Other than Tyson the only recognizable names that Douglas beat were Oliver Mcall, Trevor Berbick and Tex Cobb.
Those were the only names that i've heard before and they weren't even good fighters.
He was not even close to the top of the list of Tyson victims.
Did you even read my post? A MOTIVATED Buster Douglas beats all of those Tyson opponents. Buster Douglas quit in a fight with Tony Tucker that was even on points and fought down to the level of his competition many nights. I get that. But for one night, he was great. And I would like to know how Tony Tucker, Larry Holmes, and Michael Spinks would have beaten the Douglas in Tokyo. Especially the Holmes who had come off a 2-yr layoff to fight Tyson. Not to mention Tony Tubbs, Trevor Berbick, Carl Williams, Frank Bruno, etc since you say Douglas was the WORST challenger Tyson faced.
Please explain this in your next post. I hate to nitpick, but when you make comments like the greatest and the worst you need to back them up. Or just be more careful not to include those words.
IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM DID I SAY THAT DOUGLAS WAS TYSON'S WORST CHALLENGER.
Douglas did fight the best fight of his life that night and Tyson (at the time) fought the worst fight of his life.
wlvrne wrote:
A prime Tyson had true skills that readers forget about while focusing on his Douglas defeat, his Holyfield disgraces. Please note that in any of those fights, Tyson did not work the body like he used to.
Why not?
p.s. yes Douglas beat him. Tyson did not train seriously for that fight.
Why not?
...all I see...are more Tyson fan excuses...If Mike would've done this, if Mike would've done that...b-o-r-i-n-g...Mike didn't do those things...but you insist he'd fight a gem of a fight against Holmes?
Why? How do you know he'd train seriously...How do you know he wouldn't forget to go to the body?
...that's the whole point here...Holmes would be ready...and Mike would be Mike...
You missed the whole point, like I figured you would and get all emotional. A PRIME Tyson would beat a PRIME Holmes. not the tyson who lost to Douglas. the tyson before that. end of point to you SS. you need not let your emotions get in the was of logic.
Prime Tyson gets outboxed from the mid rounds onwards. By the end of it he's a quivering mess from the boxing clinic that Holmes would undoubtedly administer
wlvrne wrote:
You missed the whole point, like I figured you would and get all emotional. A PRIME Tyson would beat a PRIME Holmes. not the tyson who lost to Douglas. the tyson before that. end of point to you SS. you need not let your emotions get in the was of logic.
I missed the 'emotional part' you refer to...unless it's the 'emotional' 40 posts you kept making about VhsWes like a cry baby...not to mention the PM's...
what does your last comment have to do with the subject matter? and if you read your posts about this, yes, you are getting emtional. You are letting your infatuation with Holmes cloud your judgement as you keep bringing up Tyson's loss to Douglas, even I did say to disregard that.
Stick to the facts.
and speaking of facts; Holmes lost to Michael Spinks ( who was a small hvy wt ) 2 times in '85 & '86. Two years later in '88, Spniks got destroyed by Mike Tyson.
Had that same Mike Tyson fought Holmes in his prime he still would have beaten him. That's the Tyson I'm talking about.
And out of all Holme's fights, how many were fighters of note? Shavers, Evangelista, Weaver, Ali ( shot by then), Berbick.
Out of 79 fights Holmes beat only 5 fighters of any note. Only to lose to a much smaller Michael Spinks. If that Spinks could beat Holmes, who supposedly was still going strong, then the Tyson that beat Spinks would have beaten Holmes.
...all I see...are more Tyson fan excuses...If Mike would've done this, if Mike would've done that...b-o-r-i-n-g...Mike didn't do those things...but you insist he'd fight a gem of a fight against Holmes?
Why? How do you know he'd train seriously...How do you know he wouldn't forget to go to the body?
...that's the whole point here...Holmes would be ready...and Mike would be Mike...
from 85 - 89 Tyson did all those things he needed and won.
And yes ofcourse we cant know these things .. but this thread IS all about speculation. And goin for the body .... it's a game plan .. you don't forget that. In Hollyfield fight he did not have the skill to go to the body .. thats how bad he was back then.
cultus wrote:And goin for the body .... it's a game plan .. you don't forget that. In Hollyfield fight he did not have the skill to go to the body .. thats how bad he was back then.
...And don't you forget that Holyfield beat Tyson twice...34 year old Holyfield against a 30 year old 'ear biter'...you don't have to speculate about that...
wlvrne wrote:what does your last comment have to do with the subject matter?
Obvious to a blind man, it has to do with your reference to 'emotional'...
...which you certainly were with post after post, crying about a moderator deleting your posts...boo hoo... ...I simply stated facts about Mike Tyson...no emotion, no bull shit...
cultus wrote:And goin for the body .... it's a game plan .. you don't forget that. In Hollyfield fight he did not have the skill to go to the body .. thats how bad he was back then.
...And don't you forget that Holyfield beat Tyson twice...34 year old Holyfield against a 30 year old 'ear biter'...you don't have to speculate about that...
I see no logic in here... 34 and 30.. there is little difference.. and yes :) damn you hate Tyson .
cultus wrote:
I see no logic in here... 34 and 30.. there is little difference.. and yes :) damn you hate Tyson .
You rarely seem to see logic, so I'll explain it to you...seeing as how you don't remember...
Holyfield was supposed to be on the downhill slide...Holyfield was the underdog...Tyson was seen as the guy who was going to win easily...Tyson was still considered to be a 'force' in the heavyweight division...Tyson was the favorite...but once the fight started...it wasn't long until the great Mike Tyson found out Holyfield wasn't the least bit intimidated...and we all know what happens when Tyson's opponent wasn't intimidated...Mike gets KO'd...or bites ears and gets disqualified... ...
Now what other great heavyweight in history loses every big fight he had after age 24 and still has fanatical fans saying how great he was?...
yeah and tyson was never the same fighter after the douglas fight nomatter what anyone says, the holyfield victory over tyson wasnt that big of an upset at all, tyson wasnt focused, and he didnt care, he never cared he was just unbeleivable, but now he wasnt nearly as good and was ageing.
Holmes did indeed lose to Spinks but I don't see why people would think Holmes was still in his prime at that point. I think of Holmes peak as the mid to late 1970s.
cultus wrote:
I see no logic in here... 34 and 30.. there is little difference.. and yes :) damn you hate Tyson .
You rarely seem to see logic, so I'll explain it to you...seeing as how you don't remember...
Holyfield was supposed to be on the downhill slide...Holyfield was the underdog...Tyson was seen as the guy who was going to win easily...Tyson was still considered to be a 'force' in the heavyweight division...Tyson was the favorite...but once the fight started...it wasn't long until the great Mike Tyson found out Holyfield wasn't the least bit intimidated...and we all know what happens when Tyson's opponent wasn't intimidated...Mike gets KO'd...or bites ears and gets disqualified... ...
Now what other great heavyweight in history loses every big fight he had after age 24 and still has fanatical fans saying how great he was?...
Now, that's illogical...
Do you think that Mike who fought Evander was the same Mike who beat Spinks?
cultus wrote:
I see no logic in here... 34 and 30.. there is little difference.. and yes :) damn you hate Tyson .
You rarely seem to see logic, so I'll explain it to you...seeing as how you don't remember...
Holyfield was supposed to be on the downhill slide...Holyfield was the underdog...Tyson was seen as the guy who was going to win easily...Tyson was still considered to be a 'force' in the heavyweight division...Tyson was the favorite...but once the fight started...it wasn't long until the great Mike Tyson found out Holyfield wasn't the least bit intimidated...and we all know what happens when Tyson's opponent wasn't intimidated...Mike gets KO'd...or bites ears and gets disqualified... ...
Now what other great heavyweight in history loses every big fight he had after age 24 and still has fanatical fans saying how great he was?...
Now, that's illogical...
Do you think that Mike who fought Evander was the same Mike who beat Spinks?
Tyson was 30...he was slipping just a bit by then...but the Tyson that fought Spinks was the same Tyson who got KO'd by Douglas...Tyson was responsible for losing that fight...he had the same physical skills...but he didn't (or couldn't) use them...and the Tyson who fought Holyfield was younger, with less 'mileage' on him...Evander had 3 tough fights with Bowe by then, among others...Tyson had only lost once...If Tyson is the great fighter you say...he should have beaten Holyfield at least once...and he should have beaten Douglas...or at least come back from that loss in a big fight...he never did...he self destructed...great champions don't self destruct at 24...
Geez SS. I think the topic here is PRIME Tyson vs PRIME Holmes. I've made my points on the subject, yet you bring only stuff you've said before and no facts. Grow up.
wlvrne wrote:Geez SS. I think the topic here is PRIME Tyson vs PRIME Holmes. I've made my points on the subject, yet you bring only stuff you've said before and no facts. Grow up.
You wouldn't know a 'fact' if it hit you on the head...
wlvrne wrote:geez, this guy. seems he always has to have the last word on a topic. just because you label yourself a "scientist", doesn't mean you are one.
Tyson in his prime was quick of foot and hand. He had devestating power. He was very very hard to hit. He had great reflexes amd killer instinct to spare. He has the tools to beat anyone. BUT his heart and psychological strength had never been tested. Even in his prime these were still great gaping holes in his ability as a fighter. These intangibles don't change. He was always mentally weak.
The point is that becasue nobody had really stood up to him these were never tested. This gives the illusion of greatness and then everyone just seems to make excuses for him.
Tyson can steam roller any fighter if they let him but in match ups against the greats he is going to have eat some elatehr in return and there is not a single fight in Mike's career in which he took some sustained punishment and came back.
wlvrne wrote:geez, this guy. seems he always has to have the last word on a topic. just because you label yourself a "scientist", doesn't mean you are one.
Some things are pretty obvious...you don't need to be a scientist...
...and your PM's about blow jobs and tongueing assholes are higly inappropriate...why don't you post that stuff here so they can throw you the fornicate out...
.