Stylistic nightmares.

[Master]

Disagree with a lot of those including Tyson v Douglas and Terry v Mullings.

Tyson had beaten better fighters than Douglas like Tucker (who had beaten Buster already). Mike looked poor in that fight and almost unrecognisable from the fighter that blew away Berbick and Spinks.

Terry Norris was shot by the time he lost to Mullings, peak Terry would destroy him.

[SugarBoxing]

Disagree with a lot of those including Tyson v Douglas and Terry v Mullings.

Tyson had beaten better fighters than Douglas like Tucker (who had beaten Buster already). Mike looked poor in that fight and almost unrecognisable from the fighter that blew away Berbick and Spinks.

Terry Norris was shot by the time he lost to Mullings, peak Terry would destroy him.

Second that, also

Kostya Tszyu vs Vince Philips/Ricky Hatton

Kostya Tszyu got soft version of what happened to Tyson before DOuglas, he got cocky, did not train hard enough, relied on his talent and low level of the opponent too much. This has nothing to do with style

[mikeeod]

Disagree with a lot of those including Tyson v Douglas and Terry v Mullings.

Tyson had beaten better fighters than Douglas like Tucker (who had beaten Buster already). Mike looked poor in that fight and almost unrecognisable from the fighter that blew away Berbick and Spinks.

Terry Norris was shot by the time he lost to Mullings, peak Terry would destroy him.

Second that, also

Kostya Tszyu vs Vince Philips/Ricky Hatton

Kostya Tszyu got soft version of what happened to Tyson before DOuglas, he got cocky, did not train hard enough, relied on his talent and low level of the opponent too much. This has nothing to do with style

Vince was blown out by Ike Quartey in 3 rounds a couple of fights before Kostya. Vince was a big man for 140, had solid boxing skills, and couldn't miss with his right if he tried vs Kostya. Horrible style match up. Ricky was just too physical, in my opinion. Kostya didn't like wars like that.

[El Kabong]

Disagree with a lot of those including Tyson v Douglas

Tyson had beaten better fighters than Douglas like Tucker (who had beaten Buster already). Mike looked poor in that fight and almost unrecognisable from the fighter that blew away Berbick and Spinks.

OK

True, Tyson DID beat better fighters than Douglas (but that's not the question posed). Now, Tony Tucker was a very good fighter, yes he was better than Douglas, BUT Tony Tucker had injured his right hand in sparring and in the fight vs Tyson he broke his hand early on and therefore was fighting Tyson one handed and was at a serious disadvantage. Tony Tucker could have been the guy to beat Tyson had everything fallen into place, but it didn't. Now the question posed was "stylistic nightmares" and I stand by the Tyson's style wasn't good at dealing with fighters who could move and use range on the night he fought Buster Douglas you saw the limitations of Tyson's style...he had trouble working in because Douglas tied him up, he had trouble landing because Douglas used distance. There were times Douglas slipped up and a prime Tyson would have ended things, but at that moment Douglas just simply had the style to beat THAT Tyson and he did so convincingly winning round after round after round.

[SugarBoxing]

Disagree with a lot of those including Tyson v Douglas

Tyson had beaten better fighters than Douglas like Tucker (who had beaten Buster already). Mike looked poor in that fight and almost unrecognisable from the fighter that blew away Berbick and Spinks.

OK

True, Tyson DID beat better fighters than Douglas (but that's not the question posed). Now, Tony Tucker was a very good fighter, yes he was better than Douglas, BUT Tony Tucker had injured his right hand in sparring and in the fight vs Tyson he broke his hand early on and therefore was fighting Tyson one handed and was at a serious disadvantage. Tony Tucker could have been the guy to beat Tyson had everything fallen into place, but it didn't. Now the question posed was "stylistic nightmares" and I stand by the Tyson's style wasn't good at dealing with fighters who could move and use range on the night he fought Buster Douglas you saw the limitations of Tyson's style...he had trouble working in because Douglas tied him up, he had trouble landing because Douglas used distance. There were times Douglas slipped up and a prime Tyson would have ended things, but at that moment Douglas just simply had the style to beat THAT Tyson and he did so convincingly winning round after round after round.

Tyson style was DESIGNED to tackle style of DOuglas and Tucker and ... Ali .... And Master says that since prime Tyson won over Tucker so easily, stylistically, Douglas would be even easier. There was NOTHING special about DOuglas, and bloated motionless Tyson managed KD him with the only clean shot in that fight.

[El Kabong]

Tyson style was DESIGNED to tackle style of DOuglas and Tucker and ... Ali .... And Master says that since prime Tyson won over Tucker so easily, stylistically, Douglas would be even easier. There was NOTHING special about DOuglas, and bloated motionless Tyson managed KD him with the only clean shot in that fight.

Floyd Patterson had the same style, how did he do vs Ali? Mike Tyson fought Lennox Lewis as well (similar style to Tucker and Douglas) and how did that go? Again, Tony Tucker had a broken right hand, that made a huge difference in that fight, plus Tucker lasted the distance showing that Tyson couldn't even stop a wounded fighter with that style.

[SugarBoxing]

Tyson style was DESIGNED to tackle style of DOuglas and Tucker and ... Ali .... And Master says that since prime Tyson won over Tucker so easily, stylistically, Douglas would be even easier. There was NOTHING special about DOuglas, and bloated motionless Tyson managed KD him with the only clean shot in that fight.

Floyd Patterson had the same style, how did he do vs Ali? Mike Tyson fought Lennox Lewis as well (similar style to Tucker and Douglas) and how did that go? Again, Tony Tucker had a broken right hand, that made a huge difference in that fight, plus Tucker lasted the distance showing that Tyson couldn't even stop a wounded fighter with that style.

Tyson was Patterson on steroid, far more superior athlete. I might be wrong here, but I recall Patterson dropped D'Amato when he fought Ali and Liston, so D'Amato said it was Patterson loss, not Peekaboo loss

Post prison, post Rooney Tyson was not using "peekaboo" against Lewis, he was fighting like most of Freddy Roach fighters , orthodox slugger . If you do not accept this argument, I officially demand your life ban by @Master

[El Kabong]

Tyson was Patterson on steroid, far more superior athlete. I might be wrong here, but I recall Patterson dropped D'Amato when he fought Ali and Liston, so D'Amato said it was Patterson loss, not Peekaboo loss

Post prison, post Rooney Tyson was not using "peekaboo" against Lewis, he was fighting like most of Freddy Roach fighters , orthodox slugger . If you do not accept this argument, I officially demand your life ban by @Master

So the peekaboo style is unbeatable? Kevin Rooney is training who now? If the style worked as advertised then wouldn't more boxers be using it? Or is it the fact that it's just so demanding and challenging only the best of the best can even begin to use it?

[Master]

Tucker fought a defensive fight and survived (as did Bonecrusher who fought a negative fight). Tyson would have preferred for them to take chances so he could destroy them.

Bringing Lennox Lewis fight is silly but even Tyson won the first round in that.

[SlimTrae]

Disagree with a lot of those including Tyson v Douglas and Terry v Mullings.

Tyson had beaten better fighters than Douglas like Tucker (who had beaten Buster already). Mike looked poor in that fight and almost unrecognisable from the fighter that blew away Berbick and Spinks.

Terry Norris was shot by the time he lost to Mullings, peak Terry would destroy him.

Agreed.

@mikeod: anyone good/great puncher with a chin was a bad matchup for Hearns!

Edit. Pavlik never should've fought Bhop.

Hop can't beat fast paced fighters like Calzaghe. Joe beats him 3 outta 3. Albeit close in each fight.

[Sleepwalker]

De La Hoya was all wrong for Mayorga.

They can fight 1000 rounds and Oscar wins 998 of them.

[Ron Swanson]

I think the saying styles make fights saying is overly simplistic. If 2 guys can each only fight one way, sure, styles will make the fight. You often see this in aggressive fighters. They look unbeatable, but then when things aren't going that one way they come apart.

This is why I always say aggressive fighters are always over rated and boxers are always underrated. A boxer by his very nature can adapt. He won't look as good against fighter A, or fighter B but he can beat fighter A, B and C. The aggressive fighter will destroy fighter A and fighter B and everyone gets excited but then things fall apart against fighter C.

People don't look at all the things people do wrong that decide fights, they mostly look at the things people do right that decide fights. I mean, many people though Pacquiao had good footwork FFS! Even though he was constantly off balance. They see the positive of fast feet and ignore the negative of horrible placement. Then when people use his horrible footwork against him they claim it as a stylistic maneuver when it's not really about his style but rather his ability. The terrible technique they never addressed because they could usually hide it with smart matchmaking.

But then again there are always 10 ways to look at things and I've narrowed my own view so I should shut the hell up.

[SlimTrae]

You often see this in aggressive fighters. They look unbeatable, but then when things aren't going that one way they come apart.
I agree. It is rare when it happens. My example is Pryor vs. Arguello. Legendary Nights Aaron said he was forced to mix boxing and some countering because Arguello was beginning to catch and hurt him mano y mano.



This is why I always say aggressive fighters are always over rated and boxers are always underrated.
Agreed

. The aggressive fighter will destroy fighter A and fighter B and everyone gets excited but then things fall apart against fighter C.
If fighter (C) is a strategist I agree. I am not sure about counter punchers specifically. Especially if they don't have the power to keep that aggressive fighter honest like Tim Bradley, Paulie Malinaggi or a Paul Spadafora or Eddie Chambers @ HW.



People don't look at all the things people do wrong that decide fights, they mostly look at the things people do right that decide fights. I mean, many people though Pacquiao had good footwork FFS!

The terrible technique they never addressed because they could usually hide it with smart matchmaking.

I humorously disagree. Most of us were drawn to PAC because of his reckless abandonment of fundamentals! !!!! LOL!

But then again there are always 10 ways to look at things and I've narrowed my own view so I should shut the hell up.

Informative and intuitive post!

[IamInuit]

Harada's non stop windmill style was surprisingly to much for Jofre's completeness. Not once but twice.

Much further back Harry Wills must have studied Langford to beat him that many times in about 22 fights.

[SlimTrae]

Pacquiao can't beat counter punchers (with respectable power)
Morales fight one to all Marquez & Floyd. If Bradley had any pop to his shots he wins both.

Yes Pac can take punches, but he responds recklessly.

Edit- another reason why his 2nd fight with MAB doesn't make highlight reels. Marco wanted to counter, so Pac couldn't get off.