Tokyo Douglas vs Tyson of the Berbick fight

ko Tyson

 

I would favor Tyson, as I would favor any Tyson that was mentally apt for the occasion. Douglas started fast and kept going, but he is in my opinion s frontrunner at heart. If Tyson could have dished out half of what he took..but he wasn't accurate or disciplined, and Douglas fought a terrific fight.

Douglas wouldn't win against Joe Frazier or Marciano if they fought 100 times.

 

Tokyo Douglas beats any version of Tyson. Obviously it be a little more competitive early on, and I do think that Douglas might have to face more adversity (He was completely fine from the knockdown and was taking his time).

I just think you win nearly every round against a prime fighter, even if it's an off-night or 10% declined version that version would or should still be favored over any version of that fighter. It not only seems right but fair. Obviously Tyson has a chance of an early or mid-round KO, but I think Douglas should be favored. Maybe Douglas wins a decision instead of a knockout. Either way, I think Tyson would agree with me.

 

I don't think that the 1986 version of Tyson was the very best rendering, as he was barely 20 years old, but I'll take him over Douglas at any phase of his career. Tyson was hungry to prove himself, and following his mentor's instructions in an almost robotic fashion. This was not in any way shape or form, the Tyson who met Douglas in Tokyo in February if 1990.

 

:huh

Tyson looked extra sharp against Berbick, which you can't say for the Buster fight.

He was throwing combinations, jabbing, counter punching. He fought an absolute perfect fight against that opponent.

Using general terms like "winging punches" is not the proper way to analyze these fights. You have to look at what his opponent was doing and what Tyson did to neutralize him. He fought a perfect fight given the style that was in front of him.

Buster for sure fought a near perfect fight against Tyson, but which Tyson was he facing? I know for a fact it wasn't the same guy who beat Berbick and Spinks. You gotta look at the subtle things that Tyson did in the ring. He would hit you from different angles, counter punch, land combinations on the move. Go back to the Bruno fight a year earlier and he's gone into simply barreling in and loading up one big bomb. That's all he did in the Douglas fight, and that cost him. It was a combination of a great performance by Douglas and a downgraded, overconfident Mike Tyson.

 

I agree with your recycled analysis, and at one point, even posted a similar one myself, a few years back. I don't think that Mike Tyson was a disabled cripple when facing Douglas, but there are far too many who use this fight as a gauge when sizing him up in head to head fights, without looking at all the facts. This was a young, talented man, who had clearly lost focus and had the misfortune of losing all of the people who helped him get to his position, far too early... In 1990, and even at the young age of 15, I was able to see the vast difference in his focus and fighting approach, when contrasted to how he relentlessly attacked Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, and Spinks.. For some reason, others do not see these differences, and it makes me wonder if they've seen any other version of Tyson to draw a comparison to.

 

" plodding " is not a word to describe Tyson, in his early fights, nor even the one who got pummeled against Lennox Lewis... He was barely past his 20th birthday, and used precision tactics to destroy a titlist ( Berbick )who had been ranked for the better part of a decade. I don't know what your issue with Tyson is, but your assessments are not accurate.

 

Yeah this is the problem with people who try to claim that Tyson hadn't changed. They get into semantics like "oh, look he winged a punch against Pinklon Thomas just like he did against Buster, he was the same guy."

Look at his performances as a whole and see what he did to deal with his opponents. Tyson was a lot more aggressive prior to 89' and I think when Tyson lost Rooney and hooked up with these different trainers, his style basically changed. He still moved his head but he wasn't elusive, and he restricted himself to loading up a big left hook or right hand bomb. He stopped putting punches together and counterpunching, which was the essence of Cus Dmato style. These trainers didn't know anything about his style and tried to turn into a boxer.

 

Tyson had a Glass Mind.

Givens KO 1.

He, out of all of the Greats, had the worst mind.

Lewis had an iron mind.

 

Frazier declined more (Not just physically and visibly) from FOTC to Jamaica in 1973 than Tyson did from Spinks to Douglas. Liston even was probably more declined becoming an alcoholic and having hardly any rounds under his belt from 1962 to 1964 against a young Clay. Even George Foreman declined more physically and mentally from Jamaica to Zaire. None of this by much, as it's all a bit marginalized... however I think the above mentions are more noticeable examples. But few group of fans makes more excuses for a one-side beat-down than what Tyson fans do. I believe Tyson lost focus and probably had an off-night and wasn't near his best form as a fighter. However, he did not age overnight, nor did his weight or skills or mentality erode more than in combination than the mentions above. But NOBODY talks about Foreman vs Ali in Zaire the way they do with Tyson-Douglas. They just assume Ali "Had his number" and because Ali is the GOAT. Even though their fight was closer than Tyson-Douglas with Ali having to resort to a brilliant strategy to pull of the feat. And only few Frazier fans talk about how Frazier was "so past it." Yes, all these riddled excuses are tiresome even if they are justified to an extent.

Why? Because the truth is the fight outcomes in most of these fights wouldn't be 100%. That's why anything can happen, and that's the drama of the spot. I see the big difference between Frazier vs Foreman is the end all is Frazier just can't take Foreman's power. Frazier was destroyed so bad that no one really thinks the outcome changes, and it's true. Realistically, he fought stupid trying to just left hook Foreman out of there, and he showed not a lot of lateral movement like he had in years post. Even more truthfully, he was 10lbs overweight and just had fought a war with Ali. Tyson hadn't fought any real tough grueling wars like that, and Tyson was 24 years old not 29. Buster Douglas isn't some massive power-puncher, but he did whip Tyson from pillar to post for everyone round except the round he was dropped. To me, evidence to point on how the result most likely wouldn't change. To me, Buster Douglas was a lot better than he ever had been rather than Tyson being worst than he ever was.

 

You started off a good poster with controversial views, the "good poster" part is starting to fly out the window in favor of an increasingly and deliberately contrarian style.

 

Mike tyson 2 or 3 rds

 

Hear are some factors to think about. From the rel fight.
1. Tyson was not at his best.
2. Douglas fought the perfect fight.
3. Tyson knocked Douglas down in the 8th.
4. the scores were close at the time of the stoppage.

I think the end result is Tyson in 7-9 rounds.