Your unpopular Boxing opinion.....

First topic message reminder :

This might go down as the worst idea ever with you lot but fortune favours the brave and all that....

One of the other sections has a thread where people post something they truly believe in but goes against popular opinion. In other words, let us know something outlandish which you believe to be true.

Dont make them up and remember the house rules before you go and tear people apart for their post - remember its their opinion and they are entitled to it.

So for example, you might think that Manny won the fight on Saturday comfortably or that Tyson v Bruno had the best opening round ever - let us hear about it and don't be ashamed! Share with your secrets with us all......

Remember - dont post things just to get a reaction. Only post things you actually believe in.

Off you go!

rowley wrote:I fancy his chances against a lot of heavies on that night Windy. Think it is one of the real tragedies of that fight that so much guff gets written about the long count and how Tyson did not prepare, with some validity on that count I should add, that it often gets overlooked or dismissed just how good Douglas was on that night, excellent jab, decent movement and conditioning and genuine focus and fearlessness, a handful for many a decent heavyweight for what my opinion is worth.

Not many good ones.

He beat a pretty good one hands down in Toyko Alex.

Cheers Jeff

I personally always think of Roberto Duran when lists are based on head to head match ups, he along with Robinson and Leonard holds one of the three most impressive victories at Welterweight. That certainly doesn't make him worthy of a top three spot because aside from that he has a win over the very good Palomino but very little else. Do we include by virtue of the fact he beat Leonard?

Respectfully disagree, Alex.

I reckon jeff has it bang on. Douglas was superb, that night. Everything clicked and he really looked the complete package. For me, he would have been a headache for all but the true elite ( and maybe some of those, for that matter, ) had he maintained that form throughout his career.

Not for me personally, think he was made to look good by a very poor Tyson that night who barely threw a punch, it's all well and good bringing your A game when your opponent is off the boil because you can look good during that.

Far too easy to say that Tyson was poor that night, gives next to no credit for what was a fantastic performance by Douglas.

Thing with who-beats-who lists is that they favour fighters with massive wins or a couple of stand-out performances.

Ibeabuchi looked the complete package for a HW - threw a ton of punches with good power. Decimated Byrd. Then went mental - we can't put him in our all time list for 2 fights.

Calzaghe never lost. Beat Hopkins, RJJ amongst others. Ergo he has to move up my all time SMW/LHW rankings?

Frazier at peak battered Ali to defeat. Closest the 2 ever fought to each others prime.

Ergo - Frazier has now moved up my list to my number 2/3 heavyweight = with Foreman and Ali has moved down.

Again agree Ghosty, for me the first round is instructive, Douglas goes straight at Tyson and lands well and heavily, think this made Tyson realise straight out of the gate he was up against something different in that fight and really threw him out of his stride. Don't think it was solely a case of Tyson not showing up, think Douglas took away any chance of him establishing himself and growing into the fight.

I aren't saying that it wasn't a great performance however I think it's more down to Tyson not training for the few fights prior and training for the fight itself, Tyson is usually dangerous at the very beginning moving in with huge hooks, didn't do any of that and was gassed after about 3, barely threw a punch, great performance but there's a reason for it.

And as Douglas' trainer said - if Tyson hadn't trained or been in shape - he wouldn't have stood up to the ass-whupping we gave him - ie he'd have been KOd earlier.


Which I think is a nice point.

oxring wrote:And as Douglas' trainer said - if Tyson hadn't trained or been in shape - he wouldn't have stood up to the ass-whupping we gave him - ie he'd have been KOd earlier.


Which I think is a nice point.

Which is true, hwoever would he have been able to dish it out, me thinks not.

How does the whole Frazier, Ali and Foreman thing work at heavyweight?

For instance at featherweight Saddler officially beat Pep 3 out of 4 but even in his losing efforts it was clear to see who the better boxer was and in todays climate do we take into account fouls that are less likely to be allowed to happen? With the exception of Flash Elorde, Pep beat virtually every other man who in turn had beaten Saddler.

oxring wrote:And as Douglas' trainer said - if Tyson hadn't trained or been in shape - he wouldn't have stood up to the ass-whupping we gave him - ie he'd have been KOd earlier.


Which I think is a nice point.

So he was prime and in shape against Lewis who took 8 rounds to get rid of him?

Alex

There's a bit of a myth with that one. As Douglas' trainer said if Tyson hadn't trained properly he wouldn't have been able to take the stuff Douglas dished out.

Douglas himself was possessed and not going to be denied, he refused to be intimidated by Tyson and basically broke him.

Douglas was always an enigma who was thought of to be a wasted talent and lacking focus. That fight simply proved that when he got himself targeted was a force to be reckoned with, that and Tyson could be beaten if you stood up to him and actually hit him rather than worrying about what big hook he was going to throw next.

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:And as Douglas' trainer said - if Tyson hadn't trained or been in shape - he wouldn't have stood up to the ass-whupping we gave him - ie he'd have been KOd earlier.


Which I think is a nice point.

So he was prime and in shape against Lewis who took 8 rounds to get rid of him?

He was twelve years older and had already shipped four losses.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:And as Douglas' trainer said - if Tyson hadn't trained or been in shape - he wouldn't have stood up to the ass-whupping we gave him - ie he'd have been KOd earlier.


Which I think is a nice point.

So he was prime and in shape against Lewis who took 8 rounds to get rid of him?

He was twelve years older and had already shipped four losses.

Precisely. Still took Lewis a while to get rid of him.

coxy0001 wrote:Alex

There's a bit of a myth with that one. As Douglas' trainer said if Tyson hadn't trained properly he wouldn't have been able to take the stuff Douglas dished out.

Douglas himself was possessed and not going to be denied, he refused to be intimidated by Tyson and basically broke him.

Douglas was always an enigma who was thought of to be a wasted talent and lacking focus. That fight simply proved that when he got himself targeted was a force to be reckoned with, that and Tyson could be beaten if you stood up to him and actually hit him rather than worrying about what big hook he was going to throw next.

Not for me, I think it's much more deceiving than it looks. You could say if Mayweather didn't train against Hatton properly and ended up being broken down and beaten everyone would be saying that he was "possessed" "Wouldn't allow himself to lose"

I'm very familiar with the whole charade that his mum died and that only made him more focused and what not but facts are Tyson didn't train properly and all the incidents leading up to it resulted in Tyson being knocked out. Not taking anything away from the performance of Buster Douglas (which was fantastic) but a primed and fit Tyson would have had him out of there in 6.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

oxring wrote:And as Douglas' trainer said - if Tyson hadn't trained or been in shape - he wouldn't have stood up to the ass-whupping we gave him - ie he'd have been KOd earlier.


Which I think is a nice point.

So he was prime and in shape against Lewis who took 8 rounds to get rid of him?

He was twelve years older and had already shipped four losses.

Precisely. Still took Lewis a while to get rid of him.

Well then, I'd say that Douglas made a pretty good job of it.

Tysons fault for not training so he gets absolutely no leeway for the loss at all, he was beaten by the better man plain and simple for me. Seems to be an excuse for every single loss a fighter has, there isn't one in this case, Douglas performed so well that he didn't allow Tyson to settle, if he was such a wrecking machine he'd have got the job done anyway but he was exposed to some extent that night. Was only after the fight that these excuses started going about, do you think it was an easy training camp for Douglas considering his mum had died, I think not.

Its one thing rating fighters above others based on head to heads that actually happened.

But azania is rating fighters ahead of Hopkins and Lewis for example based on purely hypothetical head to heads and all but ignoring actual acheivements. Hence he has Witherspoon above Lewis, McCallum above Hopkins at MW etc

If you leant any credence to tangible acheivement whatsoever then its virtually impossible to have Hopkins outside a top ten MW list or Lewis outside a top 20 heavyweight list. Especially ranking below fighters like Witherspoon, Ibeabuchi, McCallum or Hearns respectively.

So Scott - are you saying that it is easy to get a man out of there in his prime? Douglas put Tyson out of there in 10. If he'd been gassed or blown or hadn't trained it would have been reasonable to expect him to go sooner. Instead - Douglas beat the prime baddest man on the planet in 10 rounds.

Douglas' trainer is observing that had Tyson not trained - Douglas would have stopped him sooner.

Lewis punches him around for 8 rounds before finally stopping him. By which point he was old, tired and couldn't do as he once did. Had 4 losses against his resume.

What's your point?

1. Douglas' is the more impressive victory.
2. Douglas' trainer refuses to accept that Tyson didn't train - and I agree with him

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Tysons fault for not training so he gets absolutely no leeway for the loss at all, he was beaten by the better man plain and simple for me. Seems to be an excuse for every single loss a fighter has, there isn't one in this case, Douglas performed so well that he didn't allow Tyson to settle, if he was such a wrecking machine he'd have got the job done anyway but he was exposed to some extent that night. Was only after the fight that these excuses started going about, do you think it was an easy training camp for Douglas considering his mum had died, I think not.

Well apparently he didn't grieve or anything until after the fight he was just more focused so I think that it helped him in the weirdest way.

Yes there is excuses but sometimes they are legitimate, not saying that it isn't Tysons fault because it most certainly is! Timing was off, barely landed a thing looked slower lethargic everything was poor from Tyson that night, the only good punch he threw knocked Buster Douglas down!

My point is that Lewis took 8 rounds to get a shot Tyson out, so it doesn't stand up that Tyson had to be in his best shape to last 10 vs Douglas.

manos de piedra wrote:Its one thing rating fighters above others based on head to heads that actually happened.

But azania is rating fighters ahead of Hopkins and Lewis for example based on purely hypothetical head to heads and all but ignoring actual acheivements. Hence he has Witherspoon above Lewis, McCallum above Hopkins at MW etc

If you leant any credence to tangible acheivement whatsoever then its virtually impossible to have Hopkins outside a top ten MW list or Lewis outside a top 20 heavyweight list. Especially ranking below fighters like Witherspoon, Ibeabuchi, McCallum or Hearns respectively.

What I said, Az, you obviously know your stuff but your views are very out there!

All the things you mentioned were because of Douglas' performance and not training simply isn't a legitimate excuse.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:All the things you mentioned were because of Douglas' performance and not training simply isn't a legitimate excuse.

No one is talking about excuse, we are discussing whether Tyson was at his best. From watching I don't think he was, but Douglas obviously still deserves a lot of credit.

For me it is the reason he lost, as a fit Tyson would have beaten him, however we appear to have hit a crossroad where we just plain a simply disagree, to be honest...

Scottrf wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:All the things you mentioned were because of Douglas' performance and not training simply isn't a legitimate excuse.

No one is talking about excuse, we are discussing whether Tyson was at his best. From watching I don't think he was, but Douglas obviously still deserves a lot of credit.

Don't recall anybody saying Tyson was at his best. The issue concerned whether or not he was so ill prepared as to render Douglas' victory meaningless.

I saw enough that night to back Douglas to do a number on Tyson regardless of whether he was at his peak prime unbeatable self.

Its posibly not just a black or white issue. Tyson may not have been at his best, but its not like it was a rubbish version of him either so Douglas still deserves his dues for dealing with a Tyson that whilst possibly not at his best was still formidable (almost had Douglas out). Douglas put in the performance of his life which coincided with Tyson not being at his blistering best. The result was Douglas won an upset. But on balance it was probably the exception rather than the rule if they were to fight multiple times in their career.

manos de piedra wrote:Its posibly not just a black or white issue. Tyson may not have been at his best, but its not like it was a rubbish version of him either so Douglas still deserves his dues for dealing with a Tyson that whilst possibly not at his best was still formidable (almost had Douglas out). Douglas put in the performance of his life which coincided with Tyson not being at his blistering best. The result was Douglas won an upset. But on balance it was probably the exception rather than the rule if they were to fight multiple times in their career.

I'd agree with that, as always.

So would I.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I saw enough that night to back Douglas to do a number on Tyson regardless of whether he was at his peak prime unbeatable self.

So do you think that a 100% Tyson would have been beaten by Buster douglas?

manos de piedra wrote:Its posibly not just a black or white issue. Tyson may not have been at his best, but its not like it was a rubbish version of him either so Douglas still deserves his dues for dealing with a Tyson that whilst possibly not at his best was still formidable (almost had Douglas out). Douglas put in the performance of his life which coincided with Tyson not being at his blistering best. The result was Douglas won an upset. But on balance it was probably the exception rather than the rule if they were to fight multiple times in their career.

Yeah have to agree, seriously are you a lawyer or something?

AlexHuckerby wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Its posibly not just a black or white issue. Tyson may not have been at his best, but its not like it was a rubbish version of him either so Douglas still deserves his dues for dealing with a Tyson that whilst possibly not at his best was still formidable (almost had Douglas out). Douglas put in the performance of his life which coincided with Tyson not being at his blistering best. The result was Douglas won an upset. But on balance it was probably the exception rather than the rule if they were to fight multiple times in their career.

Yeah have to agree, seriously are you a lawyer or something?

Afraid not

AlexHuckerby wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I saw enough that night to back Douglas to do a number on Tyson regardless of whether he was at his peak prime unbeatable self.

So do you think that a 100% Tyson would have been beaten by Buster douglas?

Yes I would, such was Douglas' dominance that night I don't think Tyson at any point would cope with someone who started so fast and with no fear.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I saw enough that night to back Douglas to do a number on Tyson regardless of whether he was at his peak prime unbeatable self.

So do you think that a 100% Tyson would have been beaten by Buster douglas?

Maybe, yes. Douglas' style that night was always going to give Tyson serious problems.

my unpopular opinion is that if nasim hamed enjoyed been in the gym as much as he enjoyed been in fast cars and nightclubs he would have beaten barrera, morrales, pacquioa and anybody else of that time.

I think i can see another mythical Internet fighter in the making!
Tokyo Douglas
Joins
Montreal Duran
Toledo Dempsey

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

Sweet baby jesus am I really reading this.

Yes rozzers, I'm back with my huge wisdom and encyclopedic knowledge of boxing lol. Kwality stuff innit lol.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

I wont pick the Grebs, ketchel etc as even Tony Sibson would beat them.

Sweet baby jesus am I really reading this.

Yes rozzers, I'm back with my huge wisdom and encyclopedic knowledge of boxing lol. Kwality stuff innit lol.

To (mis)quote Airplane, I picked the wrong day to give up smoking.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Far too easy to say that Tyson was poor that night, gives next to no credit for what was a fantastic performance by Douglas.

Tyson was poor that night. No combination punching whatsoever. He relied solely on his power and hoping a one punch KO would suffice. Take nothing away from Buster, he fought a hell of a fight. But anyone with half a brain and with a basic knowledge of boxing should be aware that it wasn't the Tyson of 12 months prior. Robin Givens had knocked him out harder than anything any boxer did afterwards.

Tyson was a stationary target. His corner was a total joke. He is allergic to petroleum jelly and that's what the yused. A sham. Poor prep also. But as you say, its his fault. But it wasn't the tyson who tore through the division.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Far too easy to say that Tyson was poor that night, gives next to no credit for what was a fantastic performance by Douglas.

Tyson was poor that night. No combination punching whatsoever. He relied solely on his power and hoping a one punch KO would suffice. Take nothing away from Buster, he fought a hell of a fight. But anyone with half a brain and with a basic knowledge of boxing should be aware that it wasn't the Tyson of 12 months prior. Robin Givens had knocked him out harder than anything any boxer did afterwards.

Tyson was a stationary target. His corner was a total joke. He is allergic to petroleum jelly and that's what the yused. A sham. Poor prep also. But as you say, its his fault. But it wasn't the tyson who tore through the division.

Can't believe I'm gonna say it Az, but agreed/

oxring wrote:And as Douglas' trainer said - if Tyson hadn't trained or been in shape - he wouldn't have stood up to the ass-whupping we gave him - ie he'd have been KOd earlier.


Which I think is a nice point.

He would say that wouldn't he? It shows that Tyson wasn't this weak minded character many here portray him to be(at least in boxing that is). He took a shellacking for 10 rounds and the punches that floored him would have KTFO of all HWs in history (except for Rocky of course).

Alex.

In time my young padowan, you will agree with me more often!

2 down, 998 to go.

azania wrote: He took a shellacking for 10 rounds and the punches that floored him would have KTFO of all HWs in history (except for Rocky of course).

Nice to see you finally showing Marciano some respect Az

azania wrote:Alex.

In time my young padowan, you will agree with me more often!

2 down, 998 to go.

Most certainly not a believer yet.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote: He took a shellacking for 10 rounds and the punches that floored him would have KTFO of all HWs in history (except for Rocky of course).

Nice to see you finally showing Marciano some respect Az

Of ocurse Rosserz

I always give Rocking the credit he deserves.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

azania wrote:Alex.

In time my young padowan, you will agree with me more often!

2 down, 998 to go.

Most certainly not a believer yet.

In time Alex.

azania wrote:Alex.

In time my young padowan, you will agree with me more often!

2 down, 998 to go.

Sorry Az - you've lost me today. Buster gave Tyson one hell of a mauling - and stylistically would have given anyone a challenge.

Anyway - I'm more concerned because you picked Tony Sibson to beat Greb and Ketchel.

So you're back on 1.