Tyson being past his prime when Douglas beat him???

[marciano1952]

the only time tyson was an underdog in his entire career was against lennox Lewis, and it's obvious why.

so he wasnt the underdog in the secound holy fight?

[butterfly1964]

Ali/Listion was not a very HUGE upset to the people that followed boxing but only to the people that wanted Liston to tourch Ali.

Oh really? On the day of the fight Feb. 25 '64, a poll of 46 boxing writers was put forth on their pick to win the fight, and only 3 picked Clay, one of them rumored to pick him simply as a publicity ploy.

Ali was an Olympic gold medalist and was unbeaten.

Leon Spinks was an unbeaten olympic gold medalist, too.

It was definitely a big upset because Liston was seen as invincible at the time, however no where near as big as Tyson/Douglas or even Louis/Schmelling.

Simply your opinion. Many other intelligent boxing minds would beg to differ.

I lay down the facts and instead of just admitting you were wrong, you completely ignored them and claim that the odds back then were primitive?

It makes perfect sense. 30-1 odds or more in boxing was out of the question 50+ years ago. That's just the truth. You had guys like Tony Galento a 9-1 underdog against Louis when many people thought the fight was a joke and some like Quentin Renoylds a renowned sportswriter predicted that Louis would kill Galento! Now how do you explain that?

Its just laughable for the simple fact that no one has agreed with you on it.

No one has disagreed with me on it either, besides you.

When you claimed that Schemelling was no better than Douglas, you were actually proven wrong twice. Once by Yogi's official ring ratings and another by the article that i provided which pacifically stated that Douglas was a journeyman. There is no point in arguing over something that has been done with.

Your article doesn't prove a thing, I don't even know what your talking about? It doesn't even mention Schmeling so what are you getting at? Neither does the ring ratings Yogi put up because depending on how good the era is a fighters ratings would rise and fall but would not have anything to do with how good the fighter actually is.

Again, Schmelings whole career is largely based off his win over Joe Louis. That's the only reason why he's in the top 20 of many lists today. Without Louis, I doubt he would make the top 40, and you know it.

[butterfly1964]

so he wasnt the underdog in the secound holy fight?

No, he wasn't.

[StarshipTrooper]

Oh really? On the day of the fight Feb. 25 '64, a poll of 46 boxing writers was put forth on their pick to win the fight, and only 3 picked Clay, one of them rumored to pick him simply as a publicity ploy.



Leon Spinks was an unbeaten olympic gold medalist, too.



Simply your opinion. Many other intelligent boxing minds would beg to differ.



It makes perfect sense. 30-1 odds or more in boxing was out of the question 50+ years ago. That's just the truth. You had guys like Tony Galento a 9-1 underdog against Louis when many people thought the fight was a joke and some like Quentin Renoylds a renowned sportswriter predicted that Louis would kill Galento! Now how do you explain that?



No one has disagreed with me on it either, besides you.



Your article doesn't prove a thing, I don't even know what your talking about? It doesn't even mention Schmeling so what are you getting at? Neither does the ring ratings Yogi put up because depending on how good the era is a fighters ratings would rise and fall but would not have anything to do with how good the fighter actually is.

Again, Schmelings whole career is largely based off his win over Joe Louis. That's the only reason why he's in the top 20 of many lists today. Without Louis, I doubt he would make the top 40, and you know it.

Max Schmeling was already a former Heavyweight Champion when he fought Louis the first time. He was considered past his prime and that was one of the reasons Louis was easily the favorite going in. He was, however, expected to give Louis some trouble because he WAS a crafty veteran and Louis WAS inexperienced especially against top 10 competition.

You have your opinions on Schmeling and that's fine. To claim a preponderance of intelligent boxing minds agree with you is simply substanceless arrogance: Many boxing Historians think quite highly of Schmeling. I respect their credentials as boxing historians. What are YOUR credentials? Why should I give more respect to the credentials of a nobody over the informed views of people who make their living studying boxing? Hmmmm?

Poet

[slicksouthpaw16]

Oh really? On the day of the fight Feb. 25 '64, a poll of 46 boxing writers was put forth on their pick to win the fight, and only 3 picked Clay, one of them rumored to pick him simply as a publicity ploy.

Ali was an 8 to 1 underdog and that is fair considering how popular Liston was at the time and how dangerous he looked during his reign. Ali had talent and everyone knew it. By no means would he be a huge underdog by todays standards, thats laughable that you would make such a thing up to support your ridiculous case.

Leon Spinks was an unbeaten olympic gold medalist, too.

Sure he was, at light heavyweight when he was in his true prime.

Simply your opinion. Many other intelligent boxing minds would beg to differ.

Honestly, you are the only one here that is claiming that Schmelling/Louis was a bigger upset than Tyson/Douglas, and you have been repeatedly proven wrong on it over and over again. No offense, but you really need to re think some parts of your posts.

It makes perfect sense. 30-1 odds or more in boxing was out of the question 50+ years ago. That's just the truth. You had guys like Tony Galento a 9-1 underdog against Louis when many people thought the fight was a joke and some like Quentin Renoylds a renowned sportswriter predicted that Louis would kill Galento! Now how do you explain that?

When Louis/Conn I was first signed, the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of Louis, the last minute odds were 11-5. So again, you are the only one that is saying that the betting odds were primitive.

Your article doesn't prove a thing, I don't even know what your talking about? It doesn't even mention Schmeling so what are you getting at? Neither does the ring ratings Yogi put up because depending on how good the era is a fighters ratings would rise and fall but would not have anything to do with how good the fighter actually is.Again, Schmelings whole career is largely based off his win over Joe Louis. That's the only reason why he's in the top 20 of many lists today. Without Louis, I doubt he would make the top 40, and you know it.

Its pacifically stated that( in these words) Douglas was another bum that Tyson was suppose to get rid of early because he was known for not being dedicated in the past and not showing up. He had also lost all of his biggest fights up until that point. Schmelling had been champion pre Louis and he also won plenty of European titles. Douglas beat a few decent names, and also lost to fighters that he should have beaten and he wasn't even a mandatory if i am remembering correctly. He was brought in as an opponent for Tyson, beat Tyson and went on to finish being the journeyman that he was before. That is what makes this look bad for Tyson. On his best days, Douglas was good but no where bear the level that Tyson was suppose to be at. Tyson should have given Douglas a Holyfield like blow out.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Max Schmeling was already a former Heavyweight Champion when he fought Louis the first time. He was considered past his prime and that was one of the reasons Louis was easily the favorite going in. He was, however, expected to give Louis some trouble because he WAS a crafty veteran and Louis WAS inexperienced especially against top 10 competition.

You have your opinions on Schmeling and that's fine. To claim a preponderance of intelligent boxing minds agree with you is simply substanceless arrogance: Many boxing Historians think quite highly of Schmeling. I respect their credentials as boxing historians. What are YOUR credentials? Why should I give more respect to the credentials of a nobody over the informed views of people who make their living studying boxing? Hmmmm?

Poet

Good stuff and i agree with every part. Dempsey 1919( AKA butterfly, AKA LA Lakers, AKA Galveston Giant ect) is just trying to not make himself look foolish. He would have succeeded in doing that if he stopped posting a few pages ago..lol. Hes the only one in this thread claiming that odds are different today. He just keeps going, even when he has been proven wrong on just about everything he has said.

[Dynamite76]

Tyson was the unified heavyweight champion of the world and was undefeated. I personally believe that Douglas had a lot to do with that. I thought he showed a masterful display of talent, speed, ability and overall skills. This is what stops Tyson from becoming an all time geat IMO. You never seen Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Louis or Marciano lose to this kind of opponent even on thier worse days and they also had personal problems. I do not have a problem with Tyson and think that he was certainly one of the most talented heavyweights of all, but some people need to rethink putting him in the same sentence with Ali or Louis. Think about it, these men fought in a better division and their first losses came to great heavyweights. Tyson fought in a weaker division and loss to...................Buster Douglas. This is by no means a hate thread, but just a few thoughts that i needed to get out.

I feel that Mike was ruined by Don King, his own bad devices, and the fact that Buster was in the right place at the right time.

[butterfly1964]

Max Schmeling was already a former Heavyweight Champion when he fought Louis the first time. He was considered past his prime and that was one of the reasons Louis was easily the favorite going in. He was, however, expected to give Louis some trouble because he WAS a crafty veteran and Louis WAS inexperienced especially against top 10 competition.

You have your opinions on Schmeling and that's fine. To claim a preponderance of intelligent boxing minds agree with you is simply substanceless arrogance: Many boxing Historians think quite highly of Schmeling. I respect their credentials as boxing historians. What are YOUR credentials? Why should I give more respect to the credentials of a nobody over the informed views of people who make their living studying boxing? Hmmmm?

Poet

Actually poet Louis had great experiance against top 10 opposition prior to the Schmeling fight. He fought close to ten guys who were in the top ten, including two former heavyweight champions. in many people minds eye, Schmeling was just seen as one of the ex-champions that Louis after Carnera and Louis after Baer was going to beat. I think highly of Schmeling too. He was a very good fighter and a great counterpuncher. But my problem is with slicksouthpaw not thinking highly of Douglas as a fighter when he routinely refers to him as a "bum", and a "journeyman", when if he was any of those things he would not even have come close to beating Tyson.

[Phil McRevis]

Douglas was down longer than 10 seconds in the round prior to Tyson "losing".

[butterfly1964]

Ali was an 8 to 1 underdog and that is fair considering how popular Liston was at the time and how dangerous he looked during his reign. Ali had talent and everyone knew it. By no means would he be a huge underdog by todays standards, thats laughable that you would make such a thing up to support your ridiculous case.

Of course he had talent. A lot of people thought that Buster Douglas had "talent" and so many other of Tyson's opponents/victims. one of the reasons why he was a huge underdog was because he had a poor showing against lightly regarded Doug Jones and the journeyman Henry Cooper, in which the left hook gave him the most trouble, and guess what Liston's best power punch was... the left hook! So yes he was a huge underdog and would still be today under similar circumstances, except today like I said before the odds would be 20 or 30 to 1.

Sure he was, at light heavyweight when he was in his true prime.

Uhmm, Leon Spinks was never a lightheavyweight, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Honestly, you are the only one here that is claiming that Schmelling/Louis was a bigger upset than Tyson/Douglas, and you have been repeatedly proven wrong on it over and over again. No offense, but you really need to re think some parts of your posts.

first off, I never said that Scheling-Louis was a bigger upset than Tyson-Douglas, I said they were similar, and that both Schmeling and Douglas' careers are for the most part made from those upsets. Schmeling's resume may have been a bit better than Douglas' prior, but not by much. And even if I did, I don't see how I was "proven wrong on it over and over again", when all you did was state you're opinion as I have stated mine.

When Louis/Conn I was first signed, the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of Louis, the last minute odds were 11-5. So again, you are the only one that is saying that the betting odds were primitive.

Ha! This supremely shows your lack of boxing knowledge. Louis was not an overwhelming favorite against Conn. A lot of boxing people and the general public picked Conn to win because they thought that he had the right style ( movement against the flat-footed Louis), and plus there was a general conception of the boxing public (even though I myself do not believe this, so don't try to say that i said this) that Louis was "past his prime" because of his poor showings during his "Bum of the Month" tour from December of 1940 to may of 1941, especially getting catapulted out of the ring by Buddy Baer's left hook a month before. The odds were about 2-1 in favor of Louis, and that was one of the biggest boxing events of the 1940s, hardly the scheduled massacre you are trying to make it out to be.

Its pacifically stated that( in these words) Douglas was another bum that Tyson was suppose to get rid of early because he was known for not being dedicated in the past and not showing up. He had also lost all of his biggest fights up until that point. Schmelling had been champion pre Louis and he also won plenty of European titles. Douglas beat a few decent names, and also lost to fighters that he should have beaten and he wasn't even a mandatory if i am remembering correctly. He was brought in as an opponent for Tyson, beat Tyson and went on to finish being the journeyman that he was before. That is what makes this look bad for Tyson. On his best days, Douglas was good but no where bear the level that Tyson was suppose to be at. Tyson should have given Douglas a Holyfield like blow out.

The conception of the Louis-Scmeling spectacle was tat Schmeling was just another ex-champ Louis was supposed to be. Schmeling was drilled by Max Baer in 1933 who was almost killed by Louis 9 months before. Similar to what you're talking about with Buster Douglas, huh? I know you think Douglas is a bum, which then makes tyson over rated and not a great fighter, but if you can't appreciate the prime peak Douglas that showed up against tyson, the in-shape fast, sharp determined Douglas that showed up on that night, then there's nothing else to conclude except that you my friend have an agenda.