Mike Tyson: Who Has He Beat?

[ThatOne]

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 JohnL

At least twenty.

[The Great John L]

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 JohnL

At least twenty.

That wasn't my quote. Perhaps posting is as difficult for you as understanding boxing basics...

[ThatOne]

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 JohnL

At least twenty.

That wasn't my quote. Perhaps posting is as difficult for you as understanding boxing basics...

That's a non sequitur. That makes about as much sense as suggesting because a person can't speak Tagalog he's incapable of understanding quantum physics.

I quoted the wrong person. Perhaps I should be tasered. sent to Gitmo, or something. Shazam made the quote. I'm sorry if I don't buy the notion that no boxer would have beaten Buster Douglas on the evening on February 11, 1990. It's absurd. I will name twenty if asked.

What boxing basics? Despite all the histrionics of his fans, and I am not including you, his record against all time greats is a pedestrian 2-3 with those two wins coming over a faded ex champion and a blown up light heavyweight.

I can see Tyson as a favorite over about just any boxer that ever lived. However I can also see him losing. That 's a paradox to me and I am sure to others. That's what makes his career so interesting.

[Goodnight, Irene]

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.

With that, I agree. Either was Lopez's, & he just may be the most special fighter of my lifetime.

[Shazam!]

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 JohnL

At least twenty.

While I'm sure plenty would have stood a chance, I certainly don't claim to be well-versed enough to make a statement like that. Care to elaborate by naming them? Who do you know who would have definitely (I use the word definitely because your answer was so matter-of-fact!) beaten him that night and how they would have done it?

[Shazam!]

At least twenty.

That wasn't my quote. Perhaps posting is as difficult for you as understanding boxing basics...

I quoted the wrong person. Perhaps I should be tasered. sent to Gitmo, or something. Shazam made the quote. I'm sorry if I don't buy the notion that no boxer would have beaten Buster Douglas on the evening on February 11, 1990. It's absurd. I will name twenty if asked.

There ya go. It's all fun

[ThatOne]

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 JohnL

At least twenty.

While I'm sure plenty would have stood a chance, I certainly don't claim to be well-versed enough to make a statement like that. Care to elaborate by naming them? Who do you know who would have definitely (I use the word definitely because your answer was so matter-of-fact!) beaten him that night and how they would have done it?

Here's why I some so vehement in my reaction to the notion that nobody could have beat Douglas that night. Buster was a a decent fighter but I doubt he's any on any sentient person's all time great list. However to preserve the legend of Tyson his fans have to build up Douglas into some great fighter which he never was or excuse Tyson because he wasn't properly prepared; Kevin Rooney was gone , Cus was dead (though Cus died before he became champ) etcetera.

Twenty fighters who could have beat Douglas on his best night:




Joe Louis
Muhammad Ali
Jack Johnson
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Jack Dempsey
Sonny Liston
Jim Jeffries
Lennox Lewis
Rocky Marciano
Joe Frazier
Riddick Bowe
Evander Holyfield
Sam Langford
Gene Tunney
James J. Corbett
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Max Schmeling
Floyd Patterson



The paradox returns. I am confident a lot of those fighters could never have beaten Tyson on their best nights.

[The Great John L]

I quoted the wrong person. Perhaps I should be tasered. sent to Gitmo, or something.

My apologies for the harshness of my post.

I'm sorry if I don't buy the notion that no boxer would have beaten Buster Douglas on the evening on February 11, 1990. It's absurd. I will name twenty if asked.

No one said he couldn't be ebaten that night. Where did that come from?

And I'm sorry, but you naming twenty fighters that you think could have beaten him that night doesn't mean they would have beaten them. Just make sure if you post somebody in your list that the fighter named actually beat a tall boxer with a good jab and foot movement in their career or it will look pretty silly.

What boxing basics? Despite all the histrionics of his fans, and I am not including you, his record against all time greats is a pedestrian 2-3 with those two wins coming over a faded ex champion and a blown up light heavyweight.

I was talking baout how he had such great success with a wide variety of styles during those few years. Most fighters exhibit shortcomings with certain styles, but Tyson during that timeframe fought and easily a long list of ranked and accomplished fighters of just about any style you can name. Few others in the HW division ever did that.

I made no comment regarding his record against ATGs, because that would encompass having to discuss when a guys "peak" was, and I really want to avoid that.

I can see Tyson as a favorite over about just any boxer that ever lived. However I can also see him losing. That 's a paradox to me and I am sure to others. That's what makes his career so interesting.

Are you saying that there are other HWs that you can't picture losing to other ATGs? As I've always said, there is Ali, Louis, and then everybody else. And even they were beatable.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"...Just make sure if you post somebody in your list that the fighter named actually beat a tall boxer with a good jab and foot movement in their career or it will look pretty silly..." - John L.

Interesting that this doesn't apply to Holmes against Foreman, the former of which never beat anyone like the latter. Doesn't stop you from giving Holmes a pass on the match, though.

[The Great John L]

The paradox returns. I am confident a lot of those fighters could never have beaten Tyson on their best nights.

What paradox? Styles make fights, which is my whole point of why Tyson's short and brutal reign was impressive. Frazier beat Ali, Foreman crushed Frazier, and then Ali beat Foreman. It's all a matter of styles.

And out of curiosity, which tall fighter with good foot movement and a good jab did Foreman ever beat that leads you to believe he would have beaten the Douglas that stopped Tyson?

[The Great John L]

"...Just make sure if you post somebody in your list that the fighter named actually beat a tall boxer with a good jab and foot movement in their career or it will look pretty silly..." - John L.

Interesting that this doesn't apply to Holmes against Foreman, the former of which never beat anyone like the latter. Doesn't stop you from giving Holmes a pass on the match, though.

Holmes beat a 6-4 235 lb walk forward bomber in Bonecrusher Smith. I'm not saying he was as good as George, but he was a world class fighter (by definition in the top for multiple years) fought a similar style, although his jab wasn't as nearly good, but he had better hand speed and threw starighter punches than George.

George has NO tall jabbers and movers on his list of vctims. They few he couldn't avoid exposed his flaws perfectly.

[Goodnight, Irene]

The paradox returns. I am confident a lot of those fighters could never have beaten Tyson on their best nights.

What paradox? Styles make fights, which is my whole point of why Tyson's short and brutal reign was impressive. Frazier beat Ali, Foreman crushed Frazier, and then Ali beat Foreman. It's all a matter of styles.

And out of curiosity, which tall fighter with good foot movement and a good jab did Foreman ever beat that leads you to believe he would have beaten the Douglas that stopped Tyson?

Except that Ali didn't use his traditional style to beat Foreman. I'm amazed at how often this is overlooked. The guy employs one of the most famous & spoken-of fightplans in history, which so clearly opposes his traditional style, yet people repeatedly mention the round-robin you did & cite it as styles make fights...unreal.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"...Just make sure if you post somebody in your list that the fighter named actually beat a tall boxer with a good jab and foot movement in their career or it will look pretty silly..." - John L.

Interesting that this doesn't apply to Holmes against Foreman, the former of which never beat anyone like the latter. Doesn't stop you from giving Holmes a pass on the match, though.

Holmes beat a 6-4 235 lb walk forward bomber in Bonecrusher Smith. I'm not saying he was as good as George, but he was a world class fighter (by definition in the top for multiple years) fought a similar style, although his jab wasn't as nearly good, but he had better hand speed and threw starighter punches than George.

George has NO tall jabbers and movers on his list of vctims. They few he couldn't avoid exposed his flaws perfectly.

If Holmes beat Smith, Foreman beat Peralta...if you're catching my drift. At least you had the decency not to reach for the deplorable & over-rated Shavers, though Smith is reaching no less, in truth.

[ThatOne]

To TheGreat JohnL

I have seen posters on this board say "nobody could have beat Douglas that night." They usually attribute it to his singularness of purpose because his mom died and then his boxing skill.

Out of the twenty boxers I cited how many would you make Douglas a favor over.

I am a firm believer in the axiom that "styles make fights" but with Tyson it's a bit different. The reason I can as easily see Tyson winning as losing any fantasy matchup is because of the intangibles. Never has a boxer, perhaps outside Oliver McCall, reacted so poorly to adversity.

So I have no way of anticipating how he will react when things go wrong.

[Goodnight, Irene]

"...Never has a boxer, perhaps outside Oliver McCall, reacted so poorly to adversity." - ThatOne

A-hem. Let's not rob a great man of his due...



D

[Shazam!]

Twenty fighters who could have beat Douglas on his best night:

Joe Louis
Muhammad Ali
Jack Johnson
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Jack Dempsey
Sonny Liston
Jim Jeffries
Lennox Lewis
Rocky Marciano
Joe Frazier
Riddick Bowe
Evander Holyfield
Sam Langford
Gene Tunney
James J. Corbett
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Max Schmeling
Floyd Patterson
.

Take a look at the words in bold. I never doubted that there would be fighters, on certain nights, who COULD have beaten Douglas on that night. I only asserted that Douglas was outstanding in Japan and implied that anyone would have had a hard time beating him.

I asked how you think those guys would have beaten him because this part I just find interesting, have no fixed opinion on and enjoy speculating on. I believe it's a valid debate because of how determined Douglas was that night. He was not the same fighter he had been previously...and nor was he after. But on that night he threw so many punches and kept going through so many of Tyson's best shots and I believe he felt possessed in some way....to the point where he was able to excel far beyond what he was typically capable of. By the way, do you agree with that opinion? I thought it was common knowledge.

As far as Tyson goes, you say he didn't react well to adversity. I agree with you there. But it comes back to my previous point about him having no plan B. He fought with heart that night against Douglas. He took a lot of shots and put Douglas down late. It was an incredible fight with both guys going hell for leather. In my opinion, the reason Douglas won the fight was more down to seemingly insurmountable determination than anything else.

I'm not The Great John L by the way.

[ThatOne]

The paradox returns. I am confident a lot of those fighters could never have beaten Tyson on their best nights.

What paradox? Styles make fights, which is my whole point of why Tyson's short and brutal reign was impressive. Frazier beat Ali, Foreman crushed Frazier, and then Ali beat Foreman. It's all a matter of styles.

And out of curiosity, which tall fighter with good foot movement and a good jab did Foreman ever beat that leads you to believe he would have beaten the Douglas that stopped Tyson?

Except that Ali didn't use his traditional style to beat Foreman. I'm amazed at how often this is overlooked. The guy employs one of the most famous & spoken-of fightplans in history, which so clearly opposes his traditional style, yet people repeatedly mention the round-robin you did & cite it as styles make fights...unreal.

Ali did say that George was very effective in cutting off the ring and if he danced he would have had to take three steps to George's one and he would have eventually tired.

I just can't see James Douglas beating George Foreman.

[The Great John L]

"...Just make sure if you post somebody in your list that the fighter named actually beat a tall boxer with a good jab and foot movement in their career or it will look pretty silly..." - John L.

Interesting that this doesn't apply to Holmes against Foreman, the former of which never beat anyone like the latter. Doesn't stop you from giving Holmes a pass on the match, though.

Holmes beat a 6-4 235 lb walk forward bomber in Bonecrusher Smith. I'm not saying he was as good as George, but he was a world class fighter (by definition in the top for multiple years) fought a similar style, although his jab wasn't as nearly good, but he had better hand speed and threw starighter punches than George.

George has NO tall jabbers and movers on his list of vctims. They few he couldn't avoid exposed his flaws perfectly.

If Holmes beat Smith, Foreman beat Peralta...if you're catching my drift. At least you had the decency not to reach for the deplorable & over-rated Shavers, though Smith is reaching no less, in truth.

Peralta was barely 6' tall and was more akward than a jabber and mover. He also was not a top 10 HW except for a brief appearance after the Bonavena draw, so doesn't really qualify as world class. Even if I ignore the world class part, he's certainly not a tall. Don't you agree?

And of course I wouldn't mention Shavers because he was too short to be a good example, and didn't fight anything like George. He threw much straighter and quicker punches than either Smith or Foremanm, and was a better combination puncher. However, it's his lack of height precludes him more than anything else.

I wouldn't expect you to appreciate Smith, but he did win a title over a very good HW, held wins over a number of other ranked HWs of the period and was ranked off and on for a number of years as he played round robin with the other top HWs of the period. None of which George was willing to fight.

[Shazam!]

I can see Tyson as a favorite over about just any boxer that ever lived. However I can also see him losing. That 's a paradox to me and I am sure to others. That's what makes his career so interesting.

Sad but true! D Never underestimate the hype machine! D Tyson would have probably been favourite in most people's books, against any fighter in history. But most people are idiots.

[ThatOne]

I asked how you think those guys would have beaten him because this part I just find interesting, have no fixed opinion on and enjoy speculating on. I believe it's a valid debate because of how determined Douglas was that night. He was not the same fighter he had been previously...and nor was he after. But on that night he threw so many punches and kept going through so many of Tyson's best shots and I believe he felt possessed in some way....to the point where he was able to excel far beyond what he was typically capable of. By the way, do you agree with that opinion? I thought it was common knowledge.

-shazzam!

I hope The Great JohnL is reading this because now another gentleman subscribes to the notion that "nobody or almost nobody" could have beat Tyson that night and it is so right and correct as to be "common knowledge.

It was a great performance what Buster did was to expose the flaws in Tyson that already existed; his inability to cope with adversity. Repectfully I thought that was common knowledge.

[The Great John L]

Except that Ali didn't use his traditional style to beat Foreman. I'm amazed at how often this is overlooked. The guy employs one of the most famous & spoken-of fightplans in history, which so clearly opposes his traditional style, yet people repeatedly mention the round-robin you did & cite it as styles make fights...unreal.

Ali could fight different styles, that's one of the reasons he was so great. He still used the jab, counter punching and was able to avoid most of George's ponderous swings. At least those he tried to avoid.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Holmes beat a 6-4 235 lb walk forward bomber in Bonecrusher Smith. I'm not saying he was as good as George, but he was a world class fighter (by definition in the top for multiple years) fought a similar style, although his jab wasn't as nearly good, but he had better hand speed and threw starighter punches than George.

George has NO tall jabbers and movers on his list of vctims. They few he couldn't avoid exposed his flaws perfectly.

If Holmes beat Smith, Foreman beat Peralta...if you're catching my drift. At least you had the decency not to reach for the deplorable & over-rated Shavers, though Smith is reaching no less, in truth.

Peralta was barely 6' tall and was more akward than a jabber and mover. He also was not a top 10 HW except for a brief appearance after the Bonavena draw, so doesn't really qualify as world class. Even if I ignore the world class part, he's certainly not a tall. Don't you agree?

And of course I wouldn't mention Shavers because he was too short to be a good example, and didn't fight anything like George. He threw much straighter and quicker punches than either Smith or Foremanm, and was a better combination puncher. However, it's his lack of height precludes him more than anything else.

I wouldn't expect you to appreciate Smith, but he did win a title over a very good HW, held wins over a number of other ranked HWs of the period and was ranked off and on for a number of years as he played round robin with the other top HWs of the period. None of which George was willing to fight.

Peralta wasn't tall, but Smith wasn't jack-sh!t. How's that factor into the equation?

[Shazam!]

I hope The Great JohnL is reading this because now another gentleman subscribes to the notion that "nobody or almost nobody" could have beat Tyson that night and it is so right and correct as to be "common knowledge.

It was a great performance what Buster did was to expose the flaws in Tyson that already existed; his inability to cope with adversity. Repectfully I thought that was common knowledge.

Wait a minute, that's not at all what I said. I said it was common knowledge that Douglas fought above and beyond was he was typically capable of. Come on mate. You seem to be a good enough debater and know a fair amount about the sport, without the need to put words in my mouth.

Thanks.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Except that Ali didn't use his traditional style to beat Foreman. I'm amazed at how often this is overlooked. The guy employs one of the most famous & spoken-of fightplans in history, which so clearly opposes his traditional style, yet people repeatedly mention the round-robin you did & cite it as styles make fights...unreal.

Ali could fight different styles, that's one of the reasons he was so great. He still used the jab, counter punching and was able to avoid most of George's ponderous swings. At least those he tried to avoid.

Nevertheless, I think my point stands. That was not a good instance of styles make fights.

[ThatOne]

Except that Ali didn't use his traditional style to beat Foreman. I'm amazed at how often this is overlooked. The guy employs one of the most famous & spoken-of fightplans in history, which so clearly opposes his traditional style, yet people repeatedly mention the round-robin you did & cite it as styles make fights...unreal.

Ali could fight different styles, that's one of the reasons he was so great. He still used the jab, counter punching and was able to avoid most of George's ponderous swings. At least those he tried to avoid.

That is true also. It's really a tale of two fights. Ali did look good in the center of the ring and he also fought good off the ropes.

However, I think if he would have fought Foreman the way he fought Norton and Frazier in the previous two fights he might have tired before George.