Tucker's hand broken or just an excuse ?

Yeah Tyson actually had the only scorecard comeback of his career agaisnt Douglas. He lost afterwards but he was trailing and had seemingly turned the tables when he knocked down Douglas. Someone at that time would be thinking Douglas gave Tyson a little scare but the fight was over and Tyson was going to be winning by stoppage soon. Tysons gas tank ran out but under the circumstances there was nothing wrong with that performance and if someone had challenged Tyson in a similar way earlier during Tysons supposed prime its hard to see Tyson responding better.

While early round stoppage could be emblimatic of total superiority this is not always the case. If someone needs early domination to win because they can't contest a full fight then they are always going to get it when they succeed. And as the Douglas fight hammered home Tyson needed that early domination and couldn't be having no tie ball game in the 2nd half of the fight.

Douglas would be a nightmare physical matchup for a lot of greats. I feel Tyson fans just are in denial about his size and the limitations that come along with that. Tyson deserves credit for overcoming the limitations he overcome but his fanbase are just in utter denial about those limitations even existing. They don't think BMI is real.

 

All excellent points.

Tyson was a GREAT fighter and I’m not predisposed to discredit him - there’s a LOT he deserves credit for - without being preoccupied with making excuses or inventing a “career” for him otherwise.

What if it all basically ended for Joe Louis upon his loss to Schmeling? Joe suffered a somewhat similar crash to that of Mike - prior to, a very young Louis also looked unbeatable.

If it had all gone downhill after the Schmeling fight, the perception of Louis thereafter could’ve just as easily been plumped by multiple woulda, shoulda, couldas laments - a career built on what ifs, not actually what was.

As it was/is, Louis lost to Schmeling - no more, no less - he simply came back as a better fighter for that loss, turning a negative into a positive.

It’s simply part of Joe Louis’ story, for better or worse - in the final wash up - Louis’ career comprises a lot more “better” than “worse” and, not least important, he did also avenge the loss to Schmeling in sensational fashion.

It is alleged that Louis himself might’ve been under par for the first Max fight - but the more pronounced features of that fight, at least imo, were 1) Max taking advantage of a substantive flaw in Louis’ game, time and again AND 2) Max upholding extreme durability to hang tough long enough to see his strategy through.

Ali’s own rope a dope strategy for Foreman wasn’t a one size fits all master plan to defeat George - you still had to have the steel of Ali’s mind and body to take those hellacious body shots from Foreman to ultimately see that strategy through.

Ali’s rope a dope strategy is an excellent example of “Folks, please don’t try this at home!”.

Apologies, I’m in waffle mode. Haha.

 

Douglas hasn't shown anything like Tokyo in his 10-year career. If he had, he wouldn't have been a 1-42 underdog. Maybe he'd have been underrated 1-5? But not 1-42. If someone was such an underdog, you ALWAYS look for an excuse – how the hell could they have been so underrated?
Douglas doesn't have 5% of Tyson's successes. He lost to fighters Tyson devoured for breakfast. He didn't even fight anyone even close to Tyson, and he lost to far weaker fighters than Tyson.
And that's all fine, right? Boxing logic
On the other hand, Tyson easily defeated many boxers as good or better than Douglas; Buster probably wasn't even in Mike's top 10 opponents.
But suddenly, for one night in his life, Buster became the best fighter of the 1980s. I think I can ask this question for a few years and still listen to the simple explanation – it's just that Buster controlled Mike so well, so easily, that Mike seemed like a slow boxer. And of course, he had more willpower than Carl Williams and all the rest of Mike's 37 opponents. The overall conclusion is that in the 1980s, we had the wrong world champion. But if Buster was better than all those Tyson outclassed, it means he was at the level of a great ATG, and losing to him is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

I would've liked to have seen Buster fight Tubbs in the late 80s. Tubbs had more talent and savvy, but Buster would've been in it with the jab and better conditioning.

 

Tubbs almost beat Bowe a couple of years later.

 

Honestly, I don't think it would be a great fight. Both are good outfighters, but they fight rather cautiously. Often lazy. I would choose other fights. Besides, from what we've established, Buster was a mistake outside of Tokyo, so Tubbs would probably beat him. But in Tokyo, James would probably outclass him

 

Douglas did have fights on the leve of Tokyo. The Tucker fight was another close fight against a top opponent similar to Tokyo where things went the other way. The Berbick and McCall fights were dominant performances.

Betters can be wrong. And that is their fault for being wrong and not the fighters fault for proving them wrong. Did some quick googling and Frank Brunos odds were over 10 times better than Busters. This was presumably because British people were putting money on him because Britannia rule the waves not boxing. But another factor is timing. As Tysons reign continued any opponent was going to get longer and longer odds. Tyrell Biggs got like 8-1 odds and it really comes down to the fact Tyson was coming off the Tucker fight and wasn't viewed as invincible yet. Biggs was the Olympic hero and people at that time were more likely to see the Olympic gold medalist as the heir apparent. Gamblers might be honest but don't confuse this with them being bright. Two different things.



Douglas did have over 5% of Tysons feats. Going into their fight Tyson was 13-0 against HW title contenders and Douglas was 4-3-1. Thats about a third of Tysons successes.

Something important thats getting lost in translation here is that Douglas was a point fighter. He wasn't going to "devour fighters" for breakfeast" like Tyson because thats not how he won. At least not at the top level. Dougals's SOS doesn't compare to Tyson because he didn't have a title reign. While this last generation did everything they could to test this no contender or champ who didn't defend is going to have a better SOS than a long reigning champion. If they do then that champion isn't a real champion. In his first reign Tyson had 9 title defenses and fought every top guy except Tim Witherspoon. Of course Douglas didn't match that his SOS should be compared to his peers like Tysons other opponents and Pinklon to which his resume compares great. Depending how yous rate Holmes in 1988 Douglas was as high as the 3rd best opponent of Tysons whole career and no worse than 5th or 6th.


"The overall conclusion is that in the 1980s, we had the wrong world champion."

If this is what you're getting from what we're saying you're misunderstanding. At least with Tyson I do think this with Michael Spinks. Tyson almost beat Buster Douglas. Buster Douglas almost beat Tucker. Tucker might have beaten Tyson if he was healthy or if the fight was 15 rounds. On different days any of those results could have went the other way. I'm not asserting Douglas was superior to Tyson and Tucker(he could be) just that hes on that level and should have been seen as one of Tysons toughest tests.

 

1. I don't know where you got the idea that Douglas was Tyson's third-best opponent. Berbick, Smith, Tucker, Williams, Ruddock, and Thomas were ranked higher. The lineal champion at the time of the Tyson fight was M. Spinks, and the unranked but more highly regarded were Larry Holmes and Biggs. Hell, even Seldon and Bruno were at least as high as Douglas when they fought Tyson.
2. Douglas never beat anyone in the top 10 for nine long years, and suddenly he wins against a number one. Seriously?
3. Douglas had one title fight in his nine-year career before Tyson, which he lost. He also lost the next one after Tyson. Tyson had 10 title fights in his four-year career before Douglas, and he won all of them.
4. Tyson defeated three opponents who defeated Douglas, each clearly, two practically dominantly.
Either the fight with Douglas was a fluke, or these fights were a fluke. In which fights will we look for excuses?
5. Yes, players make mistakes, but if we have a 1-42, it's not a mistake. It's an exaggeration at best. It simply means it's not a serious fight at this level. And the underdog's victory is treated as a fluke, a coincidence, an extreme mismatch. Years later, revisionists and haters called these excuses, even though at the time it was common knowledge what happened and why it happened.

 

Incorrect. Page was well inside the top 10. He'd only just lost the crown. It was a pretty big upset.

 

Correct, but also the only top 10 heavyweight I can think of who had lost three out of four and was coming off a loss. Guess Holyfield did it during the Ruiz trilogy.

 

Well, at any rate we have ascertained Page was top 10, about #6 in fact.

Two of the three he lost were world title fights, which is why he was still rated highly.

 

Mike actually did postpone a few fights, right? Including a Holyfield fight that was supposed to have taken place years before it actually did?

 

That's right. Tyson also postponed fights with Buster Mathis Jr. and Bruce Seldon. Tyson's real career actually lasted three years. Since 1988, he's become a celebrity constantly capitalizing on what he did during those three years. A myth, a fake, certainly not a serious athlete. But the money he generated was real.

 

Quite a few, actually. The first Tyson-Bruno fight was supposed to be in England in 1988. That was postponed and moved stateside. The first Ruddock fight was supposed to be in n 1989 (and a title defense). The first Holyfield fight in 1991. The fight with Alex Stewart was postponed. The fight with Buster Mathis was postponed. The fight with Nielsen was postponed.

 

Also Holyfield II, reason cited being Tyson was cut in sparring from a headbutt.