A lot of tyson talk recently...here's some more

Tyson got beat off Douglas. Why? He had a lot on his mind? He was a bully and Douglas wasn't scared? He'd lost some head and foot movement? Douglas was just better and laid the blue print? It was the first time someone big, powerful and talented could go toe-to-toe and get the better 50% of the time, and out box him at distance? He didn't have the mental fortitude to deal with adversity?

We all have our opinion as to why he lost, but my question is...

If we supplant Douglas with Bowe on that night in Tokyo, what happens? Much of the same, or not?

Further, if we replace Smith or Tucker with "Tokyo Douglas", was Tyson so much different then that the result would have been different?

Maybe watch all three fights first? Memory can be a funny thing..

Bowe for me would have struggled as one of the key things that worked for Buster that night was his movement which was not Bowe's strong point. Riddick's jab would have been a problem for Mike but also Bowe's good inside game as well. However, for me this fight would have been similar to Bowe/Holyfield 3 but with Tyson eventually connecting and finishing Bowe off. Tucker could have been a problem as he was one of the fighters to cause Mike problems on his way to cleaning out the division (always remember that left uppercut that rocks Tyson momentarily in the opening round) but Smith was just too plodding.

What happened in Tokyo was just a culmination of all things that was going wrong in Tyson's life, but also a bigger boxer/puncher with a good jab and movement would always be a problem for Mike.

Good points, it difficult to say. As much as anything it highlights the variable nature of boxing, inconsistency of boxers and the nature of different styles. You would think if you took the Bowe from Holyfield 1 against the Tyson from Douglas that Bowe is in with a great shout. But what about the Bowe from Golota against the Tyson from Holmes? Its difficult to draw a satisfactory average at times in order to make a strong conclusion given the amount of variables in boxing.

True Manos. For that very reason I find it really strange how people defend, with unrelenting conviction, that certain boxers win certain hypothetical match-ups.

As you intimate, it's very easy to choose particular versions of particular fighters, or their participation in past irrelevant stylistic match-ups, to justify an argument.

Douglas was better...his record doesn't show it....

Norton was better than Ali right!! .......Ali beat Foreman who trashed Norton....

Lewis struggled with Mercer but a 44 year old Holmes beat him easily..

44 year old Holmes better than Lewis...

Sorry must do better....

You can't just supplant Bowe for Douglas...

You're a kid you don't understand that Tyson had a very intimidating presence!!

for me everything came together for Douglas.....His Mother and wife had serious problems he'd split acrominiously from his Dad...That night in Tokyo he couldn't give a F**K.....

Any other time he probably quits...

would Bowe have a chance against Mike...maybe but an undefeated Tyson could also make him doody his pants!!

You're looking at it face value and not thinking of the other facts involved..

You weren't around so you don't see Tyson as the mental challenge he was..

people were beat before the first bell.....good people.

TheMackemMawler wrote:True Manos. For that very reason I find it really strange how people defend, with unrelenting conviction, that certain boxers win certain hypothetical match-ups.

As you intimate, it's very easy to choose particular versions of particular fighters, or their participation in past irrelevant stylistic match-ups, to justify an argument.

I agree. Its tricky enough calling fights between good fighters in their own era, nevermind trying to cross compare era's. I seldom hold strong convictions in hypothetical fights between greats from different era's unless based on a very obvious stylistic advantage or massive size/weight differance.

Think I misinterpreted your article somewhat Macksy........

I apologise If I went over the top.

Some good questions on an old subject mackem. Agree with the general debate on hypothetical match-ups. It's like the fact that, a guy only becomes 'shot' when someone makes him look it, and it's rarely straightforward. Someone's form may drop off a cliff, but normally a fighter's career ability will follow a parabolic curve of capability if you could map it out. When two fighters meet, factoring how close to their best they are is always a consideration, but its certainly no science.

On one level its ridiculous to believe that a guy could be on the way down at 23, but it looked that way with tyson, and there are other examples like benitez

I think Buster did get tyson at a good time, but its not the sole reason he won, it contributed to how the fight panned out, but how much is anyone's guess. As Truss said, for one night in his life, Douglas had nothing to be scared of, had he fought him at another time he very possibly would have quit when it got tough.

In many respects Tokyo was the perfect storm of conditions for what happened.

Could Bowe have done what Douglas did? It's possible but I suspect the Tyson aura might have intimidated him in a manner it didn't Douglas.

Would Tokyo Douglas have beaten 'prime' Tyson? I genuinely have no idea but I think it's possible. Tyson had a good chin, but when guys did tag him, he didnt look this mythical bob and weave beast even back then. In fact tyson's head movement made him hard to hit as he attacked... but he didn't do so much of it when he wasn't attacking. Smith buzzed him late, but when you watch round 1 of Bruno 1, frank buzzed him and a cooler headed, better boxer might well have made more of it (though some would say tyson was already past his best by then). You picked the 2 guys in smith and tucker who managed to frustrate 'prime' tyson, though neither threatened to beat him. It's not that big a stretch to believe that douglas, who had significantly superior ability to either of them, would have done.

For me a key to Tokyo was Douglas landing some big shots early. Earning him respect and enabling him to establish a pattern of jabs, straight rights then uppercuts inside. Hard to say whether he could have done the same to the tyson from a few years earlier, but in my view, the douglas that turned up that night was a major handful for any heavy in history

I think Milky has summed it up well; the timing of the fight and Tyson's own questionable preparation all contributed to the result or, more accurately, the nature of it (ie, it being a fairly one-sided fight for the most part, rather than a life and death struggle), but that doesn't mean that a Douglas on that kind of form couldn't beat a 'prime' Tyson, either.

Although his critics would like to argue otherwise, there's no way that any Heavyweight could dominate and dismantle Tyson as emphatically as that unless there were some problems around 'Iron Mike.' Beat him, yes, but not out-do him in pretty much every single area, which is what Buster did. Aside from the eighth, which was Douglas' before he got a little over-confident and had to take that count in the final seconds, what round in that fight can you possibly give Tyson apart from the third?

But, in my opinion, there's a real possibility that the Tokyo version of Douglas could still have beaten the Tyson who tore through Spinks, thrashed Berbick or produced a very mature and complete performance to outbox Tucker. He just wouldn't have had things his own way quite as much. Douglas put the plan in to action perfectly, but it's not as if what he did was an alien concept - for a long time, fans and scribes had been confidently predicting that it was a good jab and movement which was needed to beat Tyson. All fighters, no matter how dominant they are or how emphatically they're doing away with their challengers, have slight weaknesses or microscopic chinks in the armour, and Tyson was no different.

The timing and circumstances of the fight gave Buster a better chance then he'd have had against any version of Tyson which went before, but I don't think you can devalue or take away from his performance on the night at all - he was brilliant. So while there's some truth in the theory that it was Tyson who beat himself, I think in general you've got to give Buster more credit than that.

Tyson didn't give Douglas the title - Douglas took it from him.

Milky, really well balanced and realistic views.

Ditto Chris.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

You're a kid you don't understand that Tyson had a very intimidating presence!!

I remember the first Bruno fight plane as day, I was 9. Shortly after I went to boxing for the first time.

I apologise for that remark Macks..

35 year old peak Tyson lost to Lewis so why does anything else matter.

I don't believe for one minute Douglas thought he'd beat Tyson....

I think he went in there thinking I'll try to keep him on the end of my jab and see what happens...

Think he was a surprised as anybody was with his effectiveness...

Don't believe this 100% confidence garbage you are supposed to have as a sportsman..

You can just think I'll give me all and hope for the best!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I apologise for that remark Macks..

Cheers mate. It seems like you were having a bit of a bad day when you misread my OP earlier.

since retiring tyson had openly admitted he was petrified before every fight. he relied on his opponent losing bottle.

that didnt happen in tokyo.

tyson wouldnt have trained for the fight of his life, he underestimated douglas and douglas had no quit in him.

"He relied on his opponent losing bottle".......

Like Holmes, Berbick, Thomas and Tucker did????.......

Tyson was a gifted fighter..

prime tyson looked so good because he fought mainly nobodies. In his 30 fight prime he fought 3 decent fighters and a couple of half decent ones.

Shut up...just shut up...

Stop pussyfooting around trussy... Speak your mind

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Shut up...just shut up...

Truth hurts?

And stop calling people kids and saying they don't know what it was like back in the 80's when tyson was around. You called one person a kid and assumed he wasn't around in the 80's when he was.

Also even if people were not around in the 80's it is not difficult to see his fights and interviews to know he was intimidating.

Go and see If Daddy wants a game on the Xbox........

Still not got an answer for me then Victor, time to sod off mate me thinks.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Go and see If Daddy wants a game on the Xbox........

Let me guess back in your day kids didn't have xboxes hahahah

Ghosty wants an answer..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ghosty wants an answer..

You ran out of cheeseburgers?

I tried for you Ghosty..

Seeing as you know so damn much about the Tyson era Victor, it should be an easy question for you to answer.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Seeing as you know so damn much about the Tyson era Victor, it should be an easy question for you to answer.

I don't even know what question you are talking about. It was clearly a question from yesterday and so the fact you are bringing it up today I won't even bother answering it.

Mainly because you wouldn't have a clue as to the answer at which you are clearly unable to debate the Tyson era.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Mainly because you wouldn't have a clue as to the answer at which you are clearly unable to debate the Tyson era.

Don't tell me you also think Biggs was a great opponent that tyson beat. A 13 fight novice going up against a 32 fight pro.

No I just want a little bit of confirmation that you aren't getting all your info off of Boxrec and do actually something, I would wager that anyone with a good understanding of heavyweight boxing in the late 80's would know who the most highly regarded british fighter was.

Gary Mason?

I'm waiting for an answer from the all knowing Victor.

The suspense is killing me.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:No I just want a little bit of confirmation that you aren't getting all your info off of Boxrec and do actually something, I would wager that anyone with a good understanding of heavyweight boxing in the late 80's would know who the most highly regarded british fighter was.

Who was the most highly regarded Moroccan fighter? That is a far better question. Or who was the most highly regarded Latvian fighter?

I would say as we're on a british forum it's quite a reasonable question to ask, I presume the reason you're stalling is because you don't know.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I would say as we're on a british forum it's quite a reasonable question to ask, I presume the reason you're stalling is because you don't know.

Considering the thread is about 2 american fighters I don't think that this being a British forum makes the slightest of difference.

victorgarco wrote:

Who was the most highly regarded Moroccan fighter? That is a far better question.

Khalid Rahilou? Is that right? What do I win?

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

Who was the most highly regarded Moroccan fighter? That is a far better question.

Khalid Rahilou? Is that right? What do I win?

to suggest there are any winners in this debate is slightly optimistic Tina

Do you or do you not know the answer?

Rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

victorgarco wrote:

Who was the most highly regarded Moroccan fighter? That is a far better question.

Khalid Rahilou? Is that right? What do I win?

to suggest there are any winners in this debate is slightly optimistic Tina

Just checked Jeff and apparently he was born in France of Moroccan 'origin' so I didn't even get it right anyway.

Too honest for your own good Tina, I had no intention of checking, would have taken you at your word. He could still be Moroccan in a Lennox Lewis British kind of way.

Rowley wrote:Too honest for your own good Tina, I had no intention of checking, would have taken you at your word. He could still be Moroccan in a Lennox Lewis British kind of way.

Lewis is a londoner, born in London. Lewis in a Canadian way.

Tp be honest - I dont know the answer to that Unless my old favourite Joe was going strong in the 80s unless you mean Gary Mason. Poor sod

Rowley wrote:Too honest for your own good Tina, I had no intention of checking, would have taken you at your word. He could still be Moroccan in a Lennox Lewis British kind of way.

I have changed my mind anyway. I am going for Hamid Ait Bighrade. He lost in the first round of the Athens olympics to Diwakar Prasad of India.

At least he was born in the right country.

I like Morrocan food. Hummus is Morrocan isn't it?

victorgarco wrote:
Lewis is a londoner, born in London. Lewis in a Canadian way.

Thanks for the clarification.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:I like Morrocan food. Hummus is Morrocan isn't it?

Could be wrong here Jack but I think the ancient Egyptians mass produced it so I think they can claim it as their own. I think they mashed up some chickpeas, garlic, salt and lemon juice, stuck it in clay bottles and sold it to the general population. I believe it is civilisations first ever mass produced food.