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

[butterfly1964]

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.

Well then explain to me the Tony Galento fight as i expounded on a few posts back.

[Phil McRevis]

Watch Tyson v Douglas from 1:12 of this video then watch the seconds go by....13...14 seconds
Tyson was ROBBED!!!

[butterfly1964]

Watch Tyson v Douglas from 1:12 of this video then watch the seconds go by....13...14 seconds
Tyson was ROBBED!!!

The ref did count slow for Tyson as well.

[Phil McRevis]

The ref did count slow for Tyson as well.

Tyson should have already won though.
The ref ****ed history.

[slicksouthpaw16]

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.

Unlike Douglas, Ali was actually touted and was unbeaten. On top of him beating some good quality contenders by that point. By no means was he known a journeyman or a stepping stone. He was simply the underdog and a very live one at that. Also, when was Doug Jones lightly regarded? have mostly all of his fights when he came onto the scene and was one of the most technically sound fighters of that era, and also has good wins such as Bobo Olsen, Zora Folley, Bob Foster ect. He just came in at the wrong time, the division was too hot.

Again you are spewing things. How about providing something that even backs you up on the odds, because i am having a good laugh at how desperate you are. Ali would have been a 30 to 1 favorite by ''todays standards''.

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

Obviously i meant Michael Spinks. Leon was never highly regarded especially the way Ali was. Leon was brought in as an opponent for Ali and had only about 7 fights. He also caught Ali at the back end of his career when barely had any speed left and was only getting by with his experience and craftiness . Tyson was in his prime years.

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.

Actually, you said that Louis/Shemelling was as big or even bigger upset than Tyson/Douglas but your excuse was that the odds were too primitive. Now, you are contradicting yourself. You first that Schmelling's resume was not better than Douglas at all, now you are saying that it was better but not by much. Nice.

I meant that you have been proven wrong by many credible sources and yet don't take any of them into account and continue saying the sames things. You are too stubborn to see and admit that you were wrong.

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

.

I think you may want to do a little research and instead of just making things up.

''Many in the crowd of 54,487 who jammed into the Polo Grounds that Wednesday night, June 18, 1941, believed Conn could do it. Members of the press, including Hype Igoe and Willard Mullin, had gone out on a limb for Conn. So had several members of the boxing fraternity, including champions James J. Braddock, Fred Apostoli, Gus Lesnevich, Lew Jenkins, and Fritzie Zivic.''

"I know I have lost my temper in some fights," the strong-willed Irish challenger said before the fight, "but you can't bet I won't this time." And bet his fans did, bringing the last-minute odds down to 11-5, Louis.

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.

Again, the fact that Douglas looked like that only one time against Tyson looked bad for Mike considering Douglas went back to being a journeyman afterwards. I also laughed when you referred to him as ''peak'' Douglas as if in he was ever great and he actually had a prime. So his prime was for only one night? Wow.

[slicksouthpaw16]

Tyson should have already won though.
The ref ****ed history.

Watch Tyson v Douglas from 1:12 of this video then watch the seconds go by....13...14 seconds
Tyson was ROBBED!!!

The ref did count slow for Tyson as well.

Yeah, the only reason that Douglas beat Tyson was because the referee counted long. Forget the beautiful ass whooping that Douglas was laying on Tyson before and the knockout that occurred later.

[Phil McRevis]

Yeah, the only reason that Douglas beat Tyson was because the referee counted long. Forget the beautiful ass whooping that Douglas was laying on Tyson before and the knockout that occurred later.

Do you deny that Tyson was robbed by the ref and his bad count?
Whether Douglas was winning or not the rules state that if you go down for 10 then you lose.
NO IFS OR BUT'S.
True or Not?

[The Iron Man]

The rules state its the refs count not 10 seconds.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

Great heavyweights deal with adversity, something that Tyson has never shown in his peak years. For example, look at Ali against Cooper. Ali took him lightly and paid a price and was very badly hurt and seemingly on his way out, the difference is that he got up and proved that he was great by dealing with it, buckling down and coming back and stopping Cooper. I would have understood if Tyson was in the fight and it was close, but he was not only dominated but knocked out by this guy. I completely understand that Douglas was talented and had the tools and ability to do something, however it looks bad for Tyson for the simple fact that it was the best Douglas has ever looked in his entire career an he was not even close to being great nor elite. Evander Holyfield( an elite fighter and all time great) took Douglas apart in his very next fight. Look at the opposition that Ali, Louis, Frazier and Foreman lost to and look at Tyson's. My thing is that he has never shown me anything that indicated that he was great and every time that he stepped up against the elites, he lost. Again, the man had every tool to be one of if not the greatest, but talent and your accomplishments are very different.

Now I know you seriously don't know what your talking about. After Clay went down, he was saved by the bell. His trainer then "supposedly" split his glove, giving Clay a few extra minutes to recover. Why should anyone respect your opinion if you can't get this part right?

[slicksouthpaw16]

Now I know you seriously don't know what your talking about. After Clay went down, he was saved by the bell. His trainer then "supposedly" split his glove, giving Clay a few extra minutes to recover. Why should anyone respect your opinion if you can't get this part right?

Where did i say that Ali didn't get saved by the bell? Read my posts. I said that he showed adversity by getting up after being in that kind of position for the first time and he came back to stop him. Tyson was the one being stopped by Douglas and he didn't get up after he was down.

I have said plenty of times that i wasn't a Tyson hater so i won't respond to that again.( to Dempsey 1919) I don't have an agenda.