I disagree with, Is your statement that Douglas was little bit better than Tucker or that he would have given an 87 Tyson more difficulty. Tucker defeated Douglas, and what's more, James lost to too many subpar fighters to be appropriately compared.

 

Possibly so, Although Given that Douglas was either KO'd or stopped in most of his career losses, I find it hard to believe that he would have gone the distance with Mike on his best night.

 

I think its a compounded effect of Tyson not showing up and Douglas showing up big time. If you throw a punch and you hit somebody who happened to be walking into it, The effect of that punch will be much bigger than hitting a stationary or elusive target.

Douglas happened to be motivated, and in top form and he was fighting a complacent champion who was ready for the taking. Granted if Mike was in there against Bruno or a fighter that didnt pose a stylistic problem then Mike would have looked amazing but he needed to be sharp to beat that version of Douglas. He needed to be focused. Tyson didnt look aggressive, even in the early rounds where he usually is. In fact Douglas controlled some of those early rounds.

 

The Tyson of before that fight would of beaten Douglas by KO within 6. But the Tyson from after that fight would of been beaten by Douglas most likely, although Douglas got lucky that Tysons only break (dropping Douglas) occured at the end of the round. If that had happened at any other time Tyson would of had a very good chance of finishing him.

 

I think Douglas would have given even a prime Tyson a good challenge but I think Mike would ultimately knock him out. As others have mentioned, Tyson wasn't the same fighter during this period. He was unmotivated, didn't train, he was throwing bombs, not slipping/countering, going to body or moving behind the jab. Still, you have to give Douglas credit though. He fought like a champ that night and I don't believe any version of Tyson would have easily walked over him.

 

Tyson's demons are such, that any top 10 fighter who stood up to him like Douglas did, stood more than a fair chance of beating him, weather it was 1986, 1988, 1990 or 2000...

 

I'm largely in agreement with this. That said, 'Buster' put in an absolutely terrific performance that night in Tokyo and wasn't going to be denied his victory.