What if buster Douglas had beaten tucker

That's how I see it. Tyson began to look beatable in the Bruno match, prior to Douglas.

 

I said Williams was better equipped to fight Tyson compared with Bruno who had not fought for 16 months, Holmes who had not fought for two years, Tubbs and Thomas who had not beaten rated guys for so long that Tyson had not even been a pro when either had last beat a decent fighter.

I didn't say anyone thought Williams could win, but at least he fought three times in the last 12 months against decent guys like Berbick and Bert Cooper. Williams was at least operating at a better level than Holmes, Tubbs, Bruno, Spinks when Tyson fought them.

Back then Everyone just wanted to see Tyson knock these guys over. People had stopped asking or looking at what level these challengers had been operating at.

In his most recent fight Williams even knocked out the guy who had just drew with Bonecrusher Smith. It's a better level than wimpy Halstead, Eddie Gonzalez and Danny Sutton who were who Thomas and Tubbs were tangling with.

So really, Williams and Douglas were among the better equipped challengers at the time Tyson fought them. Douglas had got good rounds in against McCall, Berbick and 16-1 Mike Williams who had only lost only by split decision to Tim Witherspoon.

Tyson approached both the Williams and Douglas fights with the same prep and was in better shape for either guy than he had been against Tony Tucker.

In my view Douglas beat Tyson because he was good enough to win. With a hindsight, Buster was a real step up from most of the challengers Tyson fought because unlike most of them he was in good current form against proven opponents.

 

How was tyson in better shape for douglas than tucker?are you joking? Based on what? The weight?
Tyson threw punches for 12 rounds against Tucker and showed no stamina problems at all. If your own 2 eyes dont tell you that Tyson was much better prepared for Tucker than Douglas then you dont know much about boxing. He was sharper, more elusive, fought in a rythm at a high pace and when the pace slowed down he started to outjab tucker. Look at the first few rounds against Douglas and against Tucker. Tyson doesnt even want to be there against Douglas and just eats punches and occasionally swings with a single punch. The difference is so big its impossible not to notice. JUST LOOK AT THE FIGHTS LOL

 

I agree with a lot of this. But, to me anyway, Williams is/was a B level guy. You want a win over a ranked opponent as champ? Get Carl signed up.

Agree with you the others may have been C level with their recent form and maybe an old Holmes was still the most formidable of the lot. Hardly a case of walking through a minefield and I think lots of guys were capable of beating those same guys starting with that Berbick fight. Hardly a minefield to negotiate through.

The one big thing Buster had going for him was foot movement/lateral movement/a good jab and the ability to work off his toes. And punch while moving his feet. The rest of those guys were right in front of Mike--aside from Holmes who could not sustain that level of movement.

But I sure did not see Douglas getting the W over a DKP moneymaker. I thought he'd do better than most however & didn't figure it to be a real easy night's work. As in no Spinks or Williams or Tubbs type fights where I didn't think they'd get 5 rounds in collectively. I thought it'd take awhile to break down Douglas but the guy getting broken down in there was Tyson.

But as you said, he had not faced that toolset/skilled operator in a long time.

 

I agree with you, there is no way anyone could predict Buster winning, I certainly couldn't. But that doesn't mean we didn't all get it wrong.

after the event, when you search for how on earth Douglas achieved this it all adds up. He was in form, actively beating top guys but nobody cares because we were all watching the Tyson show. We did not (or could not) credit that it could happen. We just count the losses and ask how on earth can this guy win?

after all, Tyson had beat long tall guys like Green, Ribalta, Williams, Biggs and Tucker. You could argue they could all move, all had jabs. One was an Olympian for goodness sake. On the surface Douglas represented nothing that Tyson had not seen before. Why should we give Buster a chance? But when you break it all down and research the landscape and back story Douglas was literally the only truly seasoned version of that kind of fighter that Tyson met.

If you lined up the guys Tyson was beating, the versions of those guys one after the other in the order that Tyson got them, how many were at the end of the line, inactive, trading on past glory or one good win at a level they never fought at again? some even scared to death. In that form, Wouldn't most well groomed house fighters with title pretensions beat them? They might not look so good doing it, but these are winnable fights for any leading man.

Tyson demanded that schedule because he was so fresh and exciting, he had everything going for him, he had been reared for it. This takes nothing from Tyson saying this. He truly was an exciting sensation talented enough to be everything he was..but just like the young Joe Louis sometimes even the best fighters can get ahead of themselves without paying their dues.

The simplistic explanation is Louis and Tyson took Schmeling and Douglas too lightly but it simply does not wash.

There is absolutely nothing wrong, or any shame, with saying the better man can lose to a crafty old dog. There need not be an excuse. You can excuse experiences you never had.

Douglas had been there and done it. He had won and he had lost. He was no less talented than any of the previous belt holders of that era. His route had not been so high financed. He had been on the cusp of a title shot way back when he beat Cobb or later when he beat Page. But he was never quite coulorful enough, he had a few too many blemishes on his career that had lost momentum several times. Besides, unbeaten prospects were easier to sell. It did not mean he still wasn't any good. It didn't mean Douglas was not frustrated or angry with guys he felt were no better than him picking up belts and title shots. So We overlooked him.

After losing to Tucker, Don king didn't know what to do with him. He kept matching Buster to get beat but he just kept winning. But by winning fights he was supposed to lose he had been fighting guys who Turned up to win and thought they would win. usually only defending champions have the experience of winning those kinds of fights...but look at the champion! Tyson. he's the champion, but how much experience has he had of beating guys who actually expected to win? A few showed defiance in losing but that is not the same as beating a guy fighting to maintain his reputation, who really believes in himself.

We just didn't credit Douglas could do it. That he had an edge over all the other guys who fought Tyson. Especially the moment when that bell rang.

 

Well said. And that sums it all up---a live body.

 

Now people are saying Douglas was the best contender Tyson defended against? Oh my.

Buster had a nice little streak going for him, but he was certainly not better than Carl Williams.

 

Choklab is full of shi t.

Page had lost three out of four going into the fight with Buster and would never log a good win again. That was the only ranked fighter Buster beat.

Buster beat Cobb narrowly at what would be the start of a four fight losing streak for Cobb which included a 7-4 fighter named Dee Collier.

He also beat very inexperienced versions of McCall and Mike Williams.

Berbick was done.

He also had a some failry low level loses on his record.

He was the worst Tyson opponent of his first reign. The one hint that he might have something to show was that he competed with a prime Tucker.

 

It fits the narrative

 

Douglas was the worst? Where do you get that from? Was it because Larry Holmes was cutting a swathe through the contenders when he challenged Tyson? Was it because Tubbs had beat even one live body since he beat Greg Page in 1985? How about Bruno? how about Biggs?

going by recent form Berbick, Smith, Williams and Douglas were the only guys worth fighting. The others were woefully unprepared for a title fight. You cannot make a case for the rest going on recent form.

Why do we have to go along with this cliche that Tyson lost to the worst challenger when the evidence simply proves he was the best prepared challenger of that reign?

 

Tyson was lighter for Douglas, just look at Tysons body. Against Tucker, Tyson was going through an even more difficult time, even His hair was falling out. By his own admission He claimed he should not have even went through with that fight because he had a bad dose of the clap. That's in Tysons own words.

the sharpness and stamina Tyson showed in his fight with Tucker must be measured against the tactics Tucker was able to apply. Tucker ran for most of that fight, there was a lot of holding. What did Tucker do to deter sharpness? He was on the back foot. Tucker was not drawing leads or making Tyson respond to feints. He was on he outside looking in.

It's harder to look sharp when the other man is ready and knows what you are going to do before you do it. Tyson was responding to feints. How can you beat a guy to a punch when you are the one buying a feint? How can you close the distance when you are constantly put into a no mans land? You can start out as sharp as you like, but what happens once you get punished for everything that you attempt? You've Lost centre ring. Sharpness or coaching won't get you out of that.

You are saying "if I know anything about boxing" but if you knew so much why don't you think about what I just said.

 

Thats the berbick fight where he had the clap. If you think tyson of the douglas fight was even close to as good as he was for Tucker then this discussion is over and you dont need to reply to me anymore. If you cant tell the difference then there is no sense arguing

 

The difference is the way Tucker fought compared to Douglas against Tyson.

Was Tucker claiming ring centre and forcing Tyson to respond to feints? No he wasn't. Think about how Tyson fights. He draws a lead then he attacks from the blind side using his speed. Douglas did not allow for that. He fainted the wrong position out of Tyson so that Tyson is not countering his way in. When Tyson set off he falls onto a counter. And it just kept happening over and over Tyson just could not work it out. He was confused and stranded. Taking a lot of head shots. Douglas knew what way Tysons head moved. So Tyson stopped moving his head. It was horrible.


A fight is a two guy thing. It does not have to be the best guy being bad. That's mostly a bad cliche. Sometimes the best guy loses to a guy who just has all the answers.

 

Tubbs and Bruno beat better or equal comp to Buster without losing to the mediocrities he lost to. That would indicate they were better. They each fought tune ups waiting in line for Tyson in 87. So what?

Buster's best win was a Page whom Tubbs had beaten.

If you think Holmes wasn't good, I would think you also think beating Charles Martin is more meaningful than beating current Wlad.

 

Match up results and previous form are just issues going into a fight. Hardly an be all and end all. Just a factor.

The bigger issue is how a guy matches up with his opponent. Defensively and offensively. Who is the house fighter. Where is the bout taking place. Lots of checkmarks on the Tyson side and very very few boxes checked by those opponents.