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

[Clegg]

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.

Bruno beat McCall, so it's interesting how lowly you must rate McCall in order to say that. This strengthens my argument about the standard of fighter that Lewis lost to.

Bruno was doing well against Lewis until he was hurt and Lewis was able to finish him off. In both fights with Tyson, Bruno did not do nearly as well. While Bruno certainly isn't a great, he is a useful measuring stick when comparing fighters such as Lewis, Tyson and McCall.

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.

I am being serious, but I think you misunderstand my point or I've failed to explain it correctly.

I don't think (and did not say) that the knockdown incident is an excuse for Tyson, but you gave what I consider to be a biased view of Ali's fight with Cooper, which doesn't mention that the victory was on cuts against someone who often lost fights in that way, and does not mention the incident with the glove.

If someone was to offer a fair assessment of that fight I think he would mention those things, just as he would mention the knockdown/referee in Douglas-Tyson, Tunney-Dempsey and Ali-Liston. It's not an excuse, but you act as if he did nothing to try to overcome a difficult fight, when in fact he came very close to scoring a KO.

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

I'm not sure of your point here. Yes, the record books would not say that, but how does that affect which of us is correct about his condition that night? There are a lot of things that a boxrec-style list of results would leave out.

Douglas showed up for the fight more than 14lbs overweight. On my copy (British TV) the commentators remark before the start of the fight that Douglas is not in good condition and are talking about how bad he looks within 60 seconds of the fight starting, so it isn't something that people only came up with to justify the loss; it was apparent before the fight even started.

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.

Having more accomplishments does not mean that you were a better fighter though. I think that Meldrick Taylor was a fantastic fighter, and have no problems rating him higher than people who achieved more than 6 title fight victories, so I don't have a problem rating Douglas and McCall somewhat equal just because McCall has a win or two of more value, especially when you consider that Douglas beat McCall.

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.

Ok, let's give Moorer the edge over Spinks at heavyweight based upon achievements.

However, after beating Holyfield he was KO'd by someone who had been inactive for 18 months, was not considered top 5, possibly not even top 10, and was coming off a loss to Tommy Morrison. If you look at Douglas' career without Tyson and Moorer's career without Holyfield there is not a massive difference.

Most people would accept that Holyfield had a bad night against Moorer, as Lewis did against McCall and Rahman. You do not seem to be willing to do the same thing when it comes to Tyson though?

[slicksouthpaw16]

Bruno beat McCall, so it's interesting how lowly you must rate McCall in order to say that. This strengthens my argument about the standard of fighter that Lewis lost to.

Bruno was doing well against Lewis until he was hurt and Lewis was able to finish him off. In both fights with Tyson, Bruno did not do nearly as well. While Bruno certainly isn't a great, he is a useful measuring stick when comparing fighters such as Lewis, Tyson and McCall.

Again the most important thing was that Lewis avenged those losses and there is no indication that Douglas was any better than Rachman or McCall, he certainly wasn't better than Rachman accomplishment wise.

Lewis stopped Bruno, plain and simple. He was a green contender that was in his second world title fight and that was his first real challenge. I have never ranked Tucker very highly and Lewis didn't have any problems with so he didn't get tested. That was back when he was right hand crazy and didn't bother to set up anything. As always, bruno fadded and was knocked out. Lewis did something that Tyson never which was to face adversity.

Bruno is not a good measuring stick. Styles makes fight. Tyson was an accomplished champion and was undisputed heavyweight champion at the time and Lennox was not even in his prime yet, unlike Tyson.

I am being serious, but I think you misunderstand my point or I've failed to explain it correctly.

I don't think (and did not say) that the knockdown incident is an excuse for Tyson, but you gave what I consider to be a biased view of Ali's fight with Cooper, which doesn't mention that the victory was on cuts against someone who often lost fights in that way, and does not mention the incident with the glove.

If someone was to offer a fair assessment of that fight I think he would mention those things, just as he would mention the knockdown/referee in Douglas-Tyson, Tunney-Dempsey and Ali-Liston. It's not an excuse, but you act as if he did nothing to try to overcome a difficult fight, when in fact he came very close to scoring a KO.

Ali won was winning the fight before and after Cooper knocked him down. Douglas DOMINATED Tyson which most likely pursuaded the referee to give him a chance. No offense to you but when that arguement was brought up by Don King after Tyson/Douglas, it was immediately ignored by the judge. Thats why i found it funny that would use that as an indication of anything.

Coming close and actually doing something are two completely different things. Tyson was being beaten severely and landed a desperate punch that knocked Douglas down. Douglas not only got up but knocked Tyson out. After Douglas got up, Tyson could not hurt him again and Douglas took control. When Ali got up, he took back control and busted Cooper up badly and won by stoppage. Same with Ali Liston. I actually don't understand why you used Ali/Liston as an example.

I'm not sure of your point here. Yes, the record books would not say that, but how does that affect which of us is correct about his condition that night? There are a lot of things that a boxrec-style list of results would leave out.

Douglas showed up for the fight more than 14lbs overweight. On my copy (British TV) the commentators remark before the start of the fight that Douglas is not in good condition and are talking about how bad he looks within 60 seconds of the fight starting, so it isn't something that people only came up with to justify the loss; it was apparent before the fight even started.

I didn't look on Boxrec, i have the fight. Are you saying that Douglas would have beaten Holyfield or even had a chance? Becuase that seems like the point that you are trying to get at. What other reason would you bring up Douglas's weight of the fact that he wasn't in shape? Holyfield is not Tyson. He was always focused and had that consistantcy. He would have broken Douglas down, hurt him and kept him hurt.

Having more accomplishments does not mean that you were a better fighter though. I think that Meldrick Taylor was a fantastic fighter, and have no problems rating him higher than people who achieved more than 6 title fight victories, so I don't have a problem rating Douglas and McCall somewhat equal just because McCall has a win or two of more value, especially when you consider that Douglas beat McCall.

Being a better fighter has nothing to do with where you rank and i have nothing against it if thats your opinion, but i go by the actual facts and history. According to history MCall has beaten better fighters than Douglas and was actually some what motivated in his prime.

How to do you rank Meldrick Taylor as a great( which you are when you win 6 titles) and he has only won one title against MGirt?

Ok, let's give Moorer the edge over Spinks at heavyweight based upon achievements.

However, after beating Holyfield he was KO'd by someone who had been inactive for 18 months, was not considered top 5, possibly not even top 10, and was coming off a loss to Tommy Morrison. If you look at Douglas' career without Tyson and Moorer's career without Holyfield there is not a massive difference.

Most people would accept that Holyfield had a bad night against Moorer, as Lewis did against McCall and Rahman. You do not seem to be willing to do the same thing when it comes to Tyson though?

George Foreman was very good in his come back and beat some good fighters like Qawi, Steward, Savereese, Cooper ect. There is no shame in lossing to a legend and at any age, Foreman had a punchers chance in any fight and the fight was also being dominated by Moorer.

Holyfield was having more than a bad night against Moorer in their first fight, he was having a heart attack and doctors confirmed it shortly afterwards. This is an article on the situation that i researched on.

''After losing his WBA and IBF heavyweight championship belts to Michael Moorer (JET, May 9), Evander Holyfield learned he had two heart conditions and announced his retirement at a press conference.

The conditions are a "stiff heart", which prevents enough oxygen from being pumped to muscles and tissues, and an atrial septal defect, a "tiny hole" in the boxer's heart. Doctors said the conditions are not life-threatening. They were diagnosed while Holyfield was in the hospital for treatment after the Moorer fight.

"Mr. Holyfield fought this fight in heart failure, and it's an absolute miracle he could fight this fight for 12 rounds in this condition," observed Holyfield's personal physician, Dr. Ronald Stephens.''

"His heart was not functioning at its maximum level," cardiologist Dr. Douglas Morris said. "We did not look at this that his life was imperiled."

The cardiologist told Holyfield that the condition was under control now and he could lead a normal life if he resumes a less strenuous lifestyle.

"When Dr. Stephens told me, it was an easy decision," the 31-year-old Holyfield said. "I'm going to miss boxing a lot. I had a lot of love for it and it made a better life for me."

Last year, Holyfield regained his title from Rid**** Bowe in a gutsy, 12-round slugfest.''

While this is true, Moorer did fight a tough good fight and earned the decision. It was definitely a legit win for Moorer.

[Boogie Nights]

Lewis stopped Bruno, plain and simple. He was a green contender that was in his second world title fight and that was his first real challenge.

im having a laugh on the floor at what a hypocrite you are, and how you change up your points just so it suites your explanation

you dont give Lewis any heat for the mccal fight, and say he was a green contender, but you rain **** on tyson and criticise him because with only 19 fights he failed to put away a solid veteran like James Tillis who faced champions.

Johnson's wins over Fitzsimmons, Ketchel, Langford, Jeanette, Mcvea, Jefferies, Flynn, Burns just out runs anything Tyson has done in his whole career.

THIS IS EVEN BETTER.

You hardly give tyson any credit for his win over spinks, saying that he wasnt an accomplished and small heavyweight, but you count johnson's win over a middleweight ketchel, a fight that was meant to be a set up in the first place

you dont give tyson credit for holmes saying he was inactive, yet you list Jim Jeffries as part of Johnson's greatest victories, eventhough Jeffries was retired for 6 years This is even worse than Holmes, but you never bring that to attention

You count Johnson's victories over Joe Jeannette when Joe barely had 5 pro fights to his credit, and continued to get schooled by johnson throughout his early, inexperienced career up to that point.

You also dont state the fact that when Johnson won the title he stopped giving other black contenders a chance to fight for the title. those same contenders like Sam Langford who got more experienced and was getting himself in the rankings, not the fresh version that Johnson first fought

[slicksouthpaw16]

im having a laugh on the floor at what a hypocrite you are, and how you change up your points just so it suites your explanation

you dont give Lewis any heat for the mccal fight, and say he was a green contender, but you rain **** on tyson and criticise him because with only 19 fights he failed to put away a solid veteran like James Tillis who faced champions.

You should try reading my posts and actually see my points instead deliberately trying to find something to complain about. Thats really getting annoying. First off, i said that Lewis was a green contender when he fought Bruno in their first fight. There are no excuses for the MCcall fight. He ran into a lucky punch and thats that. What showed that it was a fluke was the fact that he rebounded and beat MCcall in the rematch, something that Tyson didn't do to Douglas or Holyfield when he was actualy in the peak of his prime. Try again.

You hardly give tyson any credit for his win over spinks, saying that he wasnt an accomplished and small heavyweight, but you count johnson's win over a middleweight ketchel, a fight that was meant to be a set up in the first place

you dont give tyson credit for holmes saying he was inactive, yet you list Jim Jeffries as part of Johnson's greatest victories, eventhough Jeffries was retired for 6 years This is even worse than Holmes, but you never bring that to attention

His win over Spinks was legit and there are no complaints from me. I just don't look at that win as an indication that he (Tyson) was greater becuase he beat Spinks, a guy that was a blown up light heavyweight and who's best days had been behind him.

You count Johnson's victories over Joe Jeannette when Joe barely had 5 pro fights to his credit, and continued to get schooled by johnson throughout his early, inexperienced career up to that point.

You also dont state the fact that when Johnson won the title he stopped giving other black contenders a chance to fight for the title. those same contenders like Sam Langford who got more experienced and was getting himself in the rankings, not the fresh version that Johnson first fought

Johnson fought Jeanette(one of the best black heavyweights of that era) about 9 times and about 6 times in one year. The problem and what people criticise him about was that he didn't give them shots at the title while he was champion. The point is that he beat all of the best black fighters of that time no matter what you say.

I names Jefferies as one of the best names on his resume but not one of his best wins because he was past it, he had better wins over prime great fighters. When discussing Tyson's resume, people like you have to bring up Larry Holmes as one of Tyson's best wins because he did not beat any great or even elite fighters that were in their prime.

[Boogie Nights]

You should try reading my posts and actually see my points instead deliberately trying to find something to complain about. Thats really getting annoying. First off, i said that Lewis was a green contender when he fought Bruno in their first fight. There are no excuses for the MCcall fight. He ran into a lucky punch and thats that. What showed that it was a fluke was the fact that he rebounded and beat MCcall in the rematch, something that Tyson didn't do to Douglas or Holyfield when he was actualy in the peak of his prime. Try again.



His win over Spinks was legit and there are no complaints from me. I just don't look at that win as an indication that he (Tyson) was greater becuase he beat Spinks, a guy that was a blown up light heavyweight and who's best days had been behind him.



Johnson fought Jeanette(one of the best black heavyweights of that era) about 9 times and about 6 times in one year. The problem and what people criticise him about was that he didn't give them shots at the title while he was champion. The point is that he beat all of the best black fighters of that time no matter what you say.

I names Jefferies as one of the best names on his resume but not one of his best wins because he was past it, he had better wins over prime great fighters. When discussing Tyson's resume, people like you have to bring up Larry Holmes as one of Tyson's best wins because he did not beat any great or even elite fighters that were in their prime.

again you're spewing nonsense. When Johnson fought Jeanette, Joe was only entering his pro ranks, he was no where the veteran of 160 + fights, he was fighting a solid pro like Johnson with barely 10 fights to his credit, and continued getting schooled with no decisions and losses because he wasnt experienced enough at that point. That's same as ali taking on a guy like Spinks, with **** all fights on his record. It's same as putting an amteur against a pro.

it's not about making excuses. lewis had a bad performance and a loss against mccal and you say he was green. yet you criticise tyson for having a bad night with tillis, when tyson was still green. You dont give the same respect to tyson that you give to other fighters.

it's getting really frustrating trying to get a point across, because no matter how truthfull it is, you'll always dismiss it, and start with your broken record. you got this know-it-all attitude, eventhough your knowledge is very limited and based on opinions, and when you post, you basically say **** everyone's elses knowledge, im the one who's right. that ignorance really shows

i came to conclusion, that you're either an idiot (dont take it bad) or just too damn stubborn and ignorant and keep charging a brick wall like an angry bull

i mean for Pete's sake, you wrote paragraph after paragraph arguing that Klitschko-Purity fight was stopped by referee and not Wlad's corner, even when other posters have showed you youtube clips before your very eyes. Even then you kept arguing for God's sake

every poster here came up with legitimate opinions and facts, you didnt aknowledge either one, and keep on rambaling like a broken record changing your criteria just as long as it satisfys you.

dont take it as a flame, but id hate to run into someone like you in real life. Needless to say, i would not enjoy the pleasure of your company when discussion something with you

even the dumbest of the dumb posters would admit that they are wrong by now. You are just plain and simple, ignorant.

[them_apples]

The arguing going on in this thread is pretty much just Tyson hate, putting a guy like Johnson over Tyson is just plain ******. Boxing wasn't even developed back then, the man got knocked down by a middleweight.

Writing Spinks off as a blown up LHW is ludicrous. Spinks hadn't lost and just finished beating up Gerry Cooney and a UD over Holmes. The same Holmes that beat a Prime Ray Mercer. To knock him out in 1 round is saying something.

I would put Tyson at about number 5, on my list..

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson
Holmes
Foreman
Marciano
Frazier
Dempsey

This is based on accomplishments, If it was based on who would beat who I would have Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson at the top 3.

[BKM-]

I think what creates so much discussion and confusion about this is how it is worded, and lack of knowledge.

First the word prime. It can mean diffirent things to diffirent peiple. What I think first is physical prime, but then you have examples like Lennox Lewis who weren't at their BEST when they were in their PHYSICAL prime, you begin to wonder what the most suitable description is.

So therefor, instead of saying Tyson was past his prime against Douglass, you could say he wasn't at his best. Replace the word prime with best and you might solve this problem.

It's true that physicially Tyson was still the same untill his imprisonment, and after prison he still possesed great speed, but was more rusty/less accurate and his foot speed also declined a bit. He was past his prime in all aspects after the Holyfield fights.

Again, i'm talking physically here. What we can't do is ignore the mental aspects of Boxing. It has been said time after time again, unless you're mentally as strong as you are skillfully you will not be at your best. We all know Tyson's story. People just believe that he wasn't at his best against Douglass for the reasons I pointed out, and more.

So to answer this very old question again the best way I can, no Tyson wasn't past his prime when Douglass beat him, but he wasn't at his best.

[Jim Jeffries]

The arguing going on in this thread is pretty much just Tyson hate, putting a guy like Johnson over Tyson is just plain ******. Boxing wasn't even developed back then, the man got knocked down by a middleweight.

Writing Spinks off as a blown up LHW is ludicrous. Spinks hadn't lost and just finished beating up Gerry Cooney and a UD over Holmes. The same Holmes that beat a Prime Ray Mercer. To knock him out in 1 round is saying something.

I would put Tyson at about number 5, on my list..

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holyfield
Tyson
Holmes
Foreman
Marciano
Frazier
Dempsey

This is based on accomplishments, If it was based on who would beat who I would have Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson at the top 3.

Hold on, you're saying Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson would've beaten Ali and Foreman?

[them_apples]

Hold on, you're saying Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson would've beaten Ali and Foreman?

Lewis would have beat Foreman, Foreman would beat Tyson, but Tyson would beat Ali. (styles wise)

Or arguably Foreman could beat Lewis but I think the odds would be 8/10 for Lewis.

Maybe I'd put Ali over Holyfield but I find him overrated. Foreman is obviously a beast but I think a lot of good boxers could box circles around him.

[Silencers]

Tyson wasn't past his prime but he wasn't training like he should have been and had distractions outside of the ring so he wasn't at his best.