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

I still think he fights tall even though I know what you mean with that hunched thing. He does it more so at times of punching or putting a combination together. I don't know, you could argue Larry Holmes "hunches" a little. Not everyone can fight straight up real tall in a Muhammad Ali fashion.

Douglas was killing Tyson on the outside better than anyone else had. He pushed Tyson backed (He didn't in-fight) and tried battering him on the mid to outside range. He didn't fight Tyson on the inside.

You're making a generalization about the tall guys that Tyson beat because of what they lacked (Backpedaling, feinting, good movement, etc) and pinning their problem on being tall and "tailor-made" for Tyson. Guys that fight tall aren't tailor-made, that's the style to do it (Like Douglas employed). And these tall fighters gave Tyson some minor lapses/problems at some points in the fights rather than guys that just go after him.

I think clinching disrupts Tyson, but Douglas pushing and keep working really worked well too (Although it can be a little dangerous). You can't call Douglas short, he's practically a super-heavyweight. Yes, he isn't the tallest Tyson opponent but he's still one of the taller ones. But he fights behind the jab look a technically skilled big man. He doesn't fight inside like Tubbs and try smothering (Not fighting big at all). He uses that reach.

Think of how does against fighters that are shorter or fight like at. He crushed Spinks, Berbick, Frazier, Tubbs, and handled Bruno who essentially slugged. While Douglas might be only 1'2 to an 1 inch taller than Bruno he fights much more like a big man super-heavyweight type. Obviously his reach helps (Which serves my point more though). Angelo Dundee talks about this and why he thought Douglas would win.

Holyfield won because he's an elite fighter.

 

Another prime example of armchair pistoleros putting on their "expert" mustard as like they have ever been even remotely close to a elite fighter of any weightclass......clowns.

Boxing is 80 % mental and 20 % physical. Fact. He never recaptured his mental desire after the Spinks fight because he did not want too, was on top and simply let the lazy Ghetto mentality direct him.

After the Spinks fight he was done as a dominating pro and would never ever put ANY serious training into a fight, period. LOl, he pretty much stopped doing roadwork after Spinks................

When he was interviewed in the can he admitted that he himself was surprised that Bruno or Williams did not beat him before Douglas because he did not give a F anymore and the same attitude was present for the next 15 years........

 

Douglas is 6'3 which isn't that tall, and he doesn't really fight tall like a Holmes or Ali (etc). Douglas spreads his legs wide, hunches and gives away some of his height. I'm just saying that Tyson does better against taller fighters, like 6'5+, simply because he can slip under their punches easier, and he generates a lot of power by springing upwards and forward. Most tall fighters do rely on their reach and like to stay at a range, and clinch on the inside. Tyson more often then not eats up those kinds of fighters. His style is built around that.

I didn't mean that Douglas fought on the inside, only that he fought Tyson off. He either would push him away or rip combinations and back him off. He didn't give Tyson a chance to get set in most cases. It was a well executed gameplan. Backpeddling, using reach and clinching on the inside, fighting an Ali-esque type fight, isn't the best way to deal with Tyson, imo.

Holyfield beat Tyson because he's elite but also because he had an awkward style for Tyson to deal with at that point. Holyfield smothered his punches and counter punched. That was also a wild, one dimensional Tyson who only relied on a big right hand bomb or left hook. A prime Holyfield vs. Tyson would be a different fight in my opinion.

 

Truth. :thumbsup

Tubbs was a similar - just not as skillful boxer as Douglas.
Teh same Tyson that fought Tubbs fought Buster, just Buster was bigger, in way better shape And has more ability than Tubbs.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3szwR70vb8[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygmWtYXFHJg&feature=related[/ame]

Tubbs out-boxed Tyson easily in teh 1st round And was doing the same i teh 2nd, until Tyson sparked him out-cold with a big-bomb. With Buster - Tyson was getting out-boxed in a very simlar style for teh 1st 7rounds, in round 8 Tyson tagged Buster with a big-bomb of a uppercut, BUT - Buster got up in 9 seconds And finished teh job in round 10 with a big uppercut of his own.

MAybe Tyson was only 99% of his best against Buster or whatever cos he was shagging lots of jap birds. BUT - I think if he was "100%" teh best he could have done is won 2 rounds instead of 1 round against Buster, so my prediction would be Douglas KO11 Tyson of 1988/89 - IF Tyson made it outta round 10 on his wobbly And tired legs.

 

I'd rate Tyson between 7 - 9 on my all time heavyweight list.

 

Im not a Tyson worshipper, and its no insult to Douglas, he proved nothing in his career otherwise, he was just as good as the other contenders of the 80s that Tyson was dispatching with ease.

 

Tubbs was better than Douglas. He was much quicker and had equally good if not bettere boxing skills. He doesnt really fight too much like Douglas, but he did make the mistake of trying to fight Tyson and Tyson just caught him with a good shot.

 

so anyone of them could have beaten tyson on that night? no.

 

If you can convince me that Douglas was a superior fighter to Tucker, Bruno, Tubbs, Witherspoon, etc, Im all for it. Go for it. Have you seen Douglas against any other figher besides Tyson?

 

that was the(by quite a bit), yes I have seen some of his other fights.

douglas whooped tysons ass, so your explanation is that tyson was having such a bad day that on that particular night any top contender could have pulled off the same exact one sided beating resulting in a ko victory in the 10th that douglas achieved.

:hi:I call bull****!

douglas was motivated for this one. perhaps it was his mothers death, maybe it was the fact that he was a massive underdog. but douglas had the perfect blueprint to beating tyson on that night and he executed it beautifully. I dont have to convince you of anything Tucker, Bruno, Tubbs tyson beat all those guys convincingly: tubbs by early ko, bruno had success in both fights but was ko'd in both, tony tucker went to decision but was unanimously for tyson, and tyson never fought witherspoon.

while douglas kicked the living **** out of tyson you assume this was an anomaly not everyone agrees with you (at least on the part of tyson, douglas would be ko'd early in his next fight with holyfield)

 

whats with this "I gotta convince you" garbage. you made the outrageous claim, you back it up.

 

That "perfect blueprint" might not have, and most likely wouldnt have, worked against a better prepared Tyson. Not everyone agrees with you that Douglas became some super fighter for one night either.
Douglas did fight a great fight, but that doesnt change the fact that Douglas was no better than the contenders I mentioned, one of whom with a similar style to Douglas, beat Douglas, and Tyson beat him one sidedly. Theres more credibility based on who they beat and lost to, that Tyson was more responsible for losing that night, than Douglas turning into a super fighter that he never was before, or again, in his career.:hi:

 

I never said tyson was at his absolute peak for this fight, I think others like yourself exaggerate tysons decline to fit your version of history that at tysons peak 86-88 acording to many he was unbeatable at least by any mortal man. I give the winner the credit, if the fighters rematch and the result is different than you can have substance to a theory of tysons extreme decline. until then it remain unvalidated, at least to the point your making. burden of proof is on you, until then:hi:

 

Quite the contrary, people exaggerate just as much, how good Douglas was, saying he was all wrong for Tyson and would have beaten him any night, which I dont agree with.
Tyson had beaten fighters that were better than Douglas and had shown the ability to breakdown fighters that were bringing a similar type fight to him. Tysons lack of preparation and intensity had something to do with allowing Douglas to fight that fight and look like he did and theres nothing wrong with saying that. If you dont agree with that, than you must feel Tyson was in peak form when he faced Douglas which you admitted he wasnt.
It doesnt change the reality of what Douglas was. He still gets supreme credit for stepping up to the aura that Tyson was at the time, and taking him apart in spectacular fashion.

 

This alone proves that the man is far more flawed than made out to be.

Other greats would likely catch him without Kevin Rooney.

His "prime" is too short. If you rely on your trainer so heavily then something is up.