Tyson kd vs Douglas kd

Tony Tucker was very similar stylistically & of equal quality H2H to James Douglas (watch their '87 fight), so just like lefthook i think Peak Tyson vs. Peak Douglas would be comparable to how Peak Tyson vs. Peak Tucker played out. The important difference is, i think Buster would win more than a couple of rounds, but he would be floored at some point, due to lacking the iron chin of Tucker.

Watch these two fights & see how significantly different Tyson was; against Tucker he is lightning fast & explosive, boxing with elusive pressure & a superb shotgun jab. Against Buster he is listless & lethargic , has a shamefully lazy punch-output & is happy to wait as a stationary target in front of Douglas, not even attempting to block or avoid incoming punches.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3Ay-NnT7hQ[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l7HciwnY3E[/ame]

 

You'll never convince them otherwise Kalasinn. It was all Douglas that made Tyson look like crap. Douglas offered something that night that Tyson had never seen. Its ashame Tyson never got a chance to prove he could beat Douglas, so the fuel for the Tyson haters lives on.

 

In the general forum, the Douglas upset is constantly used by Tyson-Haters to "prove" the Klitsckos would beat him. :verysad

 

Tucker and Douglas are two completely different fighters.
That's what the video shows.

To say Tyson beating Tucker proves he beats Douglas is silly.
You may as well say Tucker beats Tyson because Douglas beat Tyson !
(There must have been something wrong with Tucker !)

It's a load of bull****. Tucker and Douglas, two completely different fighters and human beings on two completely different nights.

 

No its not a load of bull****. Both Tucker and Douglas fought each other and had a very similar fighting style thus the reason their fight was even when it was stopped. Whats clear is Tyson was no longer with his original team and was slacking off as a fighter and it was also clear that Tyson wasnt the same fighter he was when he faced Tucker.

 

He wasn't the same fighter becasue Douglas wasn't allowing him to be, he comes out very aggressive against Douglas using a lot of headmovement and closing distance and Douglas negates it with lateral movement and timing.

Some fighters do better against certain styles than others, perhaps Douglas liked short swarmers better than Tucker.

Holmes had a jab and was tall, hey **** so was Ali, i guess that means all of their h2h matches would follow similar lines.

 

So, you think it's correct to suggest Tucker and Douglas are similar enough to draw conclusions but Tyson and Tyson are vastly different fighters.

I can accept that Tyson wasn't at his best, but the fight wasn't even close. Douglas beat him from pillar to post.
OK, Tyson took him for granted, slacked a bit on training and had an off-night .... and got beaten up badly.
There's no proof that Tyson could have beaten him though, even if he's the better, more consistent fighter. Some guys just have your number, and fight the right fight.

No fighter in the history of boxing has the amount of excuses offered to them as does Tyson.
Crazy levels of excuse-making for the Douglas defeat.

 

No I dont think you can draw a conclusion of the outcome from their fight, but I think you can draw the conclusion that Douglas wasnt some super fighter that Tyson had never seen before. Tysons behavior and lack of focus was well documented, it was conceivable that Tyson, as great as he was, would lose to a good solid fighter on the level of Douglas if he didnt come into the fight well prepared. Noone is unbeatable.

Yes I think a fighter of Tyson's style becomes very ordinary when they are not properly prepared to fight a guy with the style of Douglas. And no I dont think Douglas had Tysons number, it just the fire guys like you use, because Tyson never got a shot to redeem himself just like you would say Rahman had Lewis number had he not gotten the rematch, because you dont particularly care for him either.

 

Tucker was aggressive too, he just had a harder target to hit.. See we can keep going around in circles. :hi:

 

I'm not saying one way or another whether a hypothetical "best/better Tyson" beats Douglas. I have no reason to discredit Douglas by pondering it with a pro-Tyson bias.
To me it's hardly relevant because all I know is that a "near-prime" Tyson got beaten up by Douglas, and knocked out. It wasn't even close.
And that needs no further explanation or excuse-making.

Many fighters tend to have their losses on nights where they were not their best.
You can argue that for a ton of guys Tyson beat, if you wanted to. And you know it.

You imply I'm unfair to Tyson and Lewis, but i've noticed you take the viewpoint of the bigger name fighter in both those particular cases. It's a typical case of explaining away upsets with excuses based on favouritism.
As for Rahman-Lewis .... if they fought a third time they would both stand a chance of winning, they both proved they can win with one punch, and I'd favour Lewis.
Buster Douglas wasn't great but I tend to think he was much better than Rahman.

 

Bigger name fighter? I dont really get that, but I think I tend to look more into the circumstances surrounding these two fights. I strongly believe an unfocused or bad training camp can have a big effect on the fighter and bring them down to the level of an average one. In both these cases the underdogs had stellar camps while the champions were documented screwing off. Add Douglas to the list too, he was the champ and was below average coming into his fight with Holyfield. Tyson's just held to a different level because how dominant he was when he was at his best.



Douglas might have been technically better than Douglas but Rahman was probably ten times tougher and Im not sure Douglas beats Rahman because of that.

 

:good

 

Sort of like saying Tim Witherspoon had the best shot at beating Tyson since he was the only fighter of note that didn't face him in the 80's. OR Tyson avoided Old Foreman and instead went for the "easier" fight with Ruddock.atsch

 

Yeah, you're not wrong about the preparation and circumstances of those two fights.

But what about Tony Tucker's horrendous managerial contract problems and his documented (pre-fight) bad hand going in against Tyson (for example) ? If someone were to suggest that a major factor in him LOSING the fight, I'm sure you'd say "No, Tyson was just too good."

OR the Lewis-McCall matches. You make a lot of Lewis's better training for the second match, but McCall was minus the very same trainer - who was in Lewis's camp and corner. Not to mention McCall's stint in rehab and personal problems just a month or two before the fight.
If someone suggests those things (McCall's misfortunes) may have influenced the result reversal just as much as Lewis's improvement, would you agree with them ?

Or do you only consider the mitigating factors of major significance when they relate to the bigger name/favourite fighters ?

 

You kind of sum my point thats been pretty consistent all the way through. Lewis wasn't the same fighter without Steward and Tyson not with Rooney. Yes I think Both Mcall and Tucker would have performed better had Tucker not had a broken hand and Mcall had Steward in his corner but it still wouldn't be good enough to beat Lewis or Tyson at their best. That's where a little insight into the fighters capabilities comes into play.