There you go again, ignoring what's been shown on film. Where in this footage do you see Tubbs initiating the punching and backing Tyson up, as Douglas consistently did? [yt]-Q5ioKiR2Gk&feature[/yt] And that's without addressing Unforgiven's point that the fighters had some stylistic similarities but were not "the same." Tubbs was less quick and less fluid of hand and foot than Douglas, and had less pop in his punches.
:rofl Noone agrees with you that Tyson was the same fighter 88-96, well Foreman Hook does. PetethePrince doesnt know **** either, he fits in nicely with your anti Tyson clan. McGrain and Chris Pontius havent made one post in this thread??
Tubbs was slower than DOuglas?:blood Your big on posting film clips, but you refuse to acknowledge Tyson was undertrained and unprepared for the Douglas fight when that proof is right there on film as well, thats why debating with you is pointless because you have a clear agenda of hate. Again Tubbs and Tucker were fighting a better version of Tyson, but both certainly initiated offense, thats clear, and if you refuse to acknowledge they were in fact fighting "a better Tyson", you wont be able to understand why Tyson didnt fight as well against Douglas, even though its crystal clear Douglas was no better than Tucker, or Tubbs or half the fighters Tyson had already beaten. Here straight from his trainers mouth at 8:30, but Im sure you'll just say thats a bunch of revisionist history right? [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP8r5uaipe8[/ame]
No one said they did. They've posted on this matter in other threads. Correct. Look at Douglas' rapid-fire 3-or-more punch combos at :39 and 3:25 - 3:28, for example: [yt]zTQ7CsEK5DY[/yt] Where do you see Tubbs throwing anything comparable to that? [yt]-Q5ioKiR2Gk[/yt] No, that's an INTERPRETATION of what's on film, which you said earlier was wrong to make. No, I have a clear regard for facts, which you've ADMITTED to having a dislike for: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5927870&postcount=184 No it isn't "clear." I asked you directly WHERE in the footage Tubbs was initiating offense and backing Tyson up like Douglas did, and you haven't pointed to anything. Again, WHERE do you see Tubbs going at Tyson and letting go with the 3-or-more punch combos that I pointed to above? Here's straight from the manager's mouth: ''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." -Bill Cayton And here's from THE FIGHTER's mouth: "Tyson strode in wearing a T-shirt and jeans. He declared himself in perfect condition, and then stunned both his manager, Don King, and the audience by responding to a question about his mental preparation by saying: ''If you can't fight, you're. . . .'' " -James Sterngold, February 9, 1990. I'm sure you'll be absolutely consistent and accord these reports the same weight you chose to do the ones that support your point, right?
This is 100% UNDISPUTED Proof Tyson was 100% at his BEST/PEAK VS Douglas And IDENTICAL to teh mythical 1988 version what Tyson-Battyboys have wet-dreams about. Douglas DESTROYED PEAK TYSON And there no room for denying it for any-one now IMO. How teh bloody **** Peak Tyson meant to win VS ppl like PEAk Ali, Lennox, Foreman, Frazier, Marciano, Holmes ETC, when he cant get an W when he are VS a 42/1 journey-man who NO-BODY in teh whole-world gave a chance too win??? This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
Ghetto Thug got his do fo shizzle fo teh fight - so dat blud at least live it up with his nizzles in da hood after being KTFO. This content is protected This content is protected
This content is protected Tyson is one of my favorites. And I like you I thought we were cool man. Like these guys. This content is protected
I won't go claiming Tyson was at his absolute peak versus Douglas. I do think he was within his prime, even if he was marginally declining. Again, it's been beaten to death, though. I feel that few fans are as feverishly persistent in trying to defend what seems to be an almost immeasurable decline in order to try and restore a fighter's form of greatness which debases any perceived weakness he may or may not have. Fighters can have off-nights and bad performances while still being within their prime. You could make the same sort of arguments about the decline of Liston, Foreman, etc. But these declines are generally perceived as negligible. Did Foreman really train his hardest or best for Ali? We hear these stories just as we do with Ali. In fact, I believe I can show you more video evidence of a psychological change in Foreman which shows him reducing his fundamentals and becoming in love with his power. By doing this he would obviously be more open, and less likely to land devastating blows. When you have a jab you knock guys back and you can set shots behind it... this is understood in rudimentary boxing. Liston... forget about it. I can mention weight, alcoholism, training, etc. These examples might be more severe declines. But in the end there's a certain respect to history and to what happened. These changes, if actual were subtle and most likely negligible. The idea that Liston or Foreman beats Ali is generally almost inconceivable. This is more rightly so because Ali is after all the GOAT. But of course, I can show you video proof that shows Louis golfing and people talking now (Of course) about him taking Schemling lightly. Of course, all this does is diminish what happened rather than what should've happened under the most ideal circumstance. It's like arguing that Montreal Duran could've never beaten the best Leonard. It becomes futile and almost does a disservice to history. Even Smoking Joe Frazier was clearly never the same after the Ali fight. He never looked as fresh, as quick, as sharp and he was clearly never as determined. He became a champion and it was a war where he proved himself. I could point to statistical truths about his weight jumping after the FOTC which lead to his demise in Jamaica. I can show you his age, which certainly comes with a shorter prime due to the style of fighting he fought in. I could show you his lack of lateral movement; the fact he lead with a left hook and moved forward as if he never heard that Foreman could punch. I could do a lot of things and still... I rarely see people claim Frazier could beat Foreman. Foreman was his foil; an absolute style nightmare. Frazier's decline is far more evident factually, and through film than Tyson's. While Tyson did better and even floored Douglas he still got whipped on the entire fight. He was beaten down... beaten into submission and then knocked out. I mean, he won almost virtually every round. Maybe besides the round he got dropped and the first but he clearly put a beating on Tyson. Surely, it wasn't as shocking as some of my previous examples. But Tyson can take a hell of a punch and a heck of a lot of hard punches. This is why this is his favorite fight. Not because he sucked, but because he proved his toughness and proved that he wasn't going to just fold after losing 3-4-5 consecutive rounds. Even though Tyson got whooped... Douglas just can't be his foil to Tyson fans. Can't be that style, that man that had the attributes and made it all work for one night. I honestly think that Tokyo Douglas beats a lot of ATG HWs. I don't think this is a disservice to Tyson, but a service to Douglas. I think the tragedy made him a special fighter that night and I do think he had the style and ability to push Tyson back, fight him off from a distance and in the mid-range. I really do believe that... even Stonehands said Douglas on that night was one of the best technicians of the last 25 years in the HW division. But you will here how Tyson-haters go the other way. And Tyson fans will claim that in his absolute peak he would've beaten the man that just had his number badly 1-2 years away from that absolute peak. I don't know man... I just don't know. If you think I'm a Tyson hater than ask me what I think the odds of H2H matchups with Tyson and other ATGs. You will find that I am not a hater. Ask me where I rank him? He's in my top 10 (Which doesn't include H2H). I mean, I frankly find it a little absurd when people think Ali fans are defending FOTC Ali too much. Like Ali hadn't changed much. A man that relied so much on his reflexes, speed, timing, etc. I admit post prison Tyson relied on physicality and clearly wasn't the same (Even if I think Ali might've declined more. Not the point). But I don't see Tyson fans jumping up in these examples, in these instances. 1971 Ali clearly wasn't the same, and I can point it on film as well as I can point out testimony. I think FOTC Frazier could still beat a peak Ali, regardless but that's not the point. Point is... man the way people speak of it. Like the signs where on the wall. Douglas was a 40-1 underdog? It obviously wasn't merely a style thing... he put a unique thing together to pull that off. We know why. I'll stop rambling now.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. I actually acknowledge that Tyson was not 100% for Douglas (but he was still in his prime), but fighters cannot be expected to be 100% every time in their prime. I do not however automatically think that Tyson must've been like 15% for Douglas just because he lost to a 40-1 underdog. The real thing I notice is that when it is pointed out that Tyson beat a semi-washed-up Pinklon Thomas or an injured Tony Tucker, for example, the answer is "Tyson would've beaten him just as badly anyway, he was just a better fighter. Same result.", yet when the subject of a 100% Tyson verseus Douglas comes up the assumption is that the result would have been radically different.
Thanx to Tyson-Xperts unforgivan And petetehprince i has changed me mind a lil bit. NOW i say Tyson was 99% of His Peak VS Douglas - BUT Tokyo-Douglaz would still KTFO teh 1988 Tyson 10//10 times if they Fought 10 times. Tyson was using his Famous Head-movement - BUT Douglas clocked the PREDICTABLE head-movement with his V.good jab. Tyson had NEVER fought VS a jab like that Before Tokyo. + teh commentatars even said Tyson was doing his Famous muti-punch combos - BUT Douglas was "SMUTHERING" them with his own Better combos - So Tyson look like he Only looking for a Huge-Haymaker, cos Buster newtralized teh overated Tyson-combos with v.BETTER And Faster combos. :deal Tyson PEAK - 1986-1990 Tyson PRIME - 1986-1997 who agree with my dates??
I agree with most of this and I dont think people think that Tyson was 15% of himself either, or not in his physical prime he was only 23, but it was the beginning of the end of his fighting prime, because of the way he started to approach the sport. He was certainly undertrained and unfocused and met up with an inspired fighter who came to fight that night and he wasnt prepared, just as Douglas wasnt prepared or focused in his next fight against Evander Holyfield which most people have no problem agreeing with. I dont think theres anything wrong with pointing that out it was a factor in both fights. Again Douglas was what he was, and Tyson still had to work pretty hard to catch up to fighters like Tucker, Tillis, Thomas and bunch more who were just as, if not more skilled and mentally tough, than Douglas was. When that was taken out of the equation all of Tysons deficits came out, (being a short slugger), so it was a pretty large factor in that fight. As far as the fights, many fights could have ended with different outcomes. I was suprised Tubbs for example was knocked out so quickly, I figured him to go more rounds, Spinks too, but again, Douglas was not superior to any of the fighters that Tyson had faced, and just as Douglas fought a great fight that night, Tyson's lack of focus and conditioning contributed to it and thats where a lot on this board have changed their agenda to. Tyson was still the same Tyson, and no fighter had fought Tyson the way Douglas had and thats not true. Tyson's poor preparation had something to do with Douglas being able to carry out that fight.
Apologize for classifying you with those two clowns, but I think youve changed your views to a more realistic approach. I read through some of that long post, but the one thing that I would add, was that if Tyson was facing a style that he hadnt beaten already, I would say yes, Douglas presented a style that was always going to trouble Tyson, but that wasnt the case. Douglas had a clear track record, and his style was very similar to many of the fighters Tyson had already faced, and I also believe you could have inserted quite a few of Tysons previous opponents and they would have troubled Tyson the same way in Tokyo and beyond. Tyson never faced another fighter with the mobility and skill level of a Tucker, Tubbs, or Douglas again.
Watch the second round, in fact Tubbs looks a lot like Douglas moving, pushing Tyson off and using his jab and righthand. Also notice Tyson using a rapid fire three shot jab and going to the body, punching in combinations, which would have offset a lot of Douglas' shots. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqk42SsptGU&feature=related[/ame] Tyson being knocked down in that clip was not the overiding point. Just because a fighter gets knocked down doesnt mean hes not training hard. If the trainer is saying Tyson didnt want to run, didnt want to train and was not focusing on his fight, doing the normal things to prepare, thats different than getting knocked down or having a bad sparring session. And heres straight from the fighters mouth too. Man, I didnt train for that fight. I was up all night F*cking those girls. I had beaten a better fighter, Tony Tucker, I didnt need to train for Douglas. I'll believe 99.9% of the other reports that Tyson wasnt in shape, rather than Tyson who probably believed at the time he was prepared enough to beat Douglas and not because it suits my arguement, because its common sense. He wasnt in top shape, noone else agrees with you, well Foreman Hook does.
like me some pinky thomas but i don't think he beats Tyson ever. nobody who relied a lot on their jab beats tyson imo except MAYBE Ali. Not that a good jab was a bad thing, but Tyson's head movement and use of levels and angles made life hell for the jab artists.
