Mike Tyson

Tyson might have beaten Douglas in a rematch but really because Douglas would likely have been in crappy condition and lacking the motivation to repeat what he already did.
I mean, the Tyson who we saw against Razor Ruddock in 1991 wouldn't have beat the Tokyo version of Douglas.
IMO.

 

Agreed. The rematch wouldn't have proven all that much about Tyson, only about Douglas.

 

I think the Tyson that fought Ruddock would have been good enough to beat Douglas in Tokyo. Douglas was having his way, when he wasnt, he was awful.

 

Douglas would have been having his way against the Tyson of the Ruddock fights as well.

 

Maybe if we give him a .44 Magnum.

 

I don't know... Firing Jay Bright and Aron Snowel, then bringing in Rich Giachetti seemed to light a fire under his ass. He certainly looked a lot livlier going after Ruddick than he did against Douglas, despite eating up shots that were significantly more powerful.. Still neither the Tyson of the Tokyo fight, nor the one who faced Ruddock was the man who we saw during the Rooney days of the late 80's.. The upper body movement, bodding, weaving, and two fisted attack had been all but reduced to seeking that one big punch... But the Tyson of Ruddock was a little bit recharged I think.

 

I don't see a huge enough improvement in Tyson here that he would suddenly demolish a guy who completely dominated him for 10 rounds until knocking him out aside from the one knockdown he scored.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X78fpDsHzsw[/ame]


This is far from the Tyson of the 80's. To be honest the skill level on the part of both men is at a very low scale.

 

Tyson fought with a lot more intensity and will, and at least had someone offering him sound advice. Ruddock landed similar hard shots that reduced Tyson to the stationary outside target he became against Douglas. Mentally and physically I think Tyson was a lot better.

 

Tyson was sloppy against Ruddock. Mostly just wading in, throwing one or two punches at a time. Against a one-dimensional opponent, who suited him much more than Douglas did.
Douglas exposed Tyson's sloppiness more, and broke any kind of rhythm a sub-par Tyson could try to muster. Ruddock just stood there going all gung-ho, no defence, no game-plan, just fighting on the losing end of some macho attrition thing from the opening bell.
Lots of commentators muttered the words "washed-up" after Tyson's efforts against Ruddock.

I think a sharp 1988 Tyson would blow out Ruddock quite early, with far less problems, but he'd still have a real tough fight on his hands with the best version of Douglas (possibly a loss).
Douglas fought intelligently. Ruddock fought dumb.

 

Tyson was still somewhat elusive in this fight and in far better shape. Against Douglas he just languished outside and took a pounding. I think Ruddock would have probably hurt Tyson worse coming forward in Tokyo with his counter hooks and uppercuts, and he punched a lot harder than Douglas.

 

The difference is that Ruddock did absolutely nothing in order to take control of the fight and basically let Tyson beat up on him while trying to land one big punch to take him out.

It's very different when you're in a fight where you know the opponent's only chance is to take you out with a single punch in comparison to a fight where you have to rely on that one punch to win. All Tyson had to do was grit his teeth, take the punches and keep working in a very unimaginative fashion. Not a chance that Tyson outpoints Douglas. He had Tyson in complete control with that jab of his and busted up his face to the point where Tyson could no longer see the punches coming.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrKkmz16m4[/ame]

 

Your entitled to your opinion, I disagree. I think Ruddock was capable of doing quicker damage to Tyson. He threw fast counter hooks and uppercuts and Tyson wasnt doing much except walking in and then going back to getting beat up on the outside against Douglas. Douglas boxed a beautiful fight, he kept Tyson in no mans land and countered him nicely as he came forward, but it wasnt just Douglas jab that was the difference. Tyson had faced plenty of savvy enough boxers who knew how to use their jab to keep a fighter at bay, its just Tyson was easier to hit, and less intensive going forward, and that was a big part of Douglas success.

 

Agreed, the combinations, the footwork, the rough stuff in the clinches and the overall defensive and offensive work that Douglas was doing contributed to making it a tougher night for Tyson as well.

Tyson had a good chin. That should never be in question. What should be in question is how he dealt with more complex challenges from 1990 onwards than what Ruddock presented. The fact is that he hardly needed to be adviced on how to beat Ruddock, Tyson being Tyson, with the power, speed and durability that he possessed, was always going to beat him. Skill was not needed in the equation.

Skill was absolutely needed to beat the "Tokyo" Douglas if you wanted to have anything more than a puncher's chance against him.

 

I added this part:
Tyson had faced plenty of savvy enough boxers who knew how to use their jab to keep a fighter at bay, its just Tyson was easier to hit, and less intensive going forward, and that was a big part of Douglas success.