PDA

View Full Version : Behind The Fights Tyson Vs Buster Douglas Documentary



Theo Netherland
08-20-2011, 11:43 AM
Buster Douglas talks about the biggest fight of his career many years after it happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r_iqXeelhg

Michael Frank
08-21-2011, 07:43 AM
Boy, Theo, this was great. Don't know how I missed seeing it when it first aired. Thanks for posting it.

Buster showed, here again, his class, how articulate he is, and his humility. Plus a good analysis of the bout. Dick Schaap was a class act as always. (RIP Dick).

Terrific stuff.

walshb
08-21-2011, 11:26 AM
And at the end of the vid there is another good one listed with Larry Merchant.

Theo Netherland
08-22-2011, 10:28 AM
Boy, Theo, this was great. Don't know how I missed seeing it when it first aired. Thanks for posting it.
Thanx! I love it to. I've seen it already three times!

walshb
08-25-2011, 06:21 AM
Pity Dick got the fight date wrong at the start of the show. He says it was February 2nd. It was the 11th.

Off The River
08-25-2011, 08:51 AM
Douglas was amazing in that fight. I always he was never givin credit for such an amazing performance.

PD99
08-26-2011, 12:30 AM
Douglas was amazing in that fight. I always he was never givin credit for such an amazing performance.

Couldn't agree more, OTR.

I have previously engaged in lengthy debates as to whether the complexion and result of that fight was more about what Buster brought to the table (even if for one night only) than it being about what Tyson uncharacteristically failed to deliver.

The uplift in Buster's performance might've seemed impossible IF Douglas didn't already possess the skill set that he put on display in Tokyo. Buster always had the skill set.

What Douglas always lacked was the proper focus, dedication and desire. To understand the importance of those intangibles is to understand how Douglas was able to raise his performance as he did. These are qualities that GREATS like peak Ali took into the ring with them each and every time out to stay ahead of the pack. Buster managed to bottle those qualities for just one night.

I can understand the suspicion that Douglas may've only looked as good as he did because Tyson was perhaps sub-par.

However, when you watch the fight you will see that Douglas isn't reacting off a sub-par Tyson. Mike rushes his man as usual BUT Douglas takes the play away from Mike from the very get-go. Tyson immediately found himself in unfamiliar territory against an unprecedented combination of attributes.

Unlike many that went before him, Douglas held absolutely no fear of Tyson. For better or worse, Douglas came to win, not just survive. Douglas used both his height and reach advantage to perfection. If anyone was going to have a chance against Tyson, a decent jab and right hand to go was always going to be a good start. Douglas not only possessed the tools to more than satisfy the criteria but he actually used them without any fear or favour.

Was Tyson not exactly himself? Well, perhaps after the first 2-3 rds Tyson not being himself would be more than understandable. He was getting it stuck to him and stuck to him good. Douglas wasn't just beating Tyson. He dismantled Iron Mike, piece by piece and the coup de grace uppercut was the perfect punctuation mark to an ALL TIME great performance from start to finish, imo.

At worst, Douglas' victory might be viewed as singular case of stylistic advantage, not necessarily applied across the board with anywhere near the success. Even if that were true, I would still that version of Douglas over the best Tyson much more often than not.

Michael Frank
08-26-2011, 12:45 AM
Pity Dick got the fight date wrong at the start of the show. He says it was February 2nd. It was the 11th.
I thought it odd, after reading your comment, that Schaap would get it wrong. Though he cannot be blamed for a faulty memory; ESPN actually pays people to write the script for him. I recorded the fight live that night and I always wrote the dates on my tapes, but I am too lazy to check it now. Perhaps if I watched the HBO rebroadcast I'd find they may have mentioned it in the opening.

So, I Googled this: "Mike Tyson Buster Douglas February 1990" and came up with a variety of dates. Most are Feb. 11. But, there's a Feb. 2 and a Feb. 10. Knowing that I recorded this live on a Saturday night (Pacific Time), I looked up the calendar for Feb. 1990, and it shows the 2nd as a Friday and the 11th as a Sunday--neither being the required (by me) Saturday! But, then, in Japan, when would this be?

I went through this exercise because I don't just take Box-Rec at face value. For one thing, that video of Tyson and Douglas in the studio with Larry Merchant on HBO was the RE-BROADCAST of a week (or so) later. It's not unfathomable that someone noted this date and somehow it's trickled down into all sorts of records incorrectly.

HBO's site calls it Feb. 10, 1990!

I'm going with Feb. 11, as a Sports Illustrated article states that date in the article in its issue right after the fight (and because my man walshb said so) .

Theo Netherland
08-26-2011, 05:12 AM
I saw this fight ‘live’ on the sunday after on Belgium television and I can’t remember them broadcasting a boxing match before, or ever since. They probably could get this fight very cheap because no one was interested.

At instant I’d become a Buster Douglas fan. He was the one I was looking for, a true successor of Ali and Holmes. I’d already know Douglas a little bid since I videotaped his fight with Mike Williams which was on the undercard of Tyson vs Spinks. Douglas may have there been a little bid too fat there but still showed a lot of skill. So what Tyson experienced against him didn’t come out of the blue, it was already there.

And maybe Douglas’ career gives the proof that a sport like boxing is above all a mental thing. With the right attitude he could beat one of the best KO-artists of all time and without it he easily got KOed by Holyfield who wasn’t a big puncher. We will never know what would have happened if Douglas kept the shape he had against Tyson. My feeling is that Holyfield or Riddick Bowe wouldn’t have become the heavyweight champions of the world. At least not before 1995.

And also Tyson deserves a compliment. He never complained about the outcome, didn’t come up with any excuses, and gave the all honour to Douglas. There aren’t too many fighters who show this kind of sportsmanship.

Theo Netherland
08-26-2011, 06:40 AM
It’s been a long time ago that I’ve seen the Douglas vs Williams fight and I just saw it again. And to my surprise, I wasn’t aware of this, I saw Douglas had Richie Giachetti as his trainer…

Douglas vs Williams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsC6lj2IFtg

Michael Frank
08-27-2011, 05:23 AM
And also Tyson deserves a compliment. He never complained about the outcome, didn’t come up with any excuses, and gave the all honour to Douglas. There aren’t too many fighters who show this kind of sportsmanship.
Are you kidding me? All Tyson did was try to void the fight's result, with Don King. Is that not enough for you??

This was the FIRST topic of the HBO rebroadcast interview by Larry Merchant with Tyson and Douglas. Merchant queried Tyson about his LACK of sportsmanship in trying to overturn the result.

Furthermore, Tyson didn't give all honor to Douglas. He said many times that Douglas was only holding the title "temporarily," that whoever has it later, Douglas, Holyfield, or whoever, that he, Tyson, would have it back soon.

Tyson TOTALLY complained about the outcome. What in hell "sportsmanship" are you referring to, that Tyson actually contained himself a bit during the HBO rebroadcast interview? I'd say MOST fighters show more sportsmanship than Tyson, Theo.

Theo Netherland
08-27-2011, 07:15 AM
Are you kidding me? All Tyson did was try to void the fight's result, with Don King. Is that not enough for you??
I thought it was merely, or mostly, Don King who did that. But oke, I agree that maybe I made Tyson’s respect for Douglas a bit too much. I also remember the press conference right after the fight where Tyson and Don King were counting the count.


This was the FIRST topic of the HBO rebroadcast interview by Larry Merchant with Tyson and Douglas. Merchant queried Tyson about his LACK of sportsmanship in trying to overturn the result.
I know. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIeHdxMbdq8


Furthermore, Tyson didn't give all honor to Douglas. He said many times that Douglas was only holding the title "temporarily," that whoever has it later, Douglas, Holyfield, or whoever, that he, Tyson, would have it back soon.
That’s expressing confidence that he’ll win the title back. That’s not dishonouring or bad sportsmanship toward Douglas.


Tyson TOTALLY complained about the outcome. What in hell "sportsmanship" are you referring to, that Tyson actually contained himself a bit during the HBO rebroadcast interview? I'd say MOST fighters show more sportsmanship than Tyson, Theo.
I don’t know. Maybe you are right. After his Lennox fight Tyson pissed me a bid off. Afterward he said that he didn’t believe he could win and that he only came for the payday. Well if you see the first round you see that can’t be true. He came to win but lost badly.

walshb
08-27-2011, 12:07 PM
I thought it odd, after reading your comment, that Schaap would get it wrong. Though he cannot be blamed for a faulty memory; ESPN actually pays people to write the script for him. I recorded the fight live that night and I always wrote the dates on my tapes, but I am too lazy to check it now. Perhaps if I watched the HBO rebroadcast I'd find they may have mentioned it in the opening.

So, I Googled this: "Mike Tyson Buster Douglas February 1990" and came up with a variety of dates. Most are Feb. 11. But, there's a Feb. 2 and a Feb. 10. Knowing that I recorded this live on a Saturday night (Pacific Time), I looked up the calendar for Feb. 1990, and it shows the 2nd as a Friday and the 11th as a Sunday--neither being the required (by me) Saturday! But, then, in Japan, when would this be?

I went through this exercise because I don't just take Box-Rec at face value. For one thing, that video of Tyson and Douglas in the studio with Larry Merchant on HBO was the RE-BROADCAST of a week (or so) later. It's not unfathomable that someone noted this date and somehow it's trickled down into all sorts of records incorrectly.

HBO's site calls it Feb. 10, 1990!

I'm going with Feb. 11, as a Sports Illustrated article states that date in the article in its issue right after the fight (and because my man walshb said so) .

Michael, freaky you mention the date and discuss it further, because when I heard Schapp say the date, I immediately thought it was wrong. I had two dates
in my mind; ecked and February 8th and 10th. So, I checked and got the 11th. But, I knew the 2nd sounded off.

As for Buster that night: Yes, he fought very well. I still think Mike looked a notch or two below best. He was not
the same prepared and focused fighter from those late 80s. It showed. He just always looked a step or two
slower, and no, not because of Buster. Sure, when it got to the mid rds it was al Buster, but from the first
bell Mike looked to be lacking sharpness and that deadly ferocity. Still a formidable fighter, but just not the best Tyson.

Michael Frank
08-28-2011, 02:52 AM
As for Buster that night: Yes, he fought very well. I still think Mike looked a notch or two below best. He was not
the same prepared and focused fighter from those late 80s. It showed. He just always looked a step or two
slower, and no, not because of Buster. Sure, when it got to the mid rds it was al Buster, but from the first
bell Mike looked to be lacking sharpness and that deadly ferocity. Still a formidable fighter, but just not the best Tyson.
The more I watch the fight (like a dozen times or more), the more I have to agree with this assessment, word for word. It used to bug me that Douglas was not given credit for a beautiful performance--because he fought the way Ali would have beaten Tyson, not a bit less than that. And I remember the HBO commentators stating how Tyson looked like a rock when he entered the ring, in just great physical shape, as usual for the then-undefeated Tyson.

And Buster DID defeat this never-beaten awesome heavyweight.

But, in looking at how Tyson fought from the opening bell, I'd agree he wasn't quite the usual Tyson. As you concluded, "Still a formidable fighter, but just not the best Tyson." I'd even say still TYSON, who was the best there was at the time-- but 90% of the usual Tyson.

And any great or undefeated fighter is giving up more than enough of an edge if not at his very best. Even having a headcold is enough to have a great fighter lose to a lesser one. Most great ones can even win with a cold, but a bad finger, a few extra pounds, whatever, is enough to lose.

Still, I'll never give Buster anything but the highest praise for his performance, rising to the occasion as much as any athlete in any sport ever has. And I'm sure he wasn't thinking Tyson looked soft in any way as the fight was progressing, just was aware of how absolutely perfectly his own body was responding.

Theo Netherland
08-28-2011, 05:10 AM
But, in looking at how Tyson fought from the opening bell, I'd agree he wasn't quite the usual Tyson. As you concluded, "Still a formidable fighter, but just not the best Tyson." I'd even say still TYSON, who was the best there was at the time--but 90% of the usual Tyson.
Many have said that Tyson wasn’t Tyson when he fought Douglas. Maybe that’s true. But you can come up with this excuse every time a superb champion doesn’t deliver what he is supposed to. What was wrong with Tyson when fought that ugly bout with Bonecrusher Smith? Was he a little bid out of shape? Or did we see some of Smiths strenght and skill that exposed a limitation of the real Tyson? And how about his Tony Tucker fight which went 12 rounds? Tucker broke his hand in the fourth round. Isn’t the real Tyson supposed to make short work of such an injured man? Tyrell Biggs fought a splendid first round against Tyson. If he kept on fighting that way the whole fight, like Ali probably could, would we have said Tyson wasn’t in his best shape?

What might be the case is that we have a tendency to make our heroic champions bigger than the are. If you say Joe Louis would have beaten that and that guy you make yourself poplar. But if you say that and that guy would’ve beaten Louis hell breaks lose. It’s blasphemy. You’ll get looks that kill. The legacy of Tyson is also protected this way. He can’t lose, and if he does, he does something wrong.

walshb
08-28-2011, 07:20 AM
The more I watch the fight (like a dozen times or more), the more I have to agree with this assessment, word for word. It used to bug me that Douglas was not given credit for a beautiful performance--because he fought the way Ali would have beaten Tyson, not a bit less than that. And I remember the HBO commentators stating how Tyson looked like a rock when he entered the ring, in just great physical shape, as usual for the then-undefeated Tyson.

And Buster DID defeat this never-beaten awesome heavyweight.

But, in looking at how Tyson fought from the opening bell, I'd agree he wasn't quite the usual Tyson. As you concluded, "Still a formidable fighter, but just not the best Tyson." I'd even say still TYSON, who was the best there was at the time-- but 90% of the usual Tyson.

And any great or undefeated fighter is giving up more than enough of an edge if not at his very best. Even having a headcold is enough to have a great fighter lose to a lesser one. Most great ones can even win with a cold, but a bad finger, a few extra pounds, whatever, is enough to lose.

Still, I'll never give Buster anything but the highest praise for his performance, rising to the occasion as much as any athlete in any sport ever has. And I'm sure he wasn't thinking Tyson looked soft in any way as the fight was progressing, just was aware of how absolutely perfectly his own body was responding.

MF, well written, and well said.

What always got me was those who were utterly dismissive of Douglas. Making him out
to be a nobody, a journeyman. The fact is that on that night the guy LOOKED and performed great. Who
cares what he looked like the night before, or the week before, the month before etc.
That night we saw a very good heavyweight deliver a very very very good performance.

Now, to say or to imlpy, as many have, that even a "sub par" Mike should have blown
away Buster Douglas, is just off the mark. We are talking about top class athletes here.
Sometimes all it takes is a 5-10 percent decline in a fighter, (coupled with his foe being on top
form), for that fighter to be dethroned. I think this happened in Tokyo.

Michael Frank
08-28-2011, 05:29 PM
Many have said that Tyson wasn’t Tyson when he fought Douglas. Maybe that’s true. But you can come up with this excuse every time a superb champion doesn’t deliver what he is supposed to. What was wrong with Tyson when fought that ugly bout with Bonecrusher Smith?
As usual, I couldn't disagree with you more, Theo.

Tyson simply walked out for round 1 quite a bit less aggressively than usual and not throwing combinations, also in contrast to his usual previous form. It's as if Douglas didn't even need to be there; this is all on Tyson, not something Douglas caused. Douglas's actions and their effect surely grew rather quickly from this point moving forward in the fight.

The Smith fight? I think Tyson came to kill, but Smith tied him up and ran for 15 rounds. It didn't expose a limitation of Tyson's, as most fighters can't beat someone who comes to wrestle and simply locks them up. Tyson knew how to blow away people who boxed, slugged, or warred. But not wrestlers. Smith came to avoid being KO'd and rarely can that kind of opponent be ko'd. That fight actually showed how dominent Smith thought Tyson was, such that he took an unusual, fear-based approach.

You concluded, "What might be the case is that we have a tendency to make our heroic champions bigger than the are. If you say Joe Louis would have beaten that and that guy you make yourself poplar. But if you say that and that guy would’ve beaten Louis hell breaks lose. It’s blasphemy. You’ll get looks that kill. The legacy of Tyson is also protected this way. He can’t lose, and if he does, he does something wrong."

Now, I see where you're coming from and that is often true (except for the part about our taking a viewpoint that makes us popular, I doubt anyone does that on CBZ). But none of the rest of it is true for me, either, and I will assume not for walshb. I NEVER thought Tyson a heroic or unbeatable champion, and I'd thought, back then in the late 1980s, of who might beat him . . . maybe Michael Spinks, maybe old Holmes, and certainly the top 5 all-time heavies when in their primes. And I am NOT one of those in the crowd you speak of who makes excuses for an undefeated guy's 1st loss, as if the opponent isn't due all the credit for the victory. But in this case, I have to admit, begrudgingly, that while Tyson's weight was right, his approach from the opening bell was a bit un-Tysonesqe.

In 1990, I had fully agreed with Angelo Dundee and Gil Clancy's unanimous assessment on HBO a week later that Douglas would beat Tyson again. But now, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd say it would be MUCH harder for Buster to be that good again and not much harder for Tyson to step up his game the 5% he needed. My view now: Tyson KO3 or KO4 Douglas in a rematch if held later in 1990. The Holyfield fight showed just how little Douglas could take a punch when his body was WAY off. (I am not one of those who would denigrate Buster and accuse him of laying down in that fight or not getting up when he could. No, he was KO'd so badly that that wave of his hand over his face, when down, seemed always, to me, to be the reaction of someone who was hallucinating.)

PD99
08-28-2011, 09:11 PM
When assessing Tyson-Douglas, I've always tried to be very even handed.

I would agree that a GREAT fighter may be well disadvantaged even if he is only 5-10% less than his best on any given night. Exactly how much that fighter is disadvantaged depends heavily on the style and overall strengths/weaknesses of that fighter.

An Ali, even at 90% of himself in a few areas, had so much to fall back on otherwise. Tyson's greatest strength and platform to victory was establishing his dominance from the outset, exponentially building on that advantage and making short work of his opponent shortly thereafter. Like a sprinter, he employed a burst of explosive power over the short distance to set the tone. As such, I can appreciate that there can be a major difference between a 100% Tyson vs a 95% Tyson (that conclusion in itself may bring into question exactly how GREAT Tyson actually was as COMPLETE fighter).

With all that, I have yet to read a concise description of exactly how Tyson performed so much below himself against Douglas. Usual aggressive start and head movement as far I can see and certainly nothing less than the start he employed against Tony Tucker to name one. The major difference I see was in the unprecedented approach of the opposition. Douglas employed terrific lateral movement without actually backing off. He initiated a perfect jab from the outset. If Mike got too close, Buster didn't simply hold and then hang on for dear life. He momentarily clinched, pushed off and returned to his offensive priority.

Before the first round was out and as per usual form, Mike still managed to bail Buster up against the ropes and landed some heavy shots. Buster's response was perfect. Flat footed, he fired back with equal venom and, among other shots, nailed Tyson with a right hand that was clearly felt and broke Tyson's momentum. When in singular attack mode, Tyson was often open to counter. So few, if any, of Mike's prior opposition took advantage of this fact. They were simply too busy trying to survive, not to win.

To say that Tyson wasn't exactly himself after the first 1-2 rds is problematic. He was getting thumped like never before and facing increasing and unprecedented adversity. An absolute reversal of the early rd dominance that Tyson himself was accustomed to enjoying.

Was Mike simply then not himself in those first few crucial rounds? I don't think Tyson was anything appreciably understated. He went after Buster in his usual form but Douglas' movement and prudent clinching broke Tyson's attempted offensives. Most importantly, Douglas was maintaining his own pointed and highly successful offensives all the while and that truly broke Tyson's rhythm from the outset.

Douglas quite simply removed the most crucial bullet from an acceptably enabled Tyson's gun and fired it right back at Mike.

PS - Theo made a good point re the less accented focus on the impaired performances of some of Tyson's previously vanquished opposition while a possibly less than 100% Tyson just HAS to be called in after Tyson himself tastes defeat.

If the impairments of some of Tyson's prior victims was properly weighted (Eg. Tucker-broken right hand, Spinks - blown up LH frozen by fear) and relative credits/debits afforded, then the legend of Tyson might not have fattened up to the unrealistic 42-1 proportions that it did by the time of the Douglas fight.

Michael Frank
08-29-2011, 03:25 AM
If the impairments of some of Tyson's prior victims was properly weighted (Eg. Tucker-broken right hand, Spinks - blown up LH frozen by fear) and relative credits/debits afforded, then the legend of Tyson might not have fattened up to the unrealistic 42-1 proportions that it did by the time of the Douglas fight.
Tyson was undefeated going into the Douglas fight, I believe at 37-0.

Theo Netherland
08-29-2011, 05:51 AM
The Smith fight? I think Tyson came to kill, but Smith tied him up and ran for 15 rounds. It didn't expose a limitation of Tyson's, as most fighters can't beat someone who comes to wrestle and simply locks them up.
If it was that easy many more fighters would have tried that against Tyson that way. At least you must have the strength the limited Smith had.


In 1990, I had fully agreed with Angelo Dundee and Gil Clancy's unanimous assessment on HBO a week later that Douglas would beat Tyson again. But now, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd say it would be MUCH harder for Buster to be that good again and not much harder for Tyson to step up his game the 5% he needed.
Many times it ‘s been said that it takes a fighter like Ali or Holmes to beat Tyson. Well Douglas was such fighter. So on it’s own there’s a difficulty for Tyson. But with the benefit of hindsight Douglas would never have beaten Tyson again.
IMO the difference between Douglas and the real great champions like Ali Holmes or Holyfield is that he only once had the hunger and drive that they expressed throughout their career. If Douglas did have their desire he might even have been better in a second Tyson fight or against Holyfield since it was his second period of real dedication.

Theo Netherland
08-29-2011, 06:59 AM
I would agree that a GREAT fighter may be well disadvantaged even if he is only 5-10% less than his best on any given night. Exactly how much that fighter is disadvantaged depends heavily on the style and overall strengths/weaknesses of that fighter.
I believe that there is no champion, not even the greatest, that can handle everybody. There’s always someone, who doesn’t necessarily need be championship material, that can make the life of a champion sore. Jimmy Young against Ali comes to mind. And Foreman lost even to him.


If the impairments of some of Tyson's prior victims was properly weighted (Eg. Tucker-broken right hand, Spinks - blown up LH frozen by fear) and relative credits/debits afforded, then the legend of Tyson might not have fattened up to the unrealistic 42-1 proportions that it did by the time of the Douglas fight.
I believe you got to give Tyson credit for his quick KO of Spinks because he was a blown up LH for Holmes Tangstad and Cooney to. IMO it’s not unreasonable to think that Tyson could have had the same result against Spinks if he was in the shape he had against Douglas. It also would be seen as his finest hour. That brings me to the question if Tyson was necessarily in a better shape in his other fights before Douglas.

Michael Frank
08-29-2011, 07:30 AM
The Smith fight? I think Tyson came to kill, but Smith tied him up and ran for 15 rounds. It didn't expose a limitation of Tyson's, as most fighters can't beat someone who comes to wrestle and simply locks them up.


If it was that easy many more fighters would have tried that against Tyson that way. At least you must have the strength the limited Smith had.


I disagree. "Easy" as you use it refers to tying up Tyson to survive and lose. I doubt any trainer of a contender fighting Tyson for the title would train him to do that-- just to lose-- as "easy" as you say it may be.

PD99
08-31-2011, 09:50 PM
The point I was trying to make was that upon his defeat by Douglas, Tyson was afforded far more consideration for being that much less of himself (v Douglas) than any of Mike's own opposition were afforded when they went down to Tyson.

For each and every victory, Tyson pretty much received full and absolute credit - undiminished by any possible question of the substantive quality of the opposition or suggestion that the opposition was perhaps "sub-par" or "ill-purposed" on the night.

Spinks wasn't just a blown up LH. He was singularly shit scared and materially paralysed in the face of Tyson - a fact that arguably lent itself to his all too brief destruction. Tyson's "finest hour"? It could be reasonably argued that it was Michael Spinks worst hour as a fighter within himself and that he presented himself as Iron Mike's weakest challenger.

On the flip side, I would argue that Douglas, in his own "finest hour" presented as Tyson's best challenger. A more than legitimately sized HW with excellent skills who held absolutely no fear of Tyson.

Accepting that, Tyson quite simply lost to the best guy he had ever faced up to that point in time. As such, I don't think one has to instantly suspect that anything was drastically wrong with Tyson just because he lost to a guy who presented him (Tyson) with his greatest challenge - a challenge that Tyson, well within the realm of his peak, could not overcome.

walshb
09-01-2011, 07:24 AM
The point I was trying to make was that upon his defeat by Douglas, Tyson was afforded far more consideration for being that much less of himself (v Douglas) than any of Mike's own opposition were afforded when they went down to Tyson.

For each and every victory, Tyson pretty much received full and absolute credit - undiminished by any possible question of the substantive quality of the opposition or suggestion that the opposition was perhaps "sub-par" or "ill-purposed" on the night.

Spinks wasn't just a blown up LH. He was singularly shit scared and materially paralysed in the face of Tyson - a fact that arguably lent itself to his all too brief destruction. Tyson's "finest hour"? It could be reasonably argued that it was Michael Spinks worst hour as a fighter within himself and that he presented himself as Iron Mike's weakest challenger.

On the flip side, I would argue that Douglas, in his own "finest hour" presented as Tyson's best challenger. A more than legitimately sized HW with excellent skills who held absolutely no fear of Tyson.

Accepting that, Tyson quite simply lost to the best guy he had ever faced up to that point in time. As such, I don't think one has to instantly suspect that anything was drastically wrong with Tyson just because he lost to a guy who presented him (Tyson) with his greatest challenge - a challenge that Tyson, well within the realm of his peak, could not overcome.

All you say is accurate and true, BUT, did Mike not look to you to be a step or two slower? He did to me. And, yes, maybe Buster
was the best challenge to him, but I still saw that Mike looked a bit off that night. It has been well 'documented' that
at this time he was not the smae prepared man both mentally and physically. And, his key man, Rooney, was gone.
A fighter at peak requires a lot of attention.