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

[-CANE-]

It's not about Tyson, it's about Douglas.

Fanboys want to deny a man's accomplishments. The same little boys say Rahman beat Lewis only when Lewis didn't train properly, because he was too busy playing a boxer in a fifteen-second movie stint.

Maybe Tyson wasn't at his best, Douglas was for once and he hauled his huge ass off the ground and still came back and won. Douglas was a very good fighter who deserved his moment.

Much as Rahman deserved his moment. If Lewis was under-prepared that's his fault, and he paid the price bigtime.

The only difference is Lewis was able to take his defeats and not let them effect him mentally and come back and win the rematches.

[slicksouthpaw16]

The Tyson-Spinks odds were 7 to 1 if you're interested, and we all know that that fight was one of the biggest promoted fights of all-time. And if we take a fight like let's say Liston-Clay in 1964 one of the biggest upsets and supposed mismatches of all-time the odds were, oh **** 7 to 1! So I guess either Spinks was either a huge underdog (which he wasn't), or Clay was a really live underdog (which he definetely wasn't), or both!

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. 7 to 1 sounds about right. Ali was an Olympic gold medalist and was unbeaten. 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.

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

[Yogi]

So I guess either Spinks was either a huge underdog (which he wasn't)

I know lots of people like to spout things nowadays about how "many thought Spinks would win" and stuff of that nature, Butterfly, but if you go back and read what the boxing people (writers, fighters, promoters, etc...i.e. "experts") were saying at the time in the days and weeks leading up to the fight, the overwhelming opinion was that Tyson was going to win that fight and without a whole lot of difficulty.

For example, just three days before the fight the Sacremento Bee conducted a poll of boxing writers, current & past fighters, as well as others "directly connected to the fight business", and Tyson was the clear choice of those asked as 82% predicted him to win and do so in impressive fashion*.

That was the consensus throughout the papers of the time, and for another quick example of many indicating such, on the morning of the fight (June 27th, 1988) the New York Times started their article on it with the heading "Experts Say Tyson Is A Cinch", and proceeded to quote a bunch of fight opinions/predictions of those who were involved in the fight game (Angelo Dundee, Dan Duva, Bert Sugar, Rich Giachetti, Gil Clancy, Gerry Cooney, etc., etc.), which again saw Tyson getting the vast majority of the support as the likely winner.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but Spinks was in fact a rather "huge underdog" going into that fight.

*Of possible interest to you, Butterfly, one of those picking Spinks to win the fight in that poll was Muhammad Ali.

[LondonRingRules]

*Of possible interest to you, Butterfly, one of those picking Spinks to win the fight in that poll was Muhammad Ali.

** Holy Jeepers Jeeves, did Butterfly change his name to Dempsey?

Why I oughta.....................................

[The Iron Man]

That just shows the kind of dominance Tyson had back then.
Its also part of his downfall wen people judge him now, as he was never the underdog.

[Boogie Nights]

That just shows the kind of dominance Tyson had back then.
Its also part of his downfall wen people judge him now, as he was never the underdog.

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

[Yogi]

** Holy Jeepers Jeeves, did Butterfly change his name to Dempsey?

Why I oughta.....................................

It's quite the step up in class, isn't it?

Going from his first username to his current one, ****, that's like going from living in a garbage bin to now living in a 40 room mansion in Beverly Hills.

[KostyaTszyu44]

Ali vs Spinks.

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

how old was ali then? wasn't he about 35 and starting to suffer from the early effects of parkinsons or something????

in his prime ali would have wiped the floor with spinks

[butterfly1964]

I know lots of people like to spout things nowadays about how "many thought Spinks would win" and stuff of that nature, Butterfly, but if you go back and read what the boxing people (writers, fighters, promoters, etc...i.e. "experts") were saying at the time in the days and weeks leading up to the fight, the overwhelming opinion was that Tyson was going to win that fight and without a whole lot of difficulty.

For example, just three days before the fight the Sacremento Bee conducted a poll of boxing writers, current & past fighters, as well as others "directly connected to the fight business", and Tyson was the clear choice of those asked as 82% predicted him to win and do so in impressive fashion*.

That was the consensus throughout the papers of the time, and for another quick example of many indicating such, on the morning of the fight (June 27th, 1988) the New York Times started their article on it with the heading "Experts Say Tyson Is A Cinch", and proceeded to quote a bunch of fight opinions/predictions of those who were involved in the fight game (Angelo Dundee, Dan Duva, Bert Sugar, Rich Giachetti, Gil Clancy, Gerry Cooney, etc., etc.), which again saw Tyson getting the vast majority of the support as the likely winner.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but Spinks was in fact a rather "huge underdog" going into that fight.

*Of possible interest to you, Butterfly, one of those picking Spinks to win the fight in that poll was Muhammad Ali.

You may be right Yogi, but I have to point out that there is a difference between the perception of "boxing experts" and the general public. Yes I know all the boxing people picked Tyson to win but a lot of the general public picked Spinks, that is the truth.

i'll give you another example... The Holmes-Cooney fight. Many of the general public especially those in certain parts of America thought Cooney was actually going to win, and if memory serves me correctly many odds had Cooney as the slight favorite, but all the boxing people picked Holmes overwhelmingly. Just another example of the differing opinions of boxing writers and the general public.

[butterfly1964]

It's quite the step up in class, isn't it?

Going from his first username to his current one, ****, that's like going from living in a garbage bin to now living in a 40 room mansion in Beverly Hills.

i change my username about once a month or so now. Eventually, I'll go back to my old one.