Another what if scenario....Tyson vs Buster

This is not a discussion about whether t was a long count or not - that has been done to death already.

What I want to know is, what if the referee had made a quicker, recognised count and counted Buster out of the contest? What do you think would have happened to Tysons and Douglas' careers post fight?

Would Mike have continued with that air of invincibility and got through his problems to continue to dominate?

Let's hear your thoughts....

Adam D wrote:This is not a discussion about whether t was a long count or not - that has been done to death already.

What I want to know is, what if the referee had made a quicker, recognised count and counted Buster out of the contest? What do you think would have happened to Tysons and Douglas' careers post fight?

Would Mike have continued with that air of invincibility and got through his problems to continue to dominate?

Let's hear your thoughts....

Douglas would have faded into anonimity and Tyson would have imploded. He was an accident waiting to happen. That self destruct button was never too far away.

Would not have mattered Douglas was coherent, had the count been administered by the letter of the rules Douglas would have got up, and given there was little time left in the round he would have seen it through and continued to batter Tyson.

rowley wrote:Would not have mattered Douglas was coherent, had the count been administered by the letter of the rules Douglas would have got up, and given there was little time left in the round he would have seen it through and continued to batter Tyson.

Seconded

rowley wrote:Would not have mattered Douglas was coherent, had the count been administered by the letter of the rules Douglas would have got up, and given there was little time left in the round he would have seen it through and continued to batter Tyson.

That may be true but what I am really asking is, what if Tyson had won (in whatever fashion) - how would their careers have continued?

Adam D wrote:

rowley wrote:Would not have mattered Douglas was coherent, had the count been administered by the letter of the rules Douglas would have got up, and given there was little time left in the round he would have seen it through and continued to batter Tyson.

That may be true but what I am really asking is, what if Tyson had won (in whatever fashion) - how would their careers have continued?

Tyson would have been sliced apart by a fit, motivated Holyfield in their next fight. Tyson would have cuddled in a bad way Robin Givens anyway and spent some time in jail. He wouldn't have made so much money on his release - but might have gained a rematch with Evander - which would have left him losing 3 times. Evander would have won the world title 1 fight sooner and we wouldn't be discussing Douglas' name on the list of worst HW champions.

EDIT - in case you didn't know - Tyson (the winner of Tyson Douglas) was already signed to fight Evander in the next contest.

Prime Tyson beats Holyfield personally, but the Tyson pre Buster I'm not sure, Tyson was training less and less, perhaps the fact he was being beaten up by Buster and then just pulled it from the fire could have made him realise he was slipping and needed to train properly again. Maybe he wins, maybe he doesn't, Tyson never cuddled in a bad way Robin Givens did he? It was some random girl in a hotel room I thought? (Apparently)

AlexHuckerby wrote:Prime Tyson beats Holyfield personally, but the Tyson pre Buster I'm not sure, Tyson was training less and less, perhaps the fact he was being beaten up by Buster and then just pulled it from the fire could have made him realise he was slipping and needed to train properly again. Maybe he wins, maybe he doesn't, Tyson never cuddled in a bad way Robin Givens did he? It was some random girl in a hotel room I thought? (Apparently)

Nah Holyfield breaks his spirit. Tyson struggled with 1 jab - Holyfield would land 3

oxring wrote:

Adam D wrote:

rowley wrote:Would not have mattered Douglas was coherent, had the count been administered by the letter of the rules Douglas would have got up, and given there was little time left in the round he would have seen it through and continued to batter Tyson.

That may be true but what I am really asking is, what if Tyson had won (in whatever fashion) - how would their careers have continued?

Tyson would have been sliced apart by a fit, motivated Holyfield in their next fight. Tyson would have cuddled in a bad way Robin Givens anyway and spent some time in jail. He wouldn't have made so much money on his release - but might have gained a rematch with Evander - which would have left him losing 3 times. Evander would have won the world title 1 fight sooner and we wouldn't be discussing Douglas' name on the list of worst HW champions.

EDIT - in case you didn't know - Tyson (the winner of Tyson Douglas) was already signed to fight Evander in the next contest.

A pre prison Tyson would have eaten up Holy (not just bit his ear). As 'gro would say, Tyson would have destroyed Holy. I think he would have been up for a Holy fight and done the required training. The X Factor would have been the Rooney effect.

Prison took too much out of him. He would have ended up there or dead.

Prime Tyson beats everyone in history Alex...

Apologies - it was Desiree Washington he cuddled in a bad way wasn't it - Givens was the wife he abused. I'm going senile, it seems...

If Tyson was in such a state that he could lose to Buster - then what would Holyfield have done to him. Tyson had to be in some shape for the Douglas fight - or he wouldn't have been able to take the punishment that Douglas inflicted upon him (which was severe). Its a mental thing with Tyson - there didn't seem to be much in the basement for when things got tough. When things were easy - he looked a million dollars - but when did he really knuckle down and grind out a win? Even over lesser opposition? His career ended up as either one sided victories or shock/crushing defeats.

As for Tyson beating Holy - really? On what evidence? A washed up Holmes and Spinks?

I'll show you Tyson taking a whipping from Douglas - one of the most inconsistent and least capable champions we've had - and the form and shape that Holyfield turned up to fight Douglas in for their HW title fight.

Tyson trained for Douglas. He didn't care - that's different - but he trained. You don't get whacked around the ring for 8 rounds unless you've done some training. And as for Holyfield - he of the granite chin and iron will - what's Tyson going to do differently once his bombs have had no effect for the first 3 rounds?

I don't think he would land that much to honest oxy - Holyfield could seriously disrupt attacks with his heavy jab and then could double, triple and counterjab - not allowing people to get in.

oxring wrote:As for Tyson beating Holy - really? On what evidence? A washed up Holmes and Spinks?

I'll show you Tyson taking a whipping from Douglas - one of the most inconsistent and least capable champions we've had - and the form and shape that Holyfield turned up to fight Douglas in for their HW title fight.

Tyson trained for Douglas. He didn't care - that's different - but he trained. You don't get whacked around the ring for 8 rounds unless you've done some training. And as for Holyfield - he of the granite chin and iron will - what's Tyson going to do differently once his bombs have had no effect for the first 3 rounds?

Oh dear Lord. Holmes and Spinks were great wins. The Holmes Tyson beat was a very decent HW. Certainly better than the Louis a certain boxer faced, yet he gets huge credit for that. Also Spinks was the lineal HW champ, undefeated, incredibly skilled (better than Archie at HW) and that is ridiculed. Simply amazing.

Tyson trained for Douglas but was a shell of himself that night. He probably thought all he had to do was turn up for the win. From r1 he showed little to no movement. Throwing single punches. He wasn't "up" for it. Against Holy he would be and he would have had too much for him. Granite chinned or not. Tyson took a better punch yet look what happened when hit correctly.

A Rooney trained tyson would rip Holy a new one. And take on Evan Field at the same time.

Tyson took a shellacking for 8 rounds because he was a strong bar steward. I'm amazed that people call him a front runner and question his character in the ring. he stood there and took his beating whilst still trying to win.

Az have just checked the house rules and can confirm it is permitted to discuss heavyweight boxing without making reference to Marciano, be it explicit of veiled. Hope this helps in future.

Holmes and Spinks "great" wins? You have beaten a certain boxer mercilessly for having the temerity to whip Louis - the #1/#2 HW of all time - yet you describe those wins for Tyson as "great". Spinks is nowhere near anyone's top 10/15 as all time HWs go. Inactive for over a year, retired straight afterwards. Best days long behind him. Great win my foot.

Az - you're doing that thing again where you make stuff up because there's no evidence to support your opinion. Thought I'd let you know.

Evander was always all wrong for Tyson. Lateral movement, an all time HW jab, good movement and ring smarts and a grainte chin. Evander was up for Tyson - there was no-one more disappointed about Tyson's incarceration than Evander. Of the 14 rounds of boxing they fought - I'd struggle to give Tyson more than 3. Evander was the better boxer and the better man.

"Peak" Tyson has been exposed as a myth so many times that it seems pointless to re-establish the myth again - but it is a myth az.

I think if Tyson had won against Douglas it depends how well he holds it together mentally for a fight with Holyfield. Switched on and at his best I think he beats Holyfield on points althought it would be a tough battle but if mentally he isnt right or not at 100% theres every chance he gets beaten. Holyfield has many strengths that are useful for combating Tyson - chin, hear, courage, jab, strong inside, mobility game etc all of which would make life difficult for Tyson. But at his best I thin Tyso would win a UD.

rowley wrote:Az have just checked the house rules and can confirm it is permitted to discuss heavyweight boxing without making reference to Marciano, be it explicit of veiled. Hope this helps in future.

Seconded. Your special dispensation to refer to your favourite boxer at all opportunities was revoked some time ago Az. Sorry about that.

oxring wrote:Holmes and Spinks "great" wins? You have beaten a certain boxer mercilessly for having the temerity to whip Louis - the #1/#2 HW of all time - yet you describe those wins for Tyson as "great". Spinks is nowhere near anyone's top 10/15 as all time HWs go. Inactive for over a year, retired straight afterwards. Best days long behind him. Great win my foot.

Az - you're doing that thing again where you make stuff up because there's no evidence to support your opinion. Thought I'd let you know.

Evander was always all wrong for Tyson. Lateral movement, an all time HW jab, good movement and ring smarts and a grainte chin. Evander was up for Tyson - there was no-one more disappointed about Tyson's incarceration than Evander. Of the 14 rounds of boxing they fought - I'd struggle to give Tyson more than 3. Evander was the better boxer and the better man.

"Peak" Tyson has been exposed as a myth so many times that it seems pointless to re-establish the myth again - but it is a myth az.

Ha. I'll remember that when the inevitable issue of that boxer and his "great" wins crop up again.

Fact is Spinks was a top 5 ATG LHW and dethroned the lineal (top 5 ATG) HW champion. Many writers predicted a Spinks win. They said his movement, angles, speed and more would cause Tyson problems and win a decision. We know what happened. Also Spinks was never of fhis feet as a pro or an amateur. Shoved aside in 1.

I dont know who was the better man. Thankfully I only look at their boxing and nothing else (Patterson being the obvious exception).

Holy, game and skilled as he was wouldn't stand a chance against Tyson. This is the guy who lost to Bowe twice and struggled with Cooper. Had Tyson landed that punch Cooped knocked Holy down with (ropes kept him up), it would have been over and out.

Top five ATG is completely subjective, for what its worth though the IBRO have neither Holmes or Spinks in their top fives in their respective divisions.

I think Tysons wins over Holmes and Spinks have become very underrated due to the ease in which he won. Maybe not great wins in an all time sense but very good ones.

rowley wrote:Top five ATG is completely subjective, for what its worth though the IBRO have neither Holmes or Spinks in their top fives in their respective divisions.

I'm being objective in a subjective manner.

manos de piedra wrote:I think Tysons wins over Holmes and Spinks have become very underrated due to the ease in which he won. Maybe not great wins in an all time sense but very good ones.

Totally agree. Had he struggles he would have given more credit. Tyson was a victim of his own skills and ability.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Top five ATG is completely subjective, for what its worth though the IBRO have neither Holmes or Spinks in their top fives in their respective divisions.

I'm being objective in a subjective manner.

Probably unwise to have started the sentence with Fact is then, something that is subjective does not really lend itself to being a fact.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Top five ATG is completely subjective, for what its worth though the IBRO have neither Holmes or Spinks in their top fives in their respective divisions.

I'm being objective in a subjective manner.

Probably unwise to have started the sentence with Fact is then, something that is subjective does not really lend itself to being a fact.

Pedant!

azania wrote:The Holmes Tyson beat was a very decent HW. Certainly better than the Louis a certain boxer faced, yet he gets huge credit for that.

Can't resist it, can you? Just another ignorant and ill informed comment.

Yes, Holmes was still a good fighter. However, he had been inactive for twenty months and was thirty seven years old. Joe Louis, diminished though he was, was the same age as Holmes, the number one contender, and was coming off eight straight wins, the latest having been over the highly rated Jimmy Bivins.

Maybe you should join the table tennis forum, since you know squat about boxing history.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The Holmes Tyson beat was a very decent HW. Certainly better than the Louis a certain boxer faced, yet he gets huge credit for that.

Can't resist it, can you? Just another ignorant and ill informed comment.

Yes, Holmes was still a good fighter. However, he had been inactive for twenty months and was thirty seven years old. Joe Louis, diminished though he was, was the same age as Holmes, the number one contender, and was coming off eight straight wins, the latest having been over the highly rated Jimmy Bivins.

Maybe you should join the table tennis forum, since you know squat about boxing history.

And Spinks?

My comment was exclusively aimed at your Holmes comparison.

While we're at it, though, might as well mention that Holmes' previous two fights ( twenty months prior, ) had been losses to Spinks.

Thanks for reminding me.

For the record, I believe that Tyson's win - particularly the manner of it - over Holmes to have been excellent. I've said before that I tipped Holmes to win at the time, thinking that experience and ego would trump youth and power.

However, that wasn't the purpose of my previous comment. The purpose of that was simply to highlight that your obsession with trashing Marciano at every turn, apart from being utterly tedious, is also ignorant and ill informed.

Spinks having seen his better days behind him at LHW, hadn't had a meaningful fight at HW in 2 years (unless you call his win over the already semi-retired Cooney meaningful) and hadn't stepped into a boxing ring in over a year before he fought Tyson.

Never had another fight thereafter - and for the record - he's not a top 5 all time LHW - although he is close.

Archie Moore, however, is a nailed on top 5 LHW - and generally accepted as most people's #1/2 - (personally have him at #3 - with Charles at 1 and Tunney at 2)...

Both Spinks and Holmes were good wins for Tyson. No-one disputes that. But you're portrayal of them as all time great wins whilst rubbishing the wins of Marciano at every opportunity is shameful in the extreme.

What's frustrating is that when I first started posting online, back in 2005 - I knew very little about boxing history. I was brought up on a diet of Duran and Ali - hell - I knew so little that I actually believed the myth of "prime Tyson".

I felt it would be rude to pronounce on subjects I knew SFA about - and so I've spent the last 6 years devouring anything and everything boxing related.

Having had a couple of historical debates with you - I realise that I should have just ignored historical evidence, looked at a couple of grainy youtube flicks for stylistic "proof" and written "FACT" at the beginning or end of every other post.

If I appear bitter, its that I've clearly wasted the last 7 years of my life...

In fairness though, the comments were made in relation to assertion that Tyson beat a washed up Holmes and a Spinks who retired straight after and best days were long behind him.

I think the respsective wins over Holmes/Louis or Spinks/Moore are pretty comparable and to trash one and play up the other is inconsistent.

For the record, I expected Tyson to beat Holmes regardless of how many warm up fights he had. Also for the record, I'd pick a prime Holmes over any version of Tyson any day.

But the Spinks win was fantastic. Totally destroyed him and left no doubt as to how good he was.

I'd pick Spinks over Holy at cruiserweight also. But a Holy Tyson fight after Douglas would depend on one main factor. How he trained and who trained him. Tyson reminds me of someone who boxer in number ie call out a number and he throws a certain combo. Like a grid iron player who remembers certain plays and the QB calls it.

I believe a motivated and properly Tyson beats Holy always.

Something tells me that Holyfield-Tyson in 1990 would have ended in a similar result to their 1996 bout, the difference being what went on before the home stretch. In 1996, Holyfield had dominated throughout. Six years previously, I'd imagine an extremely close and gruelling fight, with Holyfield's heart, chin and superior stamina / powers of recuperation just pulling him through.

Tyson may well have trained like a beast for a Holyfield fight, but that wouldn't have changed the fact that the Douglas fight (even if he'd have pulled it out the bag with that uppercut) showed a few flaws in Tyson's game, and nor would it change the fact that he was sorely missing the influence of Kevin Rooney, ditched for a bunch of yes men with little knowledge / understanding of how to steer a man through an out and out war, which a Holyfield fight was always likely to be.

The late eighties / early nineties version of Evander was still a very fine fighter, of course, but nowhere near as crafty and clever as he would later be; certainly, he wasn't the hardest to find, often shipping punches unnecessarily, and could be guilty of losing his head when pressured, brawling when he should have used his superior boxing. The 1996 version of Holyfield may have deteriorated physically (or so we all thought), but in terms of ring craft, experience and cannyness, he was certainly better than he'd been a few years previously.

So my guess would have been that Tyson loses in late 1990 to Holyfield in a gruelling classic. Naturally enough, a 1991 rematch takes place in which Tyson loses more convincingly, I'd think. Maybe he still goes to jail, maybe not. If he doesn't, here's one to get the juices flowing - he loses to Riddick Bowe in 1992 / 1993.

manos de piedra wrote:In fairness though, the comments were made in relation to assertion that Tyson beat a washed up Holmes and a Spinks who retired straight after and best days were long behind him.

I think the respsective wins over Holmes/Louis or Spinks/Moore are pretty comparable and to trash one and play up the other is inconsistent.

The voice of reason.

azania wrote:I'd pick Spinks over Holy at cruiserweight also.

He never had a single fight at cruiserweight. Not 1.

By that line of argument, Dempsey is my #1/2 all time cruiserweight champion. Its spurious and you know it.

88Chris05 wrote:If he doesn't, here's one to get the juices flowing - he loses to Riddick Bowe in 1992 / 1993.

A fight in 1993 would have been incredible - with both men competing to see which one could train less diligently.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:I'd pick Spinks over Holy at cruiserweight also.

He never had a single fight at cruiserweight. Not 1.

By that line of argument, Dempsey is my #1/2 all time cruiserweight champion. Its spurious and you know it.

I didn't say he did. This is a "what if " thread and I'm applying that scenario.

Don't understand why it's so difficult to believe that Tyson could beat Holyfield Oxy. Fair enough, Holyfield had a fantastic jab, didn't exactly use it all that much in the first Tyson fight though did he? Please watch the fight again, a slower Tyson caused Holyfield plenty of problems, though Holyfield prevailed and pulled off a great win.

Also I don't think you read what I wrote properly, I said IF Tyson has himself prepared properly, ala not in the way he was against Buster and woke up and smelt the coffee that half hearted training was going to cost him badly and was in real condition against Hoylfield then yes, I believe he would beat him. Otherwise it's a bit of a toss up really.

Alsol, you seem to have gone from a Buster Douglas that could have had a chance of beating any Heavyweight in the world that night, to oh it was just an "inconsistent and least capable champion". Which one is it, a poor Buster, or a Buster that could have beaten any Heavy that night?

Tyson loses to Holy no matter when they fight. Holy would not be frightened of Tyson and, as others have alluded to, his triple jab would give Tyson nightmares and prevent him setting up any meaningful attacks.

I struggle to see why Tyson gets the attention he does. Good champion in a reasonable era. Not a top 10 heavy by a long stretch, in my opinion, obviously.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Alsol, you seem to have gone from a Buster Douglas that could have had a chance of beating any Heavyweight in the world that night, to oh it was just an "inconsistent and least capable champion". Which one is it, a poor Buster, or a Buster that could have beaten any Heavy that night?

Alex - I've never been sold on the idea of "Tokyo Douglas" - this mythical beast that beats every HW ever. Sure, he was fit and motivated for Tyson - does that mean he'd have beaten any other HW in history that night? No evidence to support that.

And as I said - in 14 rounds of action between both men - Tyson had won 2 - at best 3. I've seen the fight - Tyson does cause Holy some problems, especially early in their first encounter. But at no point did I think that Tyson was about to put Holy away - or, indeed, in severe danger of putting Holy away.

Its not impossible to believe that Tyson could beat Holyfield around 1989/90. But it does go against the available evidence.

Was it Evander Holyfield of Evan Field whwo fought Tyson?

azania wrote:Was it Evander Holyfield of Evan Field whwo fought Tyson?

No, it was Holyfield of Atlanta, Georgia.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Was it Evander Holyfield of Evan Field whwo fought Tyson?

No, it was Holyfield of Atlanta, Georgia.

Embarassing the pair of you!

Oxy, think there's enough to say that Holyfield wasn't a fully fledged Heavy at this point. Whilst Tyson was most certainly was, I guess we've hit a cross roads however, for me Tyson is more likely to take out Holyfield, you can cite Tysons best wins and ridicule them however around these years Holyfield had an old Foreman a ridiculously out of shape Buster guys like Pinklon Thomas and a few other respectable heavies but nothing incredible at this point whilst he wasn't a fully fledged Heavy. Even in the first encounter with Bowe he maybe wasn't quite as physically big as he is a couple years later.

I completely agree Alma.

As do I.

Personally have Tyson beating a Peak Holmes comfortably but see a relatively comprehensive win for Hoyfied.

I agree with alma, also.

'prime' tyson would be taken apart with anyone with skills and a chin.
lewis beats him in any era and holyfield had his number all the long.

'prime' tyson would be taken apart with anyone with skills and a chin.
lewis beats him in any era and holyfield had his number all the long.

Anyone with skills and a chin? Holmes got beat pretty damn comprehensively?

No such thing as a lucky punch Alma, unless Oliver was trying to swat a fly he threw the punch with the intention of hitting Lewis with it, he acheived that aim.