Tyson- What if?

What makes you make a statement like this? Douglas had good overall skills, but he never had the mental makeup to maintain any stature, thats probably why he was only a flash in the pan throughout his career, whereas Tyson showed a lot more consistency. And yes, knowing Douglas, and seeing the way he got up, he would have been just as satisfied if Meyran would have counted him out. :good

 

I believe he did and I dont believe you can compare an offensive style that requires a fighter to be very elusive, always coming forward because of the reach deficit, to the outside on your toes style of Ali. Also like Ali, Frazier kept a solid corner his entire career.
As for your other point, thats what keeps Tyson from the tops in my opinion, he wasnt able to maintain what kept him at his best, but there is no argueing he was the youngest heavyweight champion, and the last fighter to unify all three belts separately, and the competition wasnt too shabby either.

 

Because Douglas was that great that night and Tyson isn't 1/4th as faded or past it was you suggest from Spinks to the Douglas fight. Pretty obvious. If people can argue that Vitali is so great because he wins almost every round, then a Douglas who did whip Tyson badly in 90 would certainly whip even the slightest superior version of Tyson from 2 years ago. The reality is that Tyson wasn't some invincible monster that just collapsed into a weak-minded or much inferior fighter. It gets overstated time and time again.

Keep your sand in the head. I'm done if you're going to downplay and discredit Douglas like that. He was a man on his mission that night and showed no quit. Suggesting he wanted to quit is insulting to Douglas, Tyson, the sport of boxing and any boxing fan. You're really just trying to cover up for your tracks. Tyson showed far more quit that night than Douglas. Douglas was only upset at himself for getting too excited and aggressive by getting himself caught. The only way you can keep this sort of absurdity up is if you say that Douglas got a long-count and Tyson really should've won. Really wouldn't surprise me with the recent idiotic comments coming your way. :good :hi:

 

This is obviously something you cant see. It wasnt a sudden collapse and the point I was making all along.
As far as Douglas he did put on a great courageous performance that night, but dont forget he had a history of not getting up when the going got tough. Kudos for getting up and finishing the job that night, albeit not against the same Tyson of 1988 which you believe to be the case.

 

There is less margin for error when you are a fighter that has an offense that has you moving forward slipping and countering punches. There is a much larger effect of taking a punch coming forward as compared to moving backwards or laying on the ropes.
Tyson like Ali had a tremendous chin, and like Ali, and because of his eroding skills, was forced to get hit more as he got away from his elusive style. Such was the case (regardless of what some others on this thread might think ) in subsequent fights post Spinks and Douglas, and ultimately had him as a stationary one punch banger in his post prison comeback.

 

I've hardly been hit with any piece of "evidence". The only thing that constitutes actual evidence is lefthook's reference to Tyson being dropped in sparring by Greg Page. Aside from that is only heresay and Tyson and/or his camp making excuses sometime after a loss (completely contradicting their insistence coming into the fight that they were properly prepared) as though that is somehow something novel and completely accurate - and not what half the fighters in the world do after a loss.

But the guy with Tyson in his avatar, who claims to have watched his fights a million times each, is perfectly objective and well-suited to give an unbiased assessment of him.

Fantastic "logic" there. :roll:

Yes he has, and no I'm not.

Because a fighter making an excuse two decades after the fight should be treated as gospel?

No I don't, and neither do you.

No it isn't. Now you're the one making **** up.

Which is a laughable, because you asked for those comments.

No, I reposted your exact statements, word for word. I can't help it if you stumbled over your own logic.

Bye then.

 

Exactly what I was trying to say. This says it all in a nutshell right here.

 

Exactly.

Some people seem to think Tyson could just do exactly what he did to Spinks to any fighter if he only "wanted" to. He could only do what he did to Spinks if a fighter has the same style and/or limitations that Spinks has.

Tyson was dominated right from the outset vs. Douglas, and dominated no matter how hard he pressed the fight or what he tried to do. You can't put that down entirely to a "bad corner", "bad conditioning", or a "bad training camp." That only happens when an opponent finds stylistic limitations in a fighter and takes advantage of them.

Saying **** like "no stamina", "no head movement", and "no combinations" are absurd exaggerations at best and have no bearing on what actually happened in the fight.

 

Thats like saying the outcome of a fight is only decided on what one fighter didnt allow the other to do, and thats just not true. In fact its quite the contrary, and the reason why cornerman exist!!!

 

I never said the ultimate outcome has no basis on what a corner does. Quite the opposite, I know that cornermen have the potential to influence the outcome in a close or competitive fight. What I said is that a fighter being dominated from the outset can't be blamed on the cornerman.

For example, we saw Holyfield in the first Moorer fight coming in under similar rumored circumstances as Tyson - ie: "managerial disputes", "poor training camp", "bad corner" etc. Like Tyson, Holy's corner wasn't prepared to treat his cuts/swelling either. However, Holy didn't get dominated from the outset. Quite the opposite, he dropped his man early and still made the fight close and competitive throughout (and personally, I thought he actually did win the fight). That's the kind of situation where you can argue that a better corner maybe would've been the one difference needed between winning and losing - and indeed, we later saw as a matter of fact (not just speculation) that Holy is indeed capable of beating Moorer.

However, for anyone to claim that someone losing 9 out of 10 rounds and then being KTFO by a fighter would be entirely and unquestionably reversed if there was simply another person in his corner is questionable at best - especially given that there was no rematch (not that that's anyone's fault) to validate that claim.

 

If Tyson had stayed with his old team, and never went to jail he would've become one of the best HW's of all times, unfortunately his early accomplishments never did enough to make him one of the best O.A.T.

 

That was Douglases fault for comming in againts Evander the way he did and for staying down from that shot the way he did. He simply quit and maybe he also did that to avoid a Tyson rematch (and keep his ˙˙I beat Tyson˙˙ scalp). Mind you he was also supposed to fight Tyson in 1998 if he beat Savarese but he got KO'd in 1 - of course I realize that in 1998 the rematch wouldnt prove anything, but the fact is Tyson was hungry for a rematch, Douglas was not. :deal

 

Ha funny how your trying to spin it around, I never said that. Im not saying insert Kevin Rooney into that fight and Douglas gets his ass handed to him, it was much deeper than that, which Ive already laid out.
The corner or trainer does have the ability to influence a fight in any stage regardless of whats going on start to finish. The trainer also has the ability to get a far less equipped fighter or well equipped fighter prepared to expose his opponents weaknesses, as was the case in Lewis vs Mcall I, or Holyfield vs Bowe II, or what Kevin Rooney had done with Tyson in 37 consecutive fights.
Again, Tyson had proven what he could do against comparabley skilled or better fighters in the past, and the suggestion that Douglas who even his manager called a 1000 to one shot against Tyson became this unstoppable dynamo that would have beaten any fighter for one night, would be a stretch. Douglas always had a chance, but the combination of all things made the outcome of this fight possible, to ignore one, is just being bias.