Mike Tyson: Who Has He Beat?

[ThatOne]

It's an interesting question and it does separate the fighters when you actually break down who their best wins are against. There are two ways to break this down: One, who was their signature win against and two, who was the best fighter they beat? When discussing the career of former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson, some (count me among them) question the caliber of the fighters that he's fought and defeated. Let's look at who are the best fighters he defeated.

When it comes to name recognition, there can be no disputing that Larry Holmes and Michael Spinks are the two best names Tyson has on his record in the win column. Holmes is the best name on his record as far as wins go. However, Holmes was 38 and hadn't fought in slightly over two years when he fought Tyson. Not to mention that Holmes was only a shell of what he was at his peak, and lost his last two fights to Michael Spinks before fighting Tyson. On the other hand, Tyson is not given enough credit for being the only fighter to stop Holmes. Yes, it was a shot Holmes, but no fighter ever stopped Holmes before, or after, Tyson. To me, Tyson's stoppage of Holmes is the biggest testament to his punching power.

Michael Spinks has to be considered Tyson's signature victory. The fact that he and Spinks were both undefeated, and both had a claim to the title made their fight one of the biggest fights of the 1980's. Some believe Tyson's first round knockout of Spinks was his best fight. However, Spinks was a blown up light heavyweight who caught Holmes at the end of his career and had the right style to trouble him. Anyone who followed boxing knew Spinks was all wrong for Tyson, and that it wasn't going to be a competitive fight (I know I knew it). Tyson-Spinks had Frazier-Foster written all over it. Spinks may have been the first light heavyweight champ to win the heavyweight title, but he's an all-time great light heavyweight champion and that's what he will always be remembered as. No doubt, 38-year-old Larry Holmes and 31-year-old light heavyweight Michael Spinks are the two best name fighters that Tyson has defeated.

If Holmes and Spinks are the two best names Tyson has beat, then who are the best and most formidable fighters that he's beat? In chronological order, it's between Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker and Razor Ruddock. When Tyson beat the once-beaten Thomas, he was coming off losing his WBC title to Trevor Berbick via a unanimous decision (though he had three nondescript wins in between). Thomas also was in and out of drug rehab a couple times after beating Tim Witherspoon for the title in 1984 and fighting Tyson in May of 1987. That being said, Thomas was still a pretty good fighter the night Tyson stopped him and Tyson did it impressively.

Tony Tucker was also a very good fighter when Tyson fought him in August of 1987. The undefeated Tucker faced Tyson in the final of the HBO heavyweight unification tournament. Tucker was coming off of a ten round stoppage over eventual Tyson conquer Buster Douglas en-route to capturing the IBF title in the HBO tournament. The 27-year-old Tucker was at his peak, and he managed to rock Tyson with a single right uppercut in the first round. This fight wasn't a typical Tyson cakewalk. Tyson was challenged a few times by Tucker during the fight, but he was never in trouble of losing it at any time. Tyson proved beyond a doubt that he was the better fighter on the way to winning a 12 round unanimous decision. This fight gave Tyson all three title belts that were up for grabs in the HBO tournament.

The 27-year-old Razor Ruddock was also one of the best heavyweights who Tyson defeated. The once-beaten Ruddock was on a roll going into the first Tyson fight. His only loss before fighting Tyson was being stopped in seven rounds by journeyman Dave Jaco in Ruddock's 11th fight as a pro. In the midst of his five fights before fighting Tyson, Ruddock scored impressive knockout wins over James Broad, Bonecrusher Smith and a shot Michael Dokes.

In the first Tyson-Ruddock fight, Ruddock lived up to his billing as a one-armed bandit. Tyson won the fight when Richard Steele jumped in and stopped the fight prematurely in the seventh round. Although the fight was stopped early, other than a brief Ruddock flurry in the sixth round in which he shook Tyson, the fight was never in doubt.

In the rematch three months later, Tyson won a unanimous decision over Ruddock. The second fight between Tyson and Ruddock was an entertaining fight with both fighters landing bombs. Tyson put Ruddock down in rounds two and round four, and broke his jaw in the fight. Though Ruddock never stopped trying to knock Tyson out throughout the fight, the difference was Tyson was too smart and complete of a fighter for Ruddock. Midway through the fight, Tyson had reduced Ruddock to just relying on his left hand smash (Ruddock's hybrid left hook-left uppercut punch). The smash was a devastating punch, but it was the only offensive weapon Ruddock had. Tyson, not having to worry about Ruddock's jab or right hand just basically lured him into throwing the smash, making him miss a majority of them and then countering him with two and three punch combinations.

The only other fighters that could possibly be added to this list are Frank Bruno and Carl "The Truth" Williams. The reason I don't include them is because they were both beaten soundly before facing Tyson. Bruno was knocked out for the count in 1984 by Bonecrusher Smith and by Tim Witherspoon in 1986, before fighting Tyson in 1989. Williams was dropped by James "Quick" Tillis in 1984, and dropped twice by Jesse Ferguson in 1985, two non punchers. "The Truth" was also dropped twice en-route to being stopped by Mike Weaver in two rounds in 1986, before fighting Tyson in 1989.

So, who is the best fighter that Tyson owns a win over? Is it Thomas, is it Tucker or is it Ruddock? I say it's between Tucker and Ruddock. I say this because Tucker and Ruddock were at their best when they lost to Tyson. Thomas went through drug rehab a few times and wasn't the same fighter that beat Tim Witherspoon for the title in August of 1984 when he fought Tyson in May of 1987.

So how do you break the tie between Tucker and Ruddock? Tucker was undefeated, and Ruddock only lost once before fighting Tyson. Tucker was the overall better fighter, but Ruddock was the better puncher. Tucker did win a piece of the title, while Ruddock never fought for the title. Tucker went the distance with Lennox Lewis in a title bout in 1993, and Ruddock was stopped in two rounds by Lewis in a title elimination bout in 1992. Until facing Mike Tyson, Tucker was unbeaten in 37 fights. Until facing Dave Jaco, Ruddock was unbeaten in 10 fights. Tucker stopped Dave Jaco in three rounds in October of 1985. Ruddock was stopped in seven rounds by Dave Jaco in April of 1985. Hmmm, I say Tony Tucker.

Summing up the best of Tyson's career goes like this. Larry Holmes is the best name fighter he has beaten. Michael Spinks is his signature win, and Tony Tucker is the best fighter that he ever beat in his career. When People think of Tyson, they think of some of the great fighters he's been in the ring with like Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis, but he was beaten soundly by both. Tony Tucker is the best fighter Mike Tyson has ever defeated.

This is why in my opinion that Tyson doesn't measure up to the greatest of the greats. You can talk about his power and hand speed all you want, but the bottom line is Tony Tucker is the best it ever carried him past. If wins over Tucker and Ruddock qualify Tyson as one of the greatest of the greats, than Jerry Quarry has just as much a claim to greatness as Tyson. Quarry's best wins are over Lyle and Shavers. Lyle and Shavers were both more formidable fighters than Tucker and Ruddock. If you believe Tucker and Ruddock were better than Lyle and Shavers, you either don't know what you're watching or, you're a relative of Tyson. Quarry is remembered for losing to the best of his era in Ali and Frazier, just like Tyson's remembered for losing to Holyfield and Lewis, the best of his era. In boxing, it's not how many you beat, but it's who you beat. For Tyson, it's Tucker and Ruddock?

Writers Note

I thought to be considered a great you had to "WIN" against the best fighters you fought, not lose to them or put up a half decent fight. Holyfield and Lewis are the two best fighters Tyson has ever shared a ring with. He is 0-3 in those bouts and was knocked out by both. Tyson is more known for his losses than his wins, what other all-time great heavyweight champ can that be said about? Absolutely none. He looks awesome on the heavy bag and the pads, but not so great when he has a top fighter in front of him. Don't take my word, just look at his record. All his power and speed meant zilch when he was in with the best of his era. That's a fact not an opinion.




http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing-ne ... zo1308.php

[Shazam!]

Tyson has a kind of unique position among the heavyweight greats. It's hard to think he wouldn't have given any heavyweight trouble between 85 and 88. But his problem was that he was completely one dimensional. To me, the true greats are not one-dimensional. They can adapt their game depending on who they're facing. It's all very well being able to blow people away, but when that doesn't work you need a plan B. His problem was that he was a short guy with a short reach, like Joe Frazier for example....they can't be much more than a come forward slugger. This is the problem for short, stocky heavyweights when fighting bigger guys. Whereas guys like Lennox Lewis and Muhammad Ali had the size to be able to either box or to slug it out. Tyson's only chance was getting inside and scoring a KO.

[Shazam!]

To come back to what you were saying about his resume.....I think you need to give Tyson a little more credit for the way he destroyed his opponents. If he hadn't been around at that time, some of those guys may have continued their careers in a way that elevated them to a higher status. Tyson just blew them away. I agree that Tucker and Ruddock were his best victories. And it's a shame he never got to fight Lewis or Bowe. If you consider that a prime Lewis and a prime Bowe are better than prime Tucker and Ruddock, it's clear that either one would have been a very tough fight for Tyson.

But we'll never know.

[ThatOne]

To come back to what you were saying about his resume.....I think you need to give Tyson a little more credit for the way he destroyed his opponents. If he hadn't been around at that time, some of those guys may have continued their careers in a way that elevated them to a higher status. Tyson just blew them away. I agree that Tucker and Ruddock were his best victories. And it's a shame he never got to fight Lewis or Bowe. If you consider that a prime Lewis and a prime Bowe are better than prime Tucker and Ruddock, it's clear that either one would have been a very tough fight for Tyson.

But we'll never know.

I didn't say it. The writer did. I couldn't write that much.

[Shazam!]

ah right!

[ThatOne]

ah right!

I am a casual fan. You are attributing to me a level of knowledge and expertise that I just do not possess.

I like your point about Tyson and Frazier being limited "face fighters". However Joe certainly got as much out of his style any fighter in history with the possible exception of Marciano.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Tyson has a kind of unique position among the heavyweight greats. It's hard to think he wouldn't have given any heavyweight trouble between 85 and 88. But his problem was that he was completely one dimensional. To me, the true greats are not one-dimensional. They can adapt their game depending on who they're facing. It's all very well being able to blow people away, but when that doesn't work you need a plan B. His problem was that he was a short guy with a short reach, like Joe Frazier for example....they can't be much more than a come forward slugger. This is the problem for short, stocky heavyweights when fighting bigger guys. Whereas guys like Lennox Lewis and Muhammad Ali had the size to be able to either box or to slug it out. Tyson's only chance was getting inside and scoring a KO.

There is more to great boxing than simply going backwards. Was Duran not great at boxing opponents? Of course he could be.

[manage a troix]

Michael Spinks by 1 round quick one sided massacre
Andrew Golotta by one sided massacre
Lou Savaresse by 1st rd TKO
Brian Nielsen by TKO (Nielsen's agreement to fight him is a testament tyson was shot by that time)
Alex Steawrt 1 round TKO
Henry Tillman 1round TKO
Ruddock by decision and TKO
Carl Williams 1 round TKO
Frank Bruno *2 by TKO
Tony Tubbs by TKO
Tony Tucker by decision
James Smith by decision
Larry Holmes by TKO (and despite being 39 , Holmes proved competitive at elite level for years after)
Tyrrell Biggs by TKO
Pinklon Thomas by TKO
Trevor Berbick by one sided 2nd rd TKO
Jesse Fegusson (whom outpointed Buster Douglas and went the distance with McCall went the )
Marvis Frazier 1st rd TKO
David Jaco 1st rd TKO

and then some more.
no one really

[Bricks]

Tyson has a kind of unique position among the heavyweight greats. It's hard to think he wouldn't have given any heavyweight trouble between 85 and 88. But his problem was that he was completely one dimensional. To me, the true greats are not one-dimensional. They can adapt their game depending on who they're facing. It's all very well being able to blow people away, but when that doesn't work you need a plan B. His problem was that he was a short guy with a short reach, like Joe Frazier for example....they can't be much more than a come forward slugger. This is the problem for short, stocky heavyweights when fighting bigger guys. Whereas guys like Lennox Lewis and Muhammad Ali had the size to be able to either box or to slug it out. Tyson's only chance was getting inside and scoring a KO.

I cant agree with this at all. Tyson during his short, explosive and fight filled peak of 86-88 was in my opinion as good as it got in terms of diversity and having a plan A and plan B.

That Tyson could routinely outbox men with 10 inch reach advantages and 5-6 inch height advantages.

He outboxed Tony Tucker. He outboxed many men before breaking them down. He wasnt just all about power and intimidation. The peak tyson was adept at boxing.

Larry Holmes was outboxed for 4 rounds before being crushed.Frank Bruno wasnt outboxed by many men (in his defeats by Bonecrusher he was posting a near shutout before he got caught by a big punch, he was ahead of witherspoon and lewis before his chin and stamina let him down) but Tyson outboxed him , beat him to the jab consistently.

I think for all his boorishness Tyson gets a bad rap stateside and is more respected in the UK probably as all his fights during his prime were shown at peak time on free to air TV at a time when 90% of the country only had 4 tv channels!!!

[Goodnight, Irene]

Sometimes, a fighter lacks the competition to prove just how great they are, but I consider them great nonetheless. To what degree, we may argue to infinity.

Rocky Marciano. Ricardo Lopez. Mike Tyson.

[oliverfennell]

Brian Nielsen by TKO (Nielsen's agreement to fight him is a testament tyson was shot by that time)

It's not that they considered him shot enough for Nielsen. They would have taken that fight regardless of how they viewed Tyson at the time. For Nielsen, his whole career was geared towards something like that - the pension fight. Build up a ridiculously padded record that looks great on paper so that he could be marketable for a title shot or the Tyson sweepstakes.

[Klee Gluckman]

Using this method this threat could be.

Sonny Liston who has he beat. I don't see a win over any heavyweight that would be to 15.

Larry Holmes who has he beat that would be top 15 when he fought them. Forget Ali that was sick.

Jack Dempsy Who has he beat that would be top 15.

This game gets messy.

[Shazam!]

I cant agree with this at all. Tyson during his short, explosive and fight filled peak of 86-88 was in my opinion as good as it got in terms of diversity and having a plan A and plan B.

It's an interesting discussion. Fun to debate. I agree that Tyson doesn't get enough credit for his boxing skills. He had a decent jab, not a great one. He had decent head movement. But as far as him being 'as good as it gets' when it comes to mixing it up, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. He was primarily a come forward fighter who looked for a big shot. When he was hurt or wanted to avoid getting hit, he wasn't able to do what the likes of Holmes and Ali could do...and that is fend his opponent off by dancing and using the jab. Know what I mean? Like Frazier, he was always come forward fighter who had to rely on a lot of head movement to try and avoid being hit. And it's exciting for the viewer...if a little one dimensional. Even when he was hurt, he stood toe to toe. If utilized properly, length is a great defensive advantage...It's interesting that neither Frazier or Tyson were able to go on into their mid-to late 30's in the same way that Ali, Holmes and Lewis did.

[Bricks]

I cant agree with this at all. Tyson during his short, explosive and fight filled peak of 86-88 was in my opinion as good as it got in terms of diversity and having a plan A and plan B.

It's an interesting discussion. Fun to debate. I agree that Tyson doesn't get enough credit for his boxing skills. He had a decent jab, not a great one. He had decent head movement. But as far as him being 'as good as it gets' when it comes to mixing it up, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. He was primarily a come forward fighter who looked for a big shot. When he was hurt or wanted to avoid getting hit, he wasn't able to do what the likes of Holmes and Ali could do...and that is fend his opponent off by dancing and using the jab. Know what I mean? Like Frazier, he was always come forward fighter who had to rely on a lot of head movement to try and avoid being hit. And it's exciting for the viewer...if a little one dimensional. Even when he was hurt, he stood toe to toe. If utilized properly, length is a great defensive advantage...It's interesting that neither Frazier or Tyson were able to go on into their mid-to late 30's in the same way that Ali, Holmes and Lewis did.

Tyson when hurt in his peak (such as against Smith in the 12th, Tucker in the first, Bruno in the first, had the incredible ability to shrug punches off and fight back with fury . He really had an indominatable will back than. Even against Ruddock , which was merely an ill trained, ill prepared Tyson rather than a burnt out one, he showed this extraordinary will to win. Look at him at the end of the 12th against Ruddock his demeanour is of a man willing to go another 12 immediately with what was in an era of punchers the second or third hardest hitting heavyweight in the world at that time and the divisions sleeper dangerman.

That was the difference in Tyson after he came back in 1995 he never had that same will to win or fight.

I concur i have phrased it incorrectly re his diversity "was about as good as it gets".

[Bricks]

Sometimes, a fighter lacks the competition to prove just how great they are, but I consider them great nonetheless. To what degree, we may argue to infinity.

Rocky Marciano. Ricardo Lopez. Mike Tyson.

Exactly.

[ThatOne]

Sometimes, a fighter lacks the competition to prove just how great they are, but I consider them great nonetheless. To what degree, we may argue to infinity.

Rocky Marciano. Ricardo Lopez. Mike Tyson.

Exactly.

Mike Tyson fought some ATGS or near ATGS. He just lost. He also lost in his prime to a NAATG.

[Goodnight, Irene]

All I can say, ThatOne, is that he had as unique a blend of talents as nigh-on any Heavy who lived, & anyone who denies it is, IMO, delusional.

With that said, how great he was is completely open to debate, as he had some glaring fragilities. I still believe, watching him, he could hold his own with, & best, several of the best in division history. At the same time, I can understand those who would disagree with that notion. For mine, though, I respect his abilities as something truly special.

[ThatOne]

He was a truly special fighter. I can remember marveling at how he cleaned out the heavyweight division. Because of his speed, style, and power he was so many people's favorite fantasy fighter. However, his resume is not impressive.

[Bricks]

He was a truly special fighter. I can remember marveling at how he cleaned out the heavyweight division. Because of his speed, style, and power he was so many people's favorite fantasy fighter. However, his resume is not impressive.

I tend to agree as time passes it does look a little less impressive.

Even back in late 90 and 91, as I watched ray mercer rising rapidly, and saw Lewis progress pretty quickly (by todays standards) I knew this newer batch of guys Lewis,Mercer, Bowe, and of course the big names of Holyfield and Foreman would be the real test for Tyson.
Of course we never did see that Tyson meet them. The post prison one was a shell of a man

[The Great John L]

Staying with just the guys who were at one time rated during their careers, Tyson beat, in order:

Ferguson
Tillis
Frazier
Berbick
Bonecrusher
Thomas
Tucker
Biggs
Holmes
Tubbs
Spinks
Bruno
Williams
Ruddock

Of course, most on here are going to be critical of these opponents, but while there is only one ATG on the list, and he was hardly anywhere near his best, this is actually a pretty formidable list. Most of these guys were either title holders, or were world ranked for many years. And the most interesting thing about this list is the great variety of styles he beat during his career.

Tall, fast boxers in Biggs and Williams, a good pressure fighter in Berbick, a slick boxer in Tubbs, big punchers in Smith, Ruddock and Bruno, and the stiff jab of Thomas.

From his accomplishments during his first few years, it’s hard to pinpoint a single style that he didn’t have success against, although he didn’t fight anyone with an iron chin like a McCall or Chuvalo. In fact, there are very few HWs in the past 50 years that beat as many ranked HWs with such diverse styles. If you understand boxing you have to appreciate how impressive it is to be very successful with so many different styles.

What this establishes is a valid basis of reference for when someone says that Tyson could win in a hypothetical matchup, because there are at least decent examples of him beating world class opponents with just about any style.

Of course, I still have him ranked just outside my top 10 HWs. He just didn’t quite hold up long enough.

[ThatOne]

He was a truly special fighter. I can remember marveling at how he cleaned out the heavyweight division. Because of his speed, style, and power he was so many people's favorite fantasy fighter. However, his resume is not impressive.

I tend to agree as time passes it does look a little less impressive.

Even back in late 90 and 91, as I watched ray mercer rising rapidly, and saw Lewis progress pretty quickly (by todays standards) I knew this newer batch of guys Lewis,Mercer, Bowe, and of course the big names of Holyfield and Foreman would be the real test for Tyson.
Of course we never did see that Tyson meet them. The post prison one was a shell of a man

However he lost to Buster Douglas at age twenty four.

[ThatOne]

Staying with just the guys who were at one time rated during their careers, Tyson beat, in order:

Ferguson
Tillis
Frazier
Berbick
Bonecrusher
Thomas
Tucker
Biggs
Holmes
Tubbs
Spinks
Bruno
Williams
Ruddock

Of course, most on here are going to be critical of these opponents, but while there is only one ATG on the list, and he was hardly anywhere near his best, this is actually a pretty formidable list. Most of these guys were either title holders, or were world ranked for many years. And the most interesting thing about this list is the great variety of styles he beat during his career.

Tall, fast boxers in Biggs and Williams, a good pressure fighter in Berbick, a slick boxer in Tubbs, big punchers in Smith, Ruddock and Bruno, and the stiff jab of Thomas.

From his accomplishments during his first few years, it’s hard to pinpoint a single style that he didn’t have success against, although he didn’t fight anyone with an iron chin like a McCall or Chuvalo. In fact, there are very few HWs in the past 50 years that beat as many ranked HWs with such diverse styles. If you understand boxing you have to appreciate how impressive it is to be very successful with so many different styles.

What this establishes is a valid basis of reference for when someone says that Tyson could win in a hypothetical matchup, because there are at least decent examples of him beating world class opponents with just about any style.

Of course, I still have him ranked just outside my top 10 HWs. He just didn’t quite hold up long enough.

Yeah, he's great in fantasy matchups; not so great in real ones.


And if you give me time I could probabbly come up with ten ?, fifteeen?, twenty? heavyweights who would have beat everybody on that list.

[Shazam!]

That was the difference in Tyson after he came back in 1995 he never had that same will to win or fight.

I concur i have phrased it incorrectly re his diversity "was about as good as it gets".

Oh definitely, he was a special fighter. One of my all time favourites. There's a famous quote, can't remember who said it. Doesn't matter...'It's one thing knowing what he's gonna do, but an entirely different thing stopping it.'

He DID lose to Douglas when he was 24 and in his physical prime but I've always wondered how many heavyweights would have beaten Buster that night. He was truly sensational.

[The Great John L]

Staying with just the guys who were at one time rated during their careers, Tyson beat, in order:

Ferguson
Tillis
Frazier
Berbick
Bonecrusher
Thomas
Tucker
Biggs
Holmes
Tubbs
Spinks
Bruno
Williams
Ruddock

Of course, most on here are going to be critical of these opponents, but while there is only one ATG on the list, and he was hardly anywhere near his best, this is actually a pretty formidable list. Most of these guys were either title holders, or were world ranked for many years. And the most interesting thing about this list is the great variety of styles he beat during his career.

Tall, fast boxers in Biggs and Williams, a good pressure fighter in Berbick, a slick boxer in Tubbs, big punchers in Smith, Ruddock and Bruno, and the stiff jab of Thomas.

From his accomplishments during his first few years, it’s hard to pinpoint a single style that he didn’t have success against, although he didn’t fight anyone with an iron chin like a McCall or Chuvalo. In fact, there are very few HWs in the past 50 years that beat as many ranked HWs with such diverse styles. If you understand boxing you have to appreciate how impressive it is to be very successful with so many different styles.

What this establishes is a valid basis of reference for when someone says that Tyson could win in a hypothetical matchup, because there are at least decent examples of him beating world class opponents with just about any style.

Of course, I still have him ranked just outside my top 10 HWs. He just didn’t quite hold up long enough.

Yeah, he's great in fantasy matchups; not so great in real ones.


And if you give me time I could probabbly come up with ten ?, fifteeen?, twenty? heavyweights who would have beat everybody on that list.

Yes, but that's just you saying they could beat them. He actually did beat them, most very easily, and all in a pretty compreseed time frame. I've always been very critical of Tyson on this forum, but I can also be objective and recognize that what he accomplished over a few short years was very impressive. Unfortunately, his faults showed up quickly as well, but that doesn't detract from what he accomplished.

And if you read what I posted, I didn't say these were ATGs, but try naming some other HWs of the past 50 years that beat the same number of actual world class (ranked top 10 for more than a year) with such a wide variety of styles. Very few HWs have wins over other HWs that are considered ATGs, and few fought and easily beat so many top ranked HWs with such diverse styles in such a short amount of time. For some reason most posters don't seem to get it when it comes to style matchups being the key to success in boxing.

[The Great John L]

That was the difference in Tyson after he came back in 1995 he never had that same will to win or fight.

I concur i have phrased it incorrectly re his diversity "was about as good as it gets".

Oh definitely, he was a special fighter. One of my all time favourites. There's a famous quote, can't remember who said it. Doesn't matter...'It's one thing knowing what he's gonna do, but an entirely different thing stopping it.'

He DID lose to Douglas when he was 24 and in his physical prime but I've always wondered how many heavyweights would have beaten Buster that night. He was truly sensational.

Yes he was. Tall, with a stiff jab and good movement Douglas was always a decent fighter who didn't want to prepare properly. Except for that one fight.