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

[slicksouthpaw16]

Ali vs Spinks.

I rest my case. The best lose and have off nights

Honestly and no offense, you have no case to rest. Ali was about 15 years past his prime and completely shot. Had no legs, deteriorated speed and was at a point in his career where he had to make his opponents tire themselves out on him so he could rally back. Even then he beat Spinks in the rematch. Two things that Tyson didn't do. He wasn't past his prime and he didn't want a rematch with Douglas.

Tyson kept fighting againsr douglas tho, and didnt give up. He knew into the fight he wasnt in great condition but kept going. The douglas that fought Holyfield was very different. Tyson fought back after being stunned by Bruno and in a very tough two fights against Ruddock (which was a very bad style match up for tyson). But i agree he doenst have as much heart as the other greats, but can u say for certain that Liston, Foreman and Lewis had better hearts?.

I didn't see Tyson do much other than the knock down. He seem like he was becoming passive and was just staring at Douglas. I agree that the Douglas that fought Holyfield was different, but Tyson was the only high quality win that Douglas has on his record and that does not look good for him. Douglas was known for being a journeyman and had lost to even Jesse Fuergeson in a fight earlier in his career. My uncle told me that both were prospects at the time and neither looked like much. The wins that Tyson had over Ruddock and Bruno actually really impressed me. He showed heart in the Ruddock fight and the ability to fight back when things are not going his way, something that he never shown in any other fight. I personally rank the Tyson's win over Bruno higher than the performance simply becuase he wasn't tested. Bruno was scared of Tyson and was only trying to tie Tyson up and did not really try to show any offense. All in all, great win for Tyson over a massive power puncher with good skills( even though they wern't on display on either of their fights).

As for your question, i really didn't see anything wrong with Lewis or Foreman's heart. Liston didn't show heart in either of his fights with Ali so you have a point there, but Lewis and Foreman both were very durabale and mentally strong, neither quit in a fight before. Where Lewis went wrong in his career was taking his opponents lightly and being caught cold by them. He didn't show a very sturdy chin in some fights.

[The Iron Man]

I didn't see Tyson do much other than the knock down. He seem like he was becoming passive and was just staring at Douglas. I agree that the Douglas that fought Holyfield was different, but Tyson was the only high quality win that Douglas has on his record and that does not look good for him. Douglas was known for being a journeyman and had lost to even Jesse Fuergeson in a fight earlier in his career. My uncle told me that both were prospects at the time and neither looked like much. The wins that Tyson had over Ruddock and Bruno actually really impressed me. He showed heart in the Ruddock fight and the ability to fight back when things are not going his way, something that he never shown in any other fight. I personally rank the Tyson's win over Bruno higher than the performance simply becuase he wasn't tested. Bruno was scared of Tyson and was only trying to tie Tyson up and did not really try to show any offense. All in all, great win for Tyson over a massive power puncher with good skills( even though they wern't on display on either of their fights).

As for your question, i really didn't see anything wrong with Lewis or Foreman's heart. Liston didn't show heart in either of his fights with Ali so you have a point there, but Lewis and Foreman both were very durabale and mentally strong, neither quit in a fight before. Where Lewis went wrong in his career was taking his opponents lightly and being caught cold by them. He didn't show a very sturdy chin in some fights.

I watched the tyson douglas fight again last night, and tyson didnt give up all together. He just forgot about what he had been trained to do, there are a few instances when against the ropes he hits douglas with a good shot and forces him to hold.I know tyson is the only quality W on his record, but many boxing historians say he always had potential and that plus more came out in the tyson fight. I cannot say for sure if this is true i was much too young at the time. As you said tyson fought well and shows heart against Ruddock which shows he did have heart, but not as much as Holyfield, Ali, Marciano or Frazier but then again who does? Im not sure whether Bruno was scared of tyson, he just didnt want to let go of him when tyson was inside (and thats a decent tactic), Tyson got hit by a big hook (in brunos autobiography he said its the best hooks his thrown) and fought his way back to win. He was also rocked against Bonecrusher Smith and fought back to win a UD.
I agree Listons heart was no better than Tysons. As for Lewis i agree with you he had a good heart, thinking back he was behind against bruno and fought on for the win. As for foreman he never really proved he had a great heart. But what im trying to say is Tyson not having as good a heart as Ali or Frazier shouldnt mean his not an ATG because not many people did. Liston is considerd one and as you said he didnt have much of a heart either.

Ali Vs Spinks was nothing like Tyson Vs Douglas i agree with you fully there.

[Ben_London.]

douglas got lucky cause tyson had other **** on his mind that night

i can relate to tyson because he's a dumb ****head like me

[Clegg]

Great heavyweights deal with adversity, something that Tyson has never shown in his peak years.

What sort of adversity are you talking about? Losing the early rounds and needing to come on strong late in the fight? Having to get up to win?

If so, what you're doing is criticising Tyson for never having had a bad enough performance to need to do this. Yes, he dominated and scored early KOs, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've seen Jack Dempsey fights where he got hit and put down, but came back to win. Should this be rated above Tyson KOing people without taking much back because of his head movement? Not in my opinion.

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.

No, the main difference is that Tyson was dealing was a ref who couldn't count to 10, and Ali had a trainer who was able to buy him time when he was hurt. Ali then won because of a cut rather than a great comeback. Those bits of luck(/the rules not being followed correctly) mean that your comparison is very flawed in my opinion.

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.

He simply was not in good shape for the Holyfield fight, as everyone noticed from the very start.

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.

Those examples do benefit your argument, but I don't feel that you addressed the example of Lennox Lewis, who twice lost to fighters that aren't much better than Douglas.

Spinks was a better fighter than Moorer at both HW and LHW, and Tyson destroyed Spinks whereas Holyfield lost to Moorer.

Tyson beat better fighters than Douglas, Tyson looked worse that night than ever before, and Douglas looked better than ever before. We consider someone to be past their prime when they are unable to win against someone that they previously would've beaten.

[CaRnAgEViOLaToR]

tyson was in his prime years but he didnt seem too prepared to fight and you cant take anything away from buster the man had the right plan and straight beat his ass.

[JayCoe]

It all stems down to one thing at the end of the day;

When Ali shouted "I am the greatest!" people used to reply "no you're not" and when he shouted out "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, your hands can't hit what you eyes can't see!" they said he floated like a butterfly but doubted that he could sting like a bee...So Ali proved them wrong, then when he said he was the greatest people said "yes! yes you are!" and when he chanted "float like a butterfly..." people chanted along. Now it's almost a taboo to suggest that Ali wasn't the greatest boxer of all time.

When Tyson said that when people step in the ring with him they're just as good as dead, people said "yes, you're right!" and that is the difference. Tyson never had to prove himself, he was entertaining to watch because he was just so powerful. Tyson said when he came out of a fight Cus' wouldn't only say how good he was in the ring, but what he was doing wrong. Tyson even noted himself that post Cus' death nobody was really telling him what he did wrong. Everybody just kept saying how amazing he was, which is why even now he supposedly gets frustrated when fans constantly go up to him to say he's amazing. Come the Don King era Tyson wasn't forced to be so grounded with his abilities and the Champ who was once a soft spoken shy young man who slept on a friend's setee had become an ego-filled young man with alot of money who did what most young males would do, spend it, fast. Tyson got caught up in Don King's world - promotion. He neglected his world - boxing and the two clashed. King was making alot of money so he wanted to keep it going, Tyson was making alot of money so he wanted to keep it going.

It all boiled down the fact that Tyson never had to really prove himself, people never really doubted him until he was older and people began to look back to his career.

As for whoever said Don King was a **** promotor, that's rubbish. King was probably the best promotor, he got what he wanted, when he wanted and scammed everyone who could be scammed in order to ensure that he and his fighters got the better deal. Some say that his fighters got a raw deal in comparison to him, but none the less, his fighters got a good deal in comparison to who they were fighting. King knew exactly what was going on and if there was a fight that didn't take place that people thought should have it was because King didn't want it to. The problem with the King era is that Tyson crossed from his world into King's and changed from focussed on boxing to focusing on promotion.

[them_apples]

he was in his physical prime but not mentally, that was his weakness..and like most trainers say..a good boxer is from the neck and up..

Tyson is an ATG though, no doubt..he was the youngest undisputed champion, he still cleaned out his division..and he has a great story to tell.

Prime for Prime he can **** with the best and win 80% of the time.

[slicksouthpaw16]

What sort of adversity are you talking about? Losing the early rounds and needing to come on strong late in the fight? Having to get up to win?

If so, what you're doing is criticising Tyson for never having had a bad enough performance to need to do this. Yes, he dominated and scored early KOs, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've seen Jack Dempsey fights where he got hit and put down, but came back to win. Should this be rated above Tyson KOing people without taking much back because of his head movement? Not in my opinion.

He doninated and scored early knockouts against good although not elite fighters, and that seperates from Ali, Louis, Foreman or Marciano ect. They not only knocked out elite fighters, their first losses came to elite fighters and they also showed the will to come back from a lossing position, something that Tyson has never shown. The era that Tyson fought (80s) was not hot by any means and all of the stars had not come on the scene yet. I pay attention to the opponents that he was blowing out like that, neither were elite. Again on paper Bruno was the best prime fighter that was closest to the elite level and that those was Tyson's best fights. Bruno even hasn't beaten anyone with a pulse.

I also remember a prime Tyson having probems with Jose Rabilita. His corner had to tell him to get back into his game becuase he was becoming passive becuase he was in with someone that actually wanted to win and was fighting him back.

No, the main difference is that Tyson was dealing was a ref who couldn't count to 10, and Ali had a trainer who was able to buy him time when he was hurt. Ali then won because of a cut rather than a great comeback. Those bits of luck(/the rules not being followed correctly) mean that your comparison is very flawed in my opinion.

I really, really hope you are joking with this part of your post( even though you most likely aren't). Don King and Tyson fan boys are the only ones that come up with this excuse for the Tyson loss. That also doesn't take away what Douglas was putting on Tyson for the enitre fight. He also showed heart by not only getting up but knocking Tyson out. This is Buster Douglas. A skilled fighter but was no where near close to being elite. He was beaten by Fuegeson and stopped by Tony Tucker in two fights that i have.

He simply was not in good shape for the Holyfield fight, as everyone noticed from the very start.

Tyson was the only good high quality fighter that Douglas beat any way you look at it. I personally don't buy into that ''he didn't show up that day'' arguement. He was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and it was only a few moths removed from his upset of Tyson. On paper, would it say ''Douglas didn't show up good as he did in the Tyson fight so Holyfield doesn't get much credit''? Facts are facts

Those examples do benefit your argument, but I don't feel that you addressed the example of Lennox Lewis, who twice lost to fighters that aren't much better than Douglas.

You have never heard much of Douglas after he won the title one time against Tyson. Rachman became champion after he loss to Lewis and beat some very good contenders of his time. MCall also beat some very good fighters as well but skillwise, i would have to agree that Douglas was better.

MCall was the first to beat Oleg Maskaev, Lennox Lewis and he also has good wins over Henry Akainwainde ect. He was very good and more accomplished than Douglas.

Spinks was a better fighter than Moorer at both HW and LHW, and Tyson destroyed Spinks whereas Holyfield lost to Moorer.

Tyson beat better fighters than Douglas, Tyson looked worse that night than ever before, and Douglas looked better than ever before. We consider someone to be past their prime when they are unable to win against someone that they previously would've beaten.

Moorer wasn't accomplished at light heavyweight so i agree there. He knocked out everyone he fought and looked spectacular at doing it, but they were lesser fighters and Moorer wanted the big pay days so he moved up to heavyweight. At heavyweight, i have to disagree. Moorer was the unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion before he ran into big George. He had good wins over Holfyield, Bert Cooper, Botha, Smith, Alex Stewart ect. That surpasses anything Spinks did at heavyweight IMO.

[MANGLER]

Mike was in his prime, he just didn't train. He paid the price for takin the man lightly. Add all his personal drama to that and you got a recipe for disaster. Buster had his best night at the same time Mike had his worst night.

[them_apples]

He doninated and scored early knockouts against good although not elite fighters, and that seperates from Ali, Louis, Foreman or Marciano ect. They not only knocked out elite fighters, their first losses came to elite fighters and they also showed the will to come back from a lossing position, something that Tyson has never shown. The era that Tyson fought (80s) was not hot by any means and all of the stars had not come on the scene yet. I pay attention to the opponents that he was blowing out like that, neither were elite. Again on paper Bruno was the best prime fighter that was closest to the elite level and that those was Tyson's best fights. Bruno even hasn't beaten anyone with a pulse.

I also remember a prime Tyson having probems with Jose Rabilita. His corner had to tell him to get back into his game becuase he was becoming passive becuase he was in with someone that actually wanted to win and was fighting him back.


I really, really hope you are joking with this part of your post( even though you most likely aren't). Don King and Tyson fan boys are the only ones that come up with this excuse for the Tyson loss. That also doesn't take away what Douglas was putting on Tyson for the enitre fight. He also showed heart by not only getting up but knocking Tyson out. This is Buster Douglas. A skilled fighter but was no where near close to being elite. He was beaten by Fuegeson and stopped by Tony Tucker in two fights that i have.




Tyson was the only good high quality fighter that Douglas beat any way you look at it. I personally don't buy into that ''he didn't show up that day'' arguement. He was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and it was only a few moths removed from his upset of Tyson. On paper, would it say ''Douglas didn't show up good as he did in the Tyson fight so Holyfield doesn't get much credit''? Facts are facts



You have never heard much of Douglas after he won the title one time against Tyson. Rachman became champion after he loss to Lewis and beat some very good contenders of his time. MCall also beat some very good fighters as well but skillwise, i would have to agree that Douglas was better.

MCall was the first to beat Oleg Maskaev, Lennox Lewis and he also has good wins over Henry Akainwainde ect. He was very good and more accomplished than Douglas.



Moorer wasn't accomplished at light heavyweight so i agree there. He knocked out everyone he fought and looked spectacular at doing it, but they were lesser fighters and Moorer wanted the big pay days so he moved up to heavyweight. At heavyweight, i have to disagree. Moorer was the unbeaten undisputed heavyweight champion before he ran into big George. He had good wins over Holfyield, Bert Cooper, Botha, Smith, Alex Stewart ect. That surpasses anything Spinks did at heavyweight IMO.

you have some good points but a lot of your comments wreak with Tyson hate, he wasn't the GOAT but he is a great, being the last to unify and the youngest, also beating credible opponents like Spinks, Tucker, Bruno, Ruddock and Holmes. (and knocking some of them out quite brutally)