Mike Tyson In His Prime

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Hmmmm...would you dare cast doubt on that Spinks 31-0 professional record was serious? If beating Spinks wasn't impressive enough, I would ask this; just how often in history has a man broken another's 30+ professional winning streak with a KO1 ??

THAT is an impressive answer to a serious challenge, cut it any way you like.

Second, if you're trying to tell me Buster and LL's victories were due ONLY to a lack of fear...Okayyyy. All fighters are prone to pre-fight nerves, that's obvious. But...actual FEAR?? I am tempted to ask, in return, just what you believe his other opponents WERE afraid of - severe brain damage, perhaps? Isn't it a given that when you step into the ring, you run the risk of taking blows to the head? And if you ARE scared of being KO'ed or worse - well....just what business do you have in the ring anyway? Sounds like a change of occupation is on hand.

Using your own military analogies, that TOO like saying that, the only reason Nazi Germany couldn't conquer Britain, was because they feared the Kriegsmarine couldn't transport their armies across a hostile English Channel.

LL - age, as you ought to know, disfavours the shorter, smaller man in any HW match. It's why Georgey-boy could still bang them away at 45.

Buster - sheer, pure fluke. Had I been Tyson in early 1990, I'd have activated my rematch clause for a good, July 4th bout in Vegas, if ONLY to prove a point. There was a REASON Dougie was 42-1, ya know. Speculation is rampant - I'm not going to indulge in it now, though - as to why he lost that night, and why he never rematched. I WILL say I believe both were for the same reason. Was he scared he'd lose twice? Only Tyson knows, he'll tell you he was afraid of nobody and nothing. Do I believe that? If his subsequent behaviour in and out of the ring is any indication, I'd say yes.

Holyfield - he just outboxed Tyson. Stuck to the good, bread 'n' butter basics of pugilism, jab and counter, good tight guard, elbows sewn into the sides, eyes on the gloves, head down (and yes, I realise the irony of that very last element!!). I'll say one thing; Tyson seemed a hell of a lot faster against Bruno in February of that year than against Holyfield. Sure, Bruno was enough to make ANY fighter seem like Speedy Gonzales, but Mike showed a lot of his 80's head and handspeed. He hadn't been long out of prison, in which he'd just spent 3 years, with the only booze being a glass of Sherry on Christmas day. The guy's insides were probably cleaner than yours or mine. Hadn't had a chance to do a great deal of coke/weed/etc. Of course, 9 months is a long time in life, heck that's how long it takes to create one. The 80's speed was gone. But not so with Commander Evander. D'you think Holy - who like his name implies, is a Churchgoer, thus his serene confidence as he quietly sang, "My God is real" during his entrance - spent every weekend that summer getting high? And by the way - few people cheered as loud as I did as he smashed Tyson around the head in the 11th.

Anyway, all this is moot, albeit fun. The topic is Tyson '88 Vs Ali '67. Tyson in '88 did not fight Douglas, LL or Holy. Gotta dash, can pick this up later.

"Big Bad" Joanne - keep it civil. You're not likely to get MORE out of me by insults than less.

I know I'm biased but saying Tyson knocks out Ali in four rounds strikes me as outlandish especially given all the lesser fighters Prime Tyson couldn't put away in four rounds or less

Do you want to know why Tin Mike could never beat Holy, Buster, and Lenox?

Ask Cus D'Amato

He'll answer you at the 1:15 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYg5eFvR ... re=related

[Big Bad John]

Hmmmm...would you dare cast doubt on that Spinks 31-0 professional record was serious? If beating Spinks wasn't impressive enough, I would ask this; just how often in history has a man broken another's 30+ professional winning streak with a KO1 ??

THAT is an impressive answer to a serious challenge, cut it any way you like.

Given how many nearly identical records I found with a cursory check, I don't think it's that big a deal:

Kiko Martinez KO1 24-0 Bernard Dunne
Lennox Lewis KO1 28-2 Andrew Golota
Shannon Briggs KO1 27-0-1 Luciano Zolyone
Roy Jones KO1 27-0 Montell Griffin
Lennox Lewis KO2 31-0 Michael Grant
Jameel McCline KO1 31-1 Michael Grant

Golota's two losses were by DQ, and Lewis practically had Grant out in the first round. Michael Grant clearly shows that a 30+ win streak doesn't mean that you can't get knocked out in one.

age, as you ought to know, disfavours the shorter, smaller man in any HW match. It's why Georgey-boy could still bang them away at 45.

Stupid and wrong. Again.

Then why was 5'11" Archie Moore a top heavyweight well into his 40s? Why was Jersey Joe Walcott the oldest World Heavyweight Champion despite being only 6'0"? He didn't seem to have much trouble beating 6'5" Hein Ten Hoff.

[Seamus]

Two main reasons Tyson lost to Buster Douglas were 1. Tyson no longer had the great head movement he had in the past. 2. Douglas was motivated and in shape like he had never been before or since in his career.

[zslayton]

How high do you rank Buster Douglas?

You know, I actually have all the heavyweight champions listed with overall records, fight history, and championship fight records, saved in a file on my computer. Ranking them has proved tough and to be honest, I flip flop fighter I have ranked 6-15 from time to time. However, I can say, Buster Douglas is not in the top 15. I'd say he's not in the top 25, or the top 35 heavyweight champions of all time on any list. He might not be in the top 50. I will let you know when I get my heavyweight research done.

My top 3..............In no particular order..............Ali, Louis, Holmes..............

[Big Bad John]

In the history of boxing, there have only been 80 or so heavyweight titlists, and 40 or so true champions. Ranking heavyweights from 1-100, I have him at around #50:

44. Pinklon Thomas
45. Michael Moorer
46. Chris Byrd
47. Hasim Rahman
48. Joe Bugner
49. Gerry Cooney
50. Peter Jackson
51. Buster Douglas
52. Jimmy Ellis
53. Tommy Burns
54. John Ruiz
55. Ernie Terrel
56. Eddie Machen
57. Harold Johnson
58. Tom Sharkey

[TheOneIsHere2008]

In the history of boxing, there have only been 80 or so heavyweight titlists, and 40 or so true champions. Ranking heavyweights from 1-100, I have him at around #50:

44. Pinklon Thomas
45. Michael Moorer
46. Chris Byrd
47. Hasim Rahman
48. Joe Bugner
49. Gerry Cooney
50. Peter Jackson
51. Buster Douglas
52. Jimmy Ellis
53. Tommy Burns
54. John Ruiz
55. Ernie Terrel
56. Eddie Machen
57. Harold Johnson
58. Tom Sharkey

I am impressed...How do you know so much about boxing?

Oh, Jimmy Ellis was a good fighter...He probably beats Buster but Tyson kills him...

[Big Bad John]

I've been doing the online boxing thing for many years. That list ^^^^ has been around since 2001 or so, and I'm constantly making changes to it. Every now and then, you have to see the list in relation to one particular fighter. I had Douglas at #49 this morning, and I had to move a few people around. I had Harold Johnson at #40, which was much too high. In fact, I had a couple of smaller fighters pretty high, like Tommy Burns and Harry Greb, and looking at the list in relation to Douglas helped me assess their status a little differently. Plus Wladimir Klitschko's had a sort of Renaissance, so I bumped him up quite a bit. Many drunken hours on Youtube help, of coure.

[My2Sense]

I've always thought the best fighter Tyson ever beat was Tucker. He seemed to me to be the only heavyweight he beat that had genuine potential and was still in his prime.

Fighters like Berbick, Bonecrusher, and Bruno IMO were basically just journeymen-level fighters who managed to win titles in their last hurrahs, and then faded into obscurity as soon as they lost their titles.

Thomas and Tubbs looked to have some talent, but both of them had been beaten/exposed already and were considered on the decline when Tyson fought them.

Holmes was obviously past his prime and wasn't even active when Tyson fought him.

I never believed that Spinks was great at heavyweight. He escaped with a questionable decision over Holmes in their rematch and then milked his lineal claim for two years, not fighting any top contenders whatsover, just waiting for some big money opportunities to come along. He was one of the weaker lineal champs in heavyweight history IMO.

[Grimm]

How high do you rank Buster Douglas?

You know, I actually have all the heavyweight champions listed with overall records, fight history, and championship fight records, saved in a file on my computer. Ranking them has proved tough and to be honest, I flip flop fighter I have ranked 6-15 from time to time. However, I can say, Buster Douglas is not in the top 15. I'd say he's not in the top 25, or the top 35 heavyweight champions of all time on any list. He might not be in the top 50. I will let you know when I get my heavyweight research done.

My top 3..............In no particular order..............Ali, Louis, Holmes..............

Man I'm just glad Holmes is getting credit

[Grimm]

Why Holmes?

Way I see it, whether we like Tyson or not, he is an ATG puncher; and if Shavers could have floored Holmes, then why couldn't Tyson who (though nowhere near as strong as Earnie) was much faster, more skilled and more ferocious?

Because I believe Shavers is the biggest heavyweight puncher of all time and Holmes was still able to recover from it.

Yes Tyson was faster but I don't believe he hit as hard, I rate Holmes chin/recovery higher than almost anyone.

[I Feel Fine]

I'd pick the 71 model over that of 67 and Joe Frazier over both of them.

I'll pick the opposite.

Tyson in his prime is the most overrated Heavyweight champion of all time. Lennox Lewis, Holmes, Ali... a lot of great Heavyweights would have crushed the men he fought before Buster Douglas, and would have beaten Douglas. Tyson was skilled and had great natural ability, but Lewis, Ali, Holmes were hardly pedestrians in that department, and they showed the guts that he didn't have. But Tyson has perhaps the dumbest fanbase in boxing history, dumber than Tito Nation, and so these kinds of conversations will always continue. The idea that Tyson is going to stop Ali when he couldn't stop Tucker and Smith...

[Jaybee From The Castle]

Hmmmm...would you dare cast doubt on that Spinks 31-0 professional record was serious? If beating Spinks wasn't impressive enough, I would ask this; just how often in history has a man broken another's 30+ professional winning streak with a KO1 ??

THAT is an impressive answer to a serious challenge, cut it any way you like.

Given how many nearly identical records I found with a cursory check, I don't think it's that big a deal:

Kiko Martinez KO1 24-0 Bernard Dunne
Lennox Lewis KO1 28-2 Andrew Golota
Shannon Briggs KO1 27-0-1 Luciano Zolyone
Roy Jones KO1 27-0 Montell Griffin
Lennox Lewis KO2 31-0 Michael Grant
Jameel McCline KO1 31-1 Michael Grant

Nearly identical? NEARLY? I thought Maths and English were compulsory subjects in the US education system? Oh well, never mind. And come ON. Your check wasn't cursory, bucko. Be honest!! You just couldn't come up with any stats that beat Tyson's KO1 of a 31-0 guy, hell you yourself put the numbers up there !

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREEEEEEEEE!!!

age, as you ought to know, disfavours the shorter, smaller man in any HW match. It's why Georgey-boy could still bang them away at 45.

Stupid and wrong. Again.

Then why was 5'11" Archie Moore a top heavyweight well into his 40s? Why was Jersey Joe Walcott the oldest World Heavyweight Champion despite being only 6'0"? He didn't seem to have much trouble beating 6'5" Hein Ten Hoff.

Hmmm. Do you actually WATCH Boxing, or do you simply pile up counts of 10+ posts per day online? Do you realise you've just given me a couple of exceptions that were SO exceptional that they prove the rule? Look, I think you and me got off on the wrong foot. I want to help you out. As you've never seen a Boxing match - and before you jump down my throat, WAIT; it's nothing to be ashamed of, lots of guys live their whole lives never having watched a fight from starting bell to the end - I think the first thing I should point out is - the "ring" is not really circular. It's actually a square. Confuses a lot of newbies, that one.

Youtube, as well as having excellent videos of Captain Kangaroo for your amusement during, shall we say, less than lucid evenings, also hosts Boxing videos. You'll be able to see what the Boxers you post about look like, and, best of all, you'll be able to see all the punches, ie right hook, jab, uppercut, in motion. With your own eyes!!!

Just one last thing though, when you come off unemployment - and you can, there ARE companies willing to hire hard-core unemployables - your 3rd or 4th job down the line might involve the use of a computer. Not making any promises here, though, so don't raise any false hopes. It all depends on you, and how ambitious a boy you are. Simply saying that computers are widely used in offices and industry. When you use your computer at work, your boss might not like it that you are still watching Boxing videos on Youtube. Again, getting over the initial thrill of seeing a fight before posting about it is going to be hard, but you ARE there to input data. Kinda like what you do here at Boxrec, but this time you type into spreadsheets, and instead of making up your own posts - and, this is the best part - you only have to type in something from a piece of paper!!

Ok, when you get to Youtube, there'll be a 'Search' button, it's the same shape as the 'New Post' button here at Boxrec. Just next to it is a big empty box; you might wonder, "Why did they put that there?" Now, that's so you can put in the name of anything you like to see videos about, then you have to press that 'Search' button, and then the screen will go kind of blank for a second or two, and then Youtube will tell you what videos it has for you!! Isn't that wonderful??? I actually envy you, you know...ahhh, all those WONDERFUL fights you'll see for the first time, Hagler-Hearns, Morales-Barrera, Ali-Foreman.

Well, that's me done here, but if you need any help working Youtube, just let me know. Happy viewing!!!

Jaybee.

[Big Bad John]

Hmmm. Do you actually WATCH Boxing, or do you simply pile up counts of 10+ posts per day online? Do you realise you've just given me a couple of exceptions that were SO exceptional that they prove the rule? Look, I think you and me got off on the wrong foot. I want to help you out. As you've never seen a Boxing match - and before you jump down my throat, WAIT; it's nothing to be ashamed of, lots of guys live their whole lives never having watched a fight from starting bell to the end - I think the first thing I should point out is - the "ring" is not really circular. It's actually a square. Confuses a lot of newbies, that one.

Youtube, as well as having excellent videos of Captain Kangaroo for your amusement during, shall we say, less than lucid evenings, also hosts Boxing videos. You'll be able to see what the Boxers you post about look like, and, best of all, you'll be able to see all the punches, ie right hook, jab, uppercut, in motion. With your own eyes!!!

Just one last thing though, when you come off unemployment - and you can, there ARE companies willing to hire hard-core unemployables - your 3rd or 4th job down the line might involve the use of a computer. Not making any promises here, though, so don't raise any false hopes. It all depends on you, and how ambitious a boy you are. Simply saying that computers are widely used in offices and industry. When you use your computer at work, your boss might not like it that you are still watching Boxing videos on Youtube. Again, getting over the initial thrill of seeing a fight before posting about it is going to be hard, but you ARE there to input data. Kinda like what you do here at Boxrec, but this time you type into spreadsheets, and instead of making up your own posts - and, this is the best part - you only have to type in something from a piece of paper!!

Ok, when you get to Youtube, there'll be a 'Search' button, it's the same shape as the 'New Post' button here at Boxrec. Just next to it is a big empty box; you might wonder, "Why did they put that there?" Now, that's so you can put in the name of anything you like to see videos about, then you have to press that 'Search' button, and then the screen will go kind of blank for a second or two, and then Youtube will tell you what videos it has for you!! Isn't that wonderful??? I actually envy you, you know...ahhh, all those WONDERFUL fights you'll see for the first time, Hagler-Hearns, Morales-Barrera, Ali-Foreman.

Well, that's me done here, but if you need any help working Youtube, just let me know. Happy viewing!!!

Jaybee.

I see from this post ^^^^^^ that you like to write fiction. It seems that your posts so far on this topic are nothing but fiction. You basically go as far as you can with your knowledge (not very far), and then make up the rest, like a little kid who's been proven wrong again and again.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Hmmmm...would you dare cast doubt on that Spinks 31-0 professional record was serious? If beating Spinks wasn't impressive enough, I would ask this; just how often in history has a man broken another's 30+ professional winning streak with a KO1 ??

THAT is an impressive answer to a serious challenge, cut it any way you like.

Given how many nearly identical records I found with a cursory check, I don't think it's that big a deal:

Kiko Martinez KO1 24-0 Bernard Dunne
Lennox Lewis KO1 28-2 Andrew Golota
Shannon Briggs KO1 27-0-1 Luciano Zolyone
Roy Jones KO1 27-0 Montell Griffin
Lennox Lewis KO2 31-0 Michael Grant
Jameel McCline KO1 31-1 Michael Grant

Nearly identical? NEARLY? I thought Maths and English were compulsory subjects in the US education system? Oh well, never mind. And come ON. Your check wasn't cursory, bucko. Be honest!! You just couldn't come up with any stats that beat Tyson's KO1 of a 31-0 guy, hell you yourself put the numbers up there !

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREEEEEEEEE!!!

age, as you ought to know, disfavours the shorter, smaller man in any HW match. It's why Georgey-boy could still bang them away at 45.

Stupid and wrong. Again.

Then why was 5'11" Archie Moore a top heavyweight well into his 40s? Why was Jersey Joe Walcott the oldest World Heavyweight Champion despite being only 6'0"? He didn't seem to have much trouble beating 6'5" Hein Ten Hoff.

Hmmm. Do you actually WATCH Boxing, or do you simply pile up counts of 10+ posts per day online? Do you realise you've just given me a couple of exceptions that were SO exceptional that they prove the rule? Look, I think you and me got off on the wrong foot. I want to help you out. As you've never seen a Boxing match - and before you jump down my throat, WAIT; it's nothing to be ashamed of, lots of guys live their whole lives never having watched a fight from starting bell to the end - I think the first thing I should point out is - the "ring" is not really circular. It's actually a square. Confuses a lot of newbies, that one.

Youtube, as well as having excellent videos of Captain Kangaroo for your amusement during, shall we say, less than lucid evenings, also hosts Boxing videos. You'll be able to see what the Boxers you post about look like, and, best of all, you'll be able to see all the punches, ie right hook, jab, uppercut, in motion. With your own eyes!!!

Just one last thing though, when you come off unemployment - and you can, there ARE companies willing to hire hard-core unemployables - your 3rd or 4th job down the line might involve the use of a computer. Not making any promises here, though, so don't raise any false hopes. It all depends on you, and how ambitious a boy you are. Simply saying that computers are widely used in offices and industry. When you use your computer at work, your boss might not like it that you are still watching Boxing videos on Youtube. Again, getting over the initial thrill of seeing a fight before posting about it is going to be hard, but you ARE there to input data. Kinda like what you do here at Boxrec, but this time you type into spreadsheets, and instead of making up your own posts - and, this is the best part - you only have to type in something from a piece of paper!!

Ok, when you get to Youtube, there'll be a 'Search' button, it's the same shape as the 'New Post' button here at Boxrec. Just next to it is a big empty box; you might wonder, "Why did they put that there?" Now, that's so you can put in the name of anything you like to see videos about, then you have to press that 'Search' button, and then the screen will go kind of blank for a second or two, and then Youtube will tell you what videos it has for you!! Isn't that wonderful??? I actually envy you, you know...ahhh, all those WONDERFUL fights you'll see for the first time, Hagler-Hearns, Morales-Barrera, Ali-Foreman.

Well, that's me done here, but if you need any help working Youtube, just let me know. Happy viewing!!!

Jaybee.

Wow... You and John have quite a feud going...

I still want to know how clowns like Mitch "Blood" Green , James "Bonecrusher" Smith and Tony Tucker can take Tyson the distance but Tyson can put Muhammad Ali on his ass in four rounds...


Oh- I liked Barerra's fight against The Mexecutioner...

[Robinson]

Two main reasons Tyson lost to Buster Douglas were 1. Tyson no longer had the great head movement he had in the past. 2. Douglas was motivated and in shape like he had never been before or since in his career.

Agreed...
Tyson also was obsessed with his power in this fight more so than any in other fights
he was loading up his shots and all but abandoned, combinations and the jab
which when he threw he was effective with.

And lets not take anything away from Douglas. The man was in shape, had
the tools, build and skills to intiate the upset...how he would have fared had
it been 1988...who knows but this fight had two main reasons why it went
the way it did.

Tyson was not 'at his best'
and
Douglas was 'at his best'.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Two main reasons Tyson lost to Buster Douglas were 1. Tyson no longer had the great head movement he had in the past. 2. Douglas was motivated and in shape like he had never been before or since in his career.

Agreed...
Tyson also was obsessed with his power in this fight more so than any in other fights
he was loading up his shots and all but abandoned, combinations and the jab
which when he threw he was effective with.

And lets not take anything away from Douglas. The man was in shape, had
the tools, build and skills to intiate the upset...how he would have fared had
it been 1988...who knows but this fight had two main reasons why it went
the way it did.

Tyson was not 'at his best'
and
Douglas was 'at his best'.

If Tyson wasn't at his best at 24 maybe it had more to do with Buster than him and he never was the fighter the myth makers try to make him into...

[My2Sense]

Two main reasons Tyson lost to Buster Douglas were 1. Tyson no longer had the great head movement he had in the past. 2. Douglas was motivated and in shape like he had never been before or since in his career.

Agreed...
Tyson also was obsessed with his power in this fight more so than any in other fights
he was loading up his shots and all but abandoned, combinations and the jab
which when he threw he was effective with.

And lets not take anything away from Douglas. The man was in shape, had
the tools, build and skills to intiate the upset...how he would have fared had
it been 1988...who knows but this fight had two main reasons why it went
the way it did.

Tyson was not 'at his best'
and
Douglas was 'at his best'.

I don't agree.

I watched Tyson's fight with Berbick again not too long ago, and I don't see any difference between Tyson in that fight and vs. Douglas. He even looked noticeably heavier and chunkier against Berbick than against Douglas, and his fight plan against Berbick consisted of simply walking in and throwing haymakers, with no real science or versatility at all. The only real difference I see between the Berbick and Douglas fights is that Berbick was simply a big oaf with no defense or power, fighting flatfooted, who gave Tyson every opportunity to tee off on him. Douglas didn't give Tyson a sitting taget and clearly had more talent and skill than Berbick, which was apparent from their own fight against each other right afterward.

Also, the notion that Douglas was somehow "at his best" and Tyson wasn't going into their first fight is incorrect. If anything, the situation was reversed. Douglas' mother had just died (in addition to numerous other distractions in his personal life) and he also was sick with bronchitis just before the fight that almost led to it being cancelled. Everyone who remembers that fight remembers that everything was laid out perfectly for Tyson to win and Douglas to lose.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Two main reasons Tyson lost to Buster Douglas were 1. Tyson no longer had the great head movement he had in the past. 2. Douglas was motivated and in shape like he had never been before or since in his career.

Agreed...
Tyson also was obsessed with his power in this fight more so than any in other fights
he was loading up his shots and all but abandoned, combinations and the jab
which when he threw he was effective with.

And lets not take anything away from Douglas. The man was in shape, had
the tools, build and skills to intiate the upset...how he would have fared had
it been 1988...who knows but this fight had two main reasons why it went
the way it did.

Tyson was not 'at his best'
and
Douglas was 'at his best'.

I don't agree.

I watched Tyson's fight with Berbick again not too long ago, and I don't see any difference between Tyson in that fight and vs. Douglas. He even looked noticeably heavier and chunkier against Berbick than against Douglas, and his fight plan against Berbick consisted of simply walking in and throwing haymakers, with no real science or versatility at all. The only real difference I see between the Berbick and Douglas fights is that Berbick was simply a big oaf with no defense or power, fighting flatfooted, who gave Tyson every opportunity to tee off on him. Douglas didn't give Tyson a sitting taget and clearly had more talent and skill than Berbick, which was apparent from their own fight against each other right afterward.

Also, the notion that Douglas was somehow "at his best" and Tyson wasn't going into their first fight is incorrect. If anything, the situation was reversed. Douglas' mother had just died (in addition to numerous other distractions in his personal life) and he also was sick with bronchitis just before the fight that almost led to it being cancelled. Everyone who remembers that fight remembers that everything was laid out perfectly for Tyson to win and Douglas to lose.

The Berbick fight was on ESPN this weekend and the commentators kept saying that Berbick was suicidal for fighting Tyson flat footed...He tried to exchange blow for blow...

I'm so tired of the nonsense that Tyson could have beat a prime Ali, a prime Joe Louis , or a prime Joe Frazier...They all would have figured him out...


P.S. Buster fought Berbick prior to beating Mike Tyson ... He didnt win another fight for seven years...

[Big Bad John]

Jaybee's one of those people who - once someone gets the better of him in boxing - just spouts out random bullshit. You can see that he has very little integrity, common sense or rational thought.

Oh, and I almost forgot:

Yanqui Diaz TKO1 37-0 Juan Carlos Gomez

I guess that makes the 13-5 Yanqui Diaz the equal of Mike Tyson, no?

[zslayton]

In the history of boxing, there have only been 80 or so heavyweight titlists, and 40 or so true champions. Ranking heavyweights from 1-100, I have him at around #50:

44. Pinklon Thomas
45. Michael Moorer
46. Chris Byrd
47. Hasim Rahman
48. Joe Bugner
49. Gerry Cooney
50. Peter Jackson
51. Buster Douglas
52. Jimmy Ellis
53. Tommy Burns
54. John Ruiz
55. Ernie Terrel
56. Eddie Machen
57. Harold Johnson
58. Tom Sharkey

It's a good list and a good arguement that Buster could be ranked that high in an all time heavyweight champion ranking. Like I said, I haven't gotten that far because I can make up my mind where I rate fighters 6-15. I do a lot of research on the topic. However, Buster Douglas, as awesome as he looked that night, was still only 1-2 in world title fights losing to Tony Tucker and Evander Holyfield, while beating Mike Tyson.

The only 3 men to beat a solid version of Mike Tyson were Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis. Douglas was the only one to beat him when he was considered to be 'prime' even though we all know what a mess Tysons life was and what a mess his trainers and handlers were before and for the Douglas fight. Holyfield beat a solid version of Tyson, but not what I would call his peak. Tyson was still favored to win that fight though so the Holyfield win was huge too. The fight with Lennox Lewis was against a shot Mike Tyson. Mike stood in there and took some monster shots that showed he did have some pride and some heart (more than when he fought Douglas). The Tyson that lost to Williams and McBride though???? At that point there was nothing left except for maybe 1 or 2 rounds of thunder, but no desire.

[Robinson]

Tyson loaded up against Berbick beacause from the get go
Berbick stood there and tried trading.

He also did this in some other fights earlier and later in his
career. He also used combinations and more of a power
boxing style before and after this.

Sure Tyson was 24...so what?
Me personally I do not really buy into the whole 'prime'
notion...I think some people over look the fact that fighters
are people and like any of us have good periods and bad ones.

Tyson was not in his best game from 1988 onwards in my
opinion. After the Holmes fight it was clear he was scattered.

The KO's of Spinks and Williams were superb achievements, but
at the same time Spinks tried to fight from the opening second
and Williams was just pounced upon and devoured from the
opening seconds. The Tubbs fight displayed what happens when
a fighter pops and moves, and then...when he stays still....

Tyson was most likely a better fighter in 1991 against a Stewart
or Ruddock (rematch) than in 1988-90. Perhaps more dedicated
to the gym and less scattered.

Tyson is hated by many and loved for almost the same reasons.

He is dangerously fast and powerful who was hard to hit when
he was at his best. But at the same time he was a sensation
for the public outside of the ring and this lead to his ultimate
down fall, as it does with so many other celebrities.

In my opinion all through his earlier career Douglas showed a great
deal of talent, though he lacked a 'fire' in the ring, which made him
seem boring and lackluster. He also always nearly had stamina issues.

I really believe that the results of that night in Tokyo are not as
simple as words written by fans on a boxing forum or spoken by
cigar smoking experts over a stiff scotch.

[Big Bad John]

That's just stupid. Joe Louis didn't have any bad days. Muhammad Ali didn't have any bad days. Mike Tyson had a day so bad that he lost to an ordinary heavyweight.

[Robinson]

Your daft if you think that they did not have 'bad days'
what do you think a lack luster performance is or an
average showing.

So in their respective 'peaks' Ali and Louis never had a bad
day ?

Did anyone tell that to Max Schmelling in '36 ?
How about being outboxed by an 172lb Billy Conn for a most
of the fight ?
Last time I checked Tyson was never knocked down by the
calibre of guys that Louis was.

Ali struggled against Jones just before he won the title,
more so that Tyson did against a Zouski or Green.

Ali was on his butt and on queer street against 185lb
Cooper as well...good showing there.

I shall not mention Ali post exile as that seems to upset
alot of Ali's ardent fans.

I am not trying to say Tyson is superior to these guys,
what I am trying to explain is that YES all great fighters
have bad nights.

But in the case of Tyson-Douglas, it was a combination
of Douglas being at his best and Tyson not being where
a HW champion should be.

That is all.

[Ezzard]

Berbick didn't even trade really. He just kep pushing Tyson away and standing still with his hands up.

I basically dislike hype that surrounds any fighter when I don't beieve they have the victories over stiff enough opposition to warrant it...

[Robinson]

Berbick has never been a graceful figure in the ring.
I think against Tyson he did not know how to deal with
some one coming inside fast. Essentially he did not look
warmed up and was almost shell shocked from the get
go.

Maybe it was some one poisoning him...:P