1980's Tony tucker article. 26-0.

[joeytrimble]

well what was tysons excuse for the holyfield fight? second time he was a kazillion to 1 favorite and got his ass handed too him

tyson lost to douglas who lost to holyfield who beat tyson then lost to lewis who later beat tyson

your right A beats B so A beats C does work!

[Yogi]

Well, this thread is about Tony Tucker, not about Tyson vs Douglass.

Is that so?

Well ****...Seeing as how you were the very first one to bring it up, I guess I must've confused your initial "proof that 86/88 Tyson could've beat Douglas" statement to mean something completely different.

And you also haven't proved anything except that you're a hypocrite.

P.S. I've seen the fight with Douglas plenty of times over the years, but...who the **** hasn't? It's not like it's a hidden gem that's never, ever played on ESPN Classic or anything like that. In fact I just watched the first half of it yesterday before making that post and also threw in a couple of other fights of his...like the one against Nino Ribalta with Rooney in his corner, when Mike once again "had a bad night" (Mike's own words) against a fighter who offered a similiar look to what Douglas offered (height, reach, jab, clinch, right uppercuts, etc.) though not nearly as talented as was Buster.

[Kid Achilles]

To steal a few of your lines...I did not see a slow Tyson in there against Douglas, as his punches & reflexes looked as quick as they ever did. I did not see an overweight Tyson in that fight (Douglas may have been in good condition for him, but it was still his **** that were bouncing up and down in the ring on that night...not Tyson's, who physically looked VERY similiar to what he did against Spinks, Tubbs, etc.). Nor did I see a version of Tyson that wasn't the unbeaten version of himself of the 80's, because he came out and started that fight like he always did, and contrary to popular opinion, he DID start the Douglas fight out by using his normal & quick head movement over the first part of the fight...The BIG difference in that fight was Douglas' performance in it, as he stuck to the gameplan laid out before him (jab, movement, clinching, uppercuts, etc.) and punished Tyson most times Mike got within his punching range (if Douglas wasn't getting off first during the exchanges, he was getting off last and knocking Tyson off of him).

This is something I've been saying for awhile but everyone disregards it. Tyson came out like he always did in the first round of that fight but the difference was he up against a strong willed (for that night) opponent who would not crack under the pressure of fighting Mike Tyson. Lots of guys, Spinks being the biggest and most exaggerated example, just fell apart when they got in there with him.

[Heckler]

Tucker is one of the most underrated Hw's ever. He is the most skilled fighter Tyson ever beat. Tucker was unbeaten untill he met Tyson and lost for the second time in his career against Lennox Lewis. but i do not believe he was the same fighter against Lewis. He was stopped for the first time in his career when he was 37, wich is when he was CLEARLY past his prime and the stoppage was on CUTS. He lost speed, relfexes etc. Thats what he relied on early in his career. He was KO'd for the first time in his career when he was almost 40 years old(39 to be exact). Dont have to tell you he was past his prime.

Tucker is also the proof that 86/88 Tyson would've beaten Douglass because Tyson beat Tucker and Tucker beat Douglass.

How the **** is that proof? Person A beats Person B, Person B beats Person C so Person A could also beat Person c?

Simplistic, flawed logic.

Douglas never fought tucker aswell as he fought Tyson. Tucker didn't fight half aswell against Tyson as Buster. Tucker was a promising up and comer but he was nothing overly special.

[BKM-]

How the **** is that proof? Person A beats Person B, Person B beats Person C so Person A could also beat Person c?

Simplistic, flawed logic.

Douglas never fought tucker aswell as he fought Tyson. Tucker didn't fight half aswell against Tyson as Buster. Tucker was a promising up and comer but he was nothing overly special.

Simply because both men had the same kind of style and Tucker beat the **** out of Buster. There you have it ****head.

[Verstyle]

be honest with u guys the tyson vs. douglas was slightly different, headmovement and combo wise everything else was the same as old tyson oh yeah and stamina. and this is coming from a huge tyson fan. me myself is not biased when it comes to tyson i put it as i see it.

[Verstyle]

in my opinion the tucker that fought tyson could have whipped out alot of ppl

[hemichromis]

in my opinion the tucker that fought tyson could have whipped out alot of ppl

true but i couldn't stand how he did every ali movement he knew
shuffle,windup etc

[Heckler]

Simply because both men had the same kind of style and Tucker beat the **** out of Buster. There you have it ****head.

What do you mean had the same kind of style? Most the boxers out there have the same ****en style... Buster was a very conventional boxer, thats all. Is it not possible that different boxers have different strengths? And that boxers are stronger or weaker against certain styles?... I guess not, what the **** was i thinking... speed, power, experience, jaw... all irrelevant, only style matters.

[joeytrimble]

tony tucker was a good fighter but did anyone else think- seeing the tyson fight- that he was trying to copy ali WAYYYY to much

most 80s hw mimmicked ali