Tyson Haters Betray a stunning Lack of Boxing Judgement!!!!

Tucker had a similar problem against Douglas. A knot formed in his right arm after the first round from tension and troubled him the entire fight. He still managed to beat Douglas and he still threw his righthand with decent authority against both Douglas and Tyson.
I think its worthy to note that Tucker fought very similar to Douglas, showed good lateral movement, a good jab and combination punching, and he was taller. He did fight Tyson very similar to Douglas as well, getting off first, and giving Tyson a lot of angles, only Tyson wasn't waiting on him, and he was using a lot of movement to get close as opposed to just walking in blindly.
The first three rounds of that fight are interesting and very similar to Tyson Douglas, in that both fighters were fighting hard to establish control of the fight. The corner of Tyson is clearly a big factor as you can see Tyson responding to Rooney's commands during the rounds which ultimately resulted in Tyson taking control of the fight.

 

Still, he threw it a lot less against Tyson that he could have.

Having an injured hand going in is as good an excuse for losing than anything Tyson has for the Douglas fight.

I think Douglas was beating Tyson up pretty good in the first three rounds.

I agree that Rooney was a big factor in Tyson's success.
And with Rooney is his corner he proved capable of beating an injured Tucker over 12-round decision.

 

How did you come this conclusion? Was it clear from the fight that he had an injured hand? Had the commentators not said this or Tucker himself later on, would you have even known?

Yes, only that Tucker was not favored to win.

Agree, and without Rooney in his corner, it proved he would struggle more with a rangey technician with decent skills.

 

Well, it was in the newspapers two days before the fight.

And during times of the fight he used the right a bit sparingly, and doing the dummy bolos and throwing the left instead was a bit of a give away.

He definitely would have been better had he had two good hands.

So, do you base everything off of the odds and reputation ?
Huge favourites need excuses, and are granted them, but underdogs aren't given that allowance ?

As it happens, Tyson was beaten by Douglas worse than Tucker was beaten by Tyson. And both men have excuses.

 

No the point is that it added to the magnitude of the fight, and brought Douglas to mythical levels, and the Tucker fight was basically forgotten about.
Stop being so defensive, I dont think Im making any out of the realm excuses for Tyson.
I think we both agree that Tyson was not at his best, Douglas was a good not great fighter, and he fought an inspired great fight and took Tyson apart.
Where you and I might not agree is that I dont believe Douglas would have won, had the fight happened earlier in Tysons career, even with the same inspiration in Douglas' life.

 

Well, I was just saying maybe Tyson didn't really beat any particularly good versions of any Douglas-like fighters, injured Tony Tucker being the case in point.

Sure, Tyson wasn't right for Douglas, but Tucker wasn't right for Tyson. That's just the way it goes in boxing.

In fact, if I was to pick the best, most "live", and healthy, tall fighter with jab and all-round tools and skills and box-move strategy that Tyson ever beat pre-Douglas ..... I'd probably say Carl Williams, who was KO'd by a post-Rooney Tyson, and was largely a sucker for left hooks anyway, or so they say.

 

Well we would have to disagree here too then.

 

On what point ?

 

The last one. I would say Tubbs regardless of his girth was better, so were Thomas and Biggs (although Biggs did have a cut that reopened from a punch).

 

Yes, Tony Tubbs perhaps.

Thomas wasn't really a "live" opponent. Talk about him being prematurely over-the-hill was going on before the fight, and he'd looked really bad in his tune-up fights. Besides, he was never very slick even at his best, he tended to eat up shots unnecessarily. He was a jabber, but not much of a mover.

Biggs had a habit of fighting his opponent's fight. He was great at sticking and moving but could be dragged into a brawl by far lesser opposition than Tyson.

Carl Williams schooled Bert Cooper and Trevor Berbick in a way I couldn't imagine Biggs doing.

 

then what about lewis's transition to stewart for his new trainer? Tyson should be able to do the same kind of thing.
or what about Foreman's transition, he had quite a few different trainers like Archie Moore, Dundee, Clancey, and he still remained the same great fighter.
A trainer shouldn't be that influencal to the point that they lose ALL of their combinations, and ALL of their defensive headmovement. it's just bull****.

 

I would say there is no comparison.

In the case of Lewis, Emanuel Steward was a big UPGRADE to Pepe Correa. Foreman same thing, Moore, Clancy, Dundee, were good solid trainers.
Tyson went from a guy he was winning with, who he had been around his entire career, who stayed with the teachings of his mentor, to two clowns who had no experience handling a corner, or being professionals.
Theres a big difference. Had Tyson gone straight to Giachetti right off the bat (who he went to after the Douglas loss), I dont think it would have been as big of a factor. Giachetti was at least somewhat qualified although, he didnt train Tyson in the Cus D Amato style.

 

Cooper was not that good. Berbick was pretty washed up himself.

 

David Bey and Renaldo Snipes were not that good when Biggs fought them either, and I think he took too many shots against both, he fought life-and-death with Bey especially.
I found Carl Williams more consistently convincing.

 

Well we can go around in circles. Snipes was superior to Cooper in every way and Biggs was badly cut against Bey. The bottom line is all these fighters were respectable in their own rights and nothing suggests Douglas was superior to them.