Tyson vs Tillis - who really won??

Buster Douglas was no journeymen.

He was no more a journeymen going into the Tyson fight than almost every quality guy you listed for Wlad's wins. He was ranked in the Ring Magazine top ten for years.

 

Perhaps, but Wlad improved a lot since then.

 

Its all about context, you can't fairly compare the upset of a prospect to the upset of a reigning Champion.

 

Hell, I would agree. Despite sneaking into the top 10 from time to time, you could certainly make a case for Tony Thompson as a modern journeyman.

A journeyman is technically just a fighter who's not expected to win big fights or be a serious contender to a title anymore...they are along for the journey. Call Douglas whatever you like, at the age of 30 he was 5 years removed from his last significant victory, 3 years removed from his one and only disappointing title shot...he was a considerable underdog for a reason.

 

He had a very long reach for his height, unlike Tyson, Frazier or Marciano.

 

Dude you're an idiot if you think Tillis won...

 

You still never answered the question. Its pretty clear that at that point Tyson was still green and still developing. Tyson haters can be pretty ridiculous at times picking and choosing facts to suit their agenda.

You are in effect criticizing him for not winning more decisively which is why I asked at his age who would have done it better.

Unless of course you don't know boxing and you scored the fight for Tillis.

And lastly Bert Cooper has no business being mentioned along side Tyson.

 

Douglas already had 4 losses when he faced Tyson: he got TKO by David Bey, Mike White and Tucker and decisioned by Jesse Ferguson. He also had a draw against Steffen Tangstad. Maybe he wasn't exactly a journeyman but he wasn't a real contender, not even close. Half a year after the Tyson fight he got KO by Holyfield in 3 rounds. Douglas was sort of like that Polish guy that Vitali beat earlier this year, maybe slightly better but not much.

 

Hes improved but has he improved enough to beat a fighter on a higher level than Sam Peter or Corrie Sanders? That hasnt been proven.

 

Purrity had 13 losses. Regardless of how bad you think Douglas might have been, he still had ten times the skills of Ross Purrity. Purrity was a garbage man if Douglas was a journeyman.

 

-Again, your question is a paradox. But I'll say Patterson was pretty convincing against Jimmy Slade at 19.

-Unless of course you don't know boxing and scored the fight for Tyson...:nut

-Read my signature...The Real Deal was in the ring with both and he strongly disagrees, brother.

Exactly, he was just like a 5'11" Sonny Liston...except heavier and stronger.

 

I agree with you there. What I am saying is that if Douglas beat Tyson there is a chance that Wlad would beat him too. I am not saying that would be the probable outcome of their fight but rather just that it is a possibility. Another thing to consider is that a young Tyson probably had much better coaches than a young Wlad. He improved a lot since the Purity fight.

 

And plain better.

Check out this all-time great left hook:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJqOcZDCl4w[/ame]

5:10

Cooper almost kills Loren Ross with an uppercut:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGdy9iuEDYo[/ame]

7:10

 

So now Cooper is better than Liston? And your example is wins over two bums? O....K...

 

Considering you are in the vast minority of people who actually think Tyson lost this fight Id have to say you are the one who is :nut