The Clay that beat Liston, and who was coming off back to back shaky performances against two puny fighters (Jones and Cooper), does not rank in my top 15 heavies. He beat up an old, disinterested, and ultimately mentally weak, man who was ripe for the picking. And the less said about their second fight the better.
In the fights where Tyson was extended (Tillis, Green, Ribalta, Smith, Tucker) I still think he looked very much a work in progress, and the flaws that surfaced when he went downhill were always present in some degree as the rounds wore on. Tillis was a real learning experience, which he came through well enough. Against Green and especially Smith he didn't really adapt to breaking through the clinching. In fact, against Smith he really wasn't great at all, and showed his frustration too much. He looked okay beating up Ribalta but again there were times when he'd go into one-punch wade-in robot mode. Tucker was his best distance fight by far, but he still looked like he had a lot more things to learn. It was followed by the Biggs fight - and that was a great display of breaking a fighter down in 7 rounds. So I think he was getting better, but he regressed only a few fights later and we never saw a really mature distance performance from Tyson against someone as good as Tucker again. The Tucker fight was the best we got from Tyson in a long fight against a decent opponent. That's why I think Douglas, the way he was focussed and prepared for Tyson in 1990, would have probably always posed SERIOUS problems for any version of Tyson. For me, there's just not enough evidence to the contrary.
Yes, but he fought in the era before rampant alphabet title-stripping existed. If he's fought in the 80s or 90s, he'd have been recognized as champion of the world several fights earlier.
The Clay that beat Liston was absolutely amazing. I don't see how anyone could dispute that. Tyson was the undisputed champ for a year and 8 months. Nearly the same amount as Liston, coincidentally.
I tend to sit somewhere in the middle on this. I think Cassius Clay in 1963 and 1964 was growing bigger and stronger and more resilient from month to month. And he was spurred on by fear against Liston, and would rise to the occassion. So, even though he's coming off two shaky wins, he's heading in the direction of the prime Ali that we saw just 2 - 3 years later. He went in against Liston more formidable than he'd ever been. On the other hand, as great as he danced around and threw sharp punches in Miami, he still showed some immaturity and holes in his style. He stunned Liston in the 3rd round but managed to be holding on and under pressure in the latter part of the round, against a very sluggish version as his opponent. He tried to quit with stinging eyes at one point, a sign of inexperience. And, frankly, the fight in Miami has become grossly overrated with a ton of folklore surrounding it, but few observers were impressed at the time. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Liston tanked it.
I thought he looked pretty good against Tucker considering what he was up against. He didnt score an impressive knockout, but he beat a savvy tall mobile technician easily. To me it was an impressive performance. Regarding Douglas, there is nothing to prove otherwise. Perhaps, Douglas does always pose problems, but I dont completely buy into that. As much as Douglas was inspired and prepared himself well, Tyson did the opposite and that has to be factored into the discussion considering what both fighters did before and after in their careers.
I'm not claiming Ali was necessarily at his peak, certainly not as experienced as he later would be, but physically he was about as good as he got. A close to best Muhammad Ali is still by an amazing fighter. The real question is whether "Miami" Ali was as good as "Tokyo" Douglas.
Is there another fighter who was considered great for one night in their career like Douglas seems to be? There is no "Tokyo Douglas", mythical super fighter who only showed up for one night in his career, theres a good solid Douglas who came prepared against a great fighter who didnt, the good solid fighter prevailed. That scenario has happened a lot in boxing.
So, he went from struggling against a couple limited light heavies to being an absolutely amazing heavyweight overnight? Obviously, he had amazing tools but also huge gaps that up until that fight were getting exploited by lesser fighters (such is the process for a contender). In the first Liston fight, I believe we see him growing into something different, a process that was completed over the next several fights. However, I see a lot of more polished, more experienced champions from past and future taking him in this one.
I agree with this. If I ever used the term "Tokyo Douglas" seriously it's to contrast him with the version that showed up 15 pounds heavier against Holyfield, OR to contrast him slightly with the one who might have lacked some staying power against Tucker. I actually think the Douglas who fought in '88 and '89 was looking good, and not a lesser fighter than he was in Tokyo. He probably raised his game a bit - it was Tyson, for the championship after all - but it wasn't a massive difference. Truth is, Douglas went a little unnoticed in 1988 and '89 when he looked to be seasoned and still improving, and people were still judging him off the loss to Tucker and prior setbacks, quite understandably.
Obviously but in how many fights did Douglas come prepared? Even his own father left is corner after being disgusted at his training habits. He was on a decent run until the Tyson fight and showed his skill and ability. I don't think he would have beaten many great, prime opponents that night but a one-dimensional, one-paced Tyson? He showed he could beat him in 1990 and I believe he could have beaten him in 1991 as well. If not for the fact that he would have shown up a slob and quit in 3 rounds as against Holyfield. As most observers, I thought Tyson did not show much improvement in the Ruddock fights. A bit of focus and intensity isn't going to make up for the fact that he was being outjabbed and out-timed again and again by Douglas. As Douglas put it, he was in a "zone" and Tyson with the lack of creativity about his work put him in that zone. Basically, he had an answer to every move Tyson was making, the same moves that Tyson made against Ruddock without any variety.
TheGreatA & Unforgiven: As big of a Tyson fan as I am, I can't disagree or dispute the arguments being made as far as Douglas if I'm being objective. The fact is, Tyson was in his physical prime and was an undefeated, undisputed champion. However, do you see it the same way in regards to Frazier-Foreman I? I've seen a lot of people (mostly Frazier heads) making the same type of excuses and trying to discredit George's win due to Frazier's lack of training and his funk band touring escapades and I don't agree or accept that. He to, was an undefeated and undisputed champion and was making only his 30th professional bout. He'd ran through the likes of Muhammad Ali, Jerry Quarry, Bob Foster. I don't feel there should be any excuse or discrediting of Foreman's utterly dominant win. Are the style advantages even more stark than Douglas' over Tyson? Yeah, but so is the difference between George Foreman and Buster Douglas as fighters. There's no shame in giving Foreman full credit for what was obviously a huge win, both historically and for his career. Agree or Disagree?