All valid points.. But what I was basically aiming to illustrate, is that from 1986 to 1990, you had a fully motivated, well trained and confident fighter who was a borderline unstoppable ( no one truly is of course ) to having a man who held his head down in the corner, hardly listened to what his trainers had to say in between rounds, and seldomly threw a meaningful punch... Would the Tyson of the Tubbs fight have beaten Douglas? I'll let you be the judge of that, but one thing is for certain, it wasn't the same man... Period...
Ok. But this whole debate started because someone didn't like the fact that I'd mentioned the way Douglas had boxed Tyson in a thread pertaining to a prime Tyson. Regardless of whether Douglas could beat the Tyson of 1988, the way he boxed Tyson in 1990 is the correct way to box a prime Tyson. The idea that we cannot ever bring up the Douglas defeat in discussions on the potential weaknesses of a prime Tyson is not valid, in my opinion. I think flaws were always there to exploit to some degree, even if they became very much more pronounced in the post-Spinks fights.
Not really, Bruno had moments throughout the fight, nonetheless this was Tyson's sloppiest performance to date Tyson was more complacent in this one than sloppy. It was clear there was a pattern of non focus though. I would also argue that Tyson had something to do with Douglas bringing out the best himself, many fighters had comparable skillsets and gameplans to Douglas. It wasnt an over estimation of Tysons ability, it was an under estimation of his preparation needed to fight a guy who had never showed the ability to win a fight under pressure, and he was going to face more than he had in failed multiple fights in the past. People Knew Tyson was screwing off, but they didnt think it would take much to make Douglas fold. Douglas simply never showed anything close to what he did in the Tyson fight, so with all the footage and media reports there is legitimacy to the so called myth that Tyson wasnt at his best, and it allowed Douglas to bring out the best in himself. To think Douglas would do the same to Tyson again and again, is a bigger myth based on his track record. The same would have been said about many past upsets that were never rematched, its part of the mystique of the upset. Theres plenty of footage of Tyson sparring in preparation for most of his fights. Its all over the internet. In fact I would say from personal experience, that seeing Tyson was a lot easier in the old days if you wanted to make the trip to the Catskills. Access to Tyson became very difficult during the King years. It became easier again once he hooked up with Finkel. Tyson wasnt even a completed project in 90 let alone 1986. Im sure Tyson had some problems with many experienced guys in the early part of his career. Its all speculation, but two things are clear, Tyson was a lot better against comparable opposition, and was on a clear decline after Spinks, and Douglas was inconsistently average before the Tyson fight and continued his inconsistency after it. The idea that Tyson never faced anyone with the skills and gameplan of Douglas is a joke. Tyson's lack of preparation is just as much of a factor as Douglas fighting some super fight that he had never done in his entire career.
Douglas was not the first to fight Tyson the way he did. Yes it was the proper way to fight him, but it wasnt some style that Tyson had never seen or overcome in the past.
Agreed, Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs, James Tillis, Carl Williams, and Larry Holmes ( albeit old ) all tried to outbox Tyson by using their reach and outside fighting game, while also attempting to tie him up on the inside. They all failed, and some of them, miserably. This was nothing that we hadn't seen before. James Douglas was really no better than most of those guys were, and in some cases was even a lesser fighter when contrasted to some of them. Tyson, despite functioning at about 60% against Douglas, still managed to floor him in the 8th, and had a different referee been in the ring, may very well have won the fight.. In any event, two unfortunate things have materialized in the minds of a lot of fight fans in the many years since that upset.. (1) Tyson has since become criminally underrated and (2) Douglas is thought a lot more highly of than he derserves to be..
Thomas had a short-lived prime (1983-1985)... BUT! 1987 was not like P.T. was an old fart at all... Christ, Thomas was only like age 29 at the opening bell against 20 year old Mike Tyson in Vegas... Also, for all of Thomas' out of the ring problems in 1986 and 1987, Thomas still managed to keep his weight at the normal range of 220 to 223 pounds during the turmoil... Thomas was beatdown by Tyson in '87, but Thomas didn't look like a fat slob in that event.... BUT!! By round 6, Thomas looked like he was age 50..... Tyson made Thomas age before our eyes back in May of 1987.... NOW! In 1988, against Holy, Thomas was age 30, and with his bald head and all, he was slower than **** and unable to get off with any telling shots against Holy.... But, again, Thomas was still buffed and not a slob in that ring.... Thomas was just slow on speed and reflexes against the spry Holyman..... MR.BILLthumbsup:hat
I wish I had "Thomas-Coetzee" and "Page-Coetzee" on tape, but I don't.... I also would like copies of Eddie M. Muhammad in his two losing 1981 fights with "Snipes and Spinks." And, if not asking too much, a tape of "Tillis-Shavers" from '82 as well...... MR.BILL
No you won't. He showed the same style and the same flaws in all these fights. [yt]u97Q916ayh8[/yt] [yt]-Q5ioKiR2Gk[/yt] [yt]zTQ7CsEK5DY[/yt] The biggest difference in these films is the speed, fluidity, pop, and punch variety of the opponents he's fighting.
Great point. Tyson always had a rep for looking like **** or going down in training. Bill Cayton once told the press: ''Mike has been knocked down in training by Oliver McCall, he has been knocked down by Mike Williams. The knockdown doesn't mean anything. Many times Mike will train seriously or go through the motions. He's always had a certain amount of problems in training." In the end, trying to contrast how he trained for different fights is flawed at best, since no one who wasn't actually in his camp knows how he normally looked in training in the first place. All we have are random snippets of footage, and heresay.
Pinklon Thomas was not in Tyson's class. Mike wins the title and destroys all the guy in the Pinklon Thomas class like Tony Tubbs and Biggs and Tucker and Bonecrusher. Mike was a level above them all. He cleaned out the division of the pretenders of the 1980's. And Mike did it relatively easy. What beat Mike in 1990 was not Buster, it was Mike. If Mike could stay how he was in 1987 forever, it would have been hard to beat him. A great fighter.
That BEAUTIFUL, powerful left jab of Thomas's would have been more of a factor..that's all I have to say.
