I think the Douglas that beat Tyson would always have been a hard night. you could see it that on his worst night Tyson nearly got the KO and took 10 rounds to beat down, on his best night he would have finished Douglas off after the KD and its likely he would have landed more often. The other view is Douglas would always out box Mike with that style. One thing is for certain in my mind, Douglas would have been knocked out in the rematch, he would never fight like the Tokyo Douglas again. Even though he wouldn't have been as good it would have been much better for Tyson's legacy because you wouldn't get this "Douglas would always beat Tyson" rubbish.
There were a lot of things Tyson didn't do in the douglas fight which he did from 1985-88. Firing Rooney was the end of the end of the real Tyson. Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
That fight pretty much showed Tyson needed to be at his best to win, the first time he really needed Rooney he wasn't there. Strange set of circumstances really, nothing was aligned for Tyson that night was it. Guess he had plenty of success though. I tend to think Tyson would have won if he was properly prepared, too fast, too much power and he would have landed a lot more. I know what people are going to say to that, he didn't do it in the actual fight but to me its clear he wasn't fighting his usual way from the first 10 seconds. Douglas isn't that great to make a live Tyson look that bad so early.
Well if we are talking about a Tyson who moved his head quickly, correctly, who created angles, used the jab to get inside, focused on the principle go for the body, the head will follow he clearly would have gone through Douglas. Douglas had supreme motivation in the fight where he was not scared of dying after the loss of his mother. But he had a game plan, he apparently discussed it with Holmes and to his credit executed it ruthlessly.
That wasn't a surprise, his road work just never remained the same after Rooney. He had very bad stamina in the Douglas fight and his punches were devoid of any real power. And everything that followed was natural where once a scared fighter becomes unscared, he doesn't go back to being scared.
Like who ? Who is rated significantly higher than him despite suffering "multiple bad defeats" or even a single bad defeat in their primes ? I actually see the reverse. Certainly as far a heavyweights go, none of them have such supportive fans who campaign as hard as Tyson's fans to get them a pass for such a bad defeat in their primes. I don't think anything Tyson's done has been forgotten or erased. We talk about his devastating KOs of Spinks, Holmes, Tubbs and Berbick often. We discuss his wins over Tucker and Ruddock often. His wins and his title fight victories are well discussed and well known. His wins recieve plenty of attention.
Good. Can we take it that you personally, and as many other Tyson freaks as you can persuade will stop boring the sh!t out of the rest of us with how fukking wonderful he was in his 1991 fights with the grossly over rated Ruddock?
I just don't agree with this assessment that Tyson didn't use his toolbox of skills against Douglas. The first round starts at 2:40: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8z0xoMze8U Tyson moves his head and starts just about every attack behind the jab. He uses the template, but he just can't time Douglas. And I see no real reason to believe that this isn't mainly down to Buster´s excellent usage of angles and a stiff, snappy jab. No one ever fought Tyson like this before, or since really. Holy also off-set Tyson's rhythm, but in a different way. Douglas just puts on a perfect boxing clinic against someone with a big disadvantage in reach and height.
How dare you bring a dose of reality into this and all the hundreds of other threads, that proclaim poor little Mikey, didn't train properly, had personal problems, was 50lbs over weight 2 weeks before the fight, was spending all his time in Tokyo shagging *****s and smoking dope, plus a thousand other excuses? Shame on you Mr Bokaj.
With respect to his legacy, Tyson's sheer dominance at the pinnacle of his career has ultimately become both a gift and a curse. He was so dominant from 85-91 that, on the few occasions in which he didn't blow someone out within 4 rounds, he gets treated as if he lost the fight. So, you'll often see someone write something preposterous like: "Mike really struggled with Bonecrusher Smith." Of course, in reality, Tyson completely dominated that fight, winning every round on all three judges scorecards. If Larry Holmes had delivered an identical performance, you'd have his fans saying "vintage Larry, right there!" But, because it was Tyson and he didn't stop him, he "struggled." That's the curse that goes along with being the one of the most dominating knockout artists the sport has ever seen. Secondly, Mike gets really hurt by the fact that most of his "legacy fights" occurred after prison, when he was clearly just not the same guy and is widely known to have lacked the desire for (or commitment to) the sport to train the way he had before prison. Lastly, the one "legacy fight" Mike did manage to have during his prime (Spinks) is widely discredited by far too many people. Everyone looks at the quality of that win RETROSPECTIVELY, which, in my opinion, is extremely unfair. If you were a boxing fan in 1988, then you remember that the Spinks fight was considered to be one of the biggest fights of all-time. You wanna say Spinks was a blown-up light heavy? Fine. You wanna argue that the fight was a mismatch from the start? Go ahead. Regardless, Tyson still knocked out a guy who had never lost a professional fight (and subsequently retired with his lone loss being to Tyson) and had never even been knocked down before, in 90 seconds. That win arguably made Tyson the biggest athlete in the world. I just don't think its particularly logical to pretend that win meant nothing. The bottom line: Pre-prison Tyson was one of the most dominant figures the sport has ever seen and was widely considered one of the GOATS.
Lennox Lewis Joe Louis Jack Dempsey Floyd Patterson Wladimir Klitscko And that's just off the top of my head and "heavyweight."
Tyson was mostly overrated from 1986-2000. Now that his career is over, people rightly note he badly lost his legacy fights and was upset by a 48-1 underdog. He beat a collection good, but not great fighters in the 1980's that were either previously exposed or in some cases had outside the ring issues with specular style. In addition, he's probably one of the five best blowing out their two competition in the history of the division. It would have been nice if he gave Tim Witherspoon a shot in the 1980's. It could have been Tyson's best win or maybe Timmy upsets him pre-Douglas we'll never know. What is known is Tyson had trouble with talented big men in Tucker ( injured hand in round 2 ), Bruno, Douglas, and Lewis. He also never got off the floor to win, and was mostly a front runner type, with less activity in the later rounds. I have him in my top 11-15, mostly because of his style, power, and speed.
Welcome. Question. Would you get on a plane with a pilot that didn't like flying anymore, or how about using a dentist that was fed up with other people's teeth? Of course you wouldn't ( at least not knowingly ) yet folks give Tyson all kinds of passes for being exposed including yours about him not being interested post prison. Sorry my friend but it is nonsense. I NEVER saw Tyson enter a ring with man ****s and a beer gut. That would be a sign of a guy who didn't give a toss anymore.
* Floyd Patterson is almost never rated above Tyson. Patterson is marked down for his defeats. * Lennox Lewis isn't necessarily rated above Tyson by me, and he is continually marked down for his bad defeat even by those who rate him highly. * Wladimir Klitschko is rated as high as Tyson only by a few, but I'd say he's rated below Tyson most often. People rarely shut up about his 3 KO defeats despite his 11 years period undefeated. * Dempsey is rarely rated much higher than Tyson these days. People on this forum make a big deal out of pre-prime and post-prime defeats he suffered. * Joe Louis is the only one of those you named who is always rated above Tyson. Not because people ignore his defeat to Schmeling but because he reigned for so long, made 25 defenses of the title, was a devastating and dominant force for 10 years or more. If Tyson has suffered such an injustice and "hit to his credibility" off of one loss, why is he rated so highly ?
