Twenty seven years ago, Holyfield "upset" Buster Douglas

The Douglas that fought Tyson wass 229 lbs, in shape, focused and fueled by the emotion of his mother dying.
The Douglas that fought Holyfield was 245 lbs, out of shape, listless, and there to collect his $24 million pay day.
And he laid down holding his nose and waited for the count out.

It would have been very interesting to see how Holyfield could have fared against anything resembling the Douglas that fought Tyson.

 

Neither Thomas nor Dokes were prime when Holyfield beat them.

And Thomas was not prime when Tyson beat him, although he was closer to it than when he lost to Holyfield.

 

People do criticize the value of Spinks, yes, but not many people overlook how excellent Tyson looked getting the job done.
I don't think Holyfield gets the same attention for his performances against Douglas.
But then again, maybe Holyfield doesn't really need it as much as Tyson because Holyfield's resume is stronger than Tyson's.

 

The Tyson defeat made Holyfield take Douglas seriously.

 

I never thought Douglas would beat Holyfield though. He might have been betting favourite sometime in some part of the world but Holyfield was a top quality fighter, the best boxer in the division in the world at that time.

 

Negative

Mike Tyson was still the best fighter in the division despite the Douglas loss.

Holyfield looked unimpressive against fossils Holmes and Foreman (and got plenty flak for it), was almost ko'ed by drug addict Bert Cooper and was beaten from pillar to post by the first opponent with a pulse he met in Riddick Bowe.

Tyson on the other hand while not even firing on all cylinders beat the stuffing out of the extremely dangerous Razor Ruddock who all the top contenders avoided at that time and waxed Stewart in like 90 sec while Holyfield almost needed 20 rounds to get on top of Stewart.

Holyfields entire reputation is build on his two wins over a washed up after prison Con man Tyson. The same people who denegrade Tyson but build Holyfields status up ten fold for beating Tyson.

Holyfield, while a great fighter, never ever dominated the division, he is 1-1 against glass chin Moorer, 0-2 with Lewis, the draw was total BS and I am not a Lemmie boot licker, 1-2 with Bowe and one can argue that without the fan man it would be 0-3.

Holyfield could never establish consistency as a champ like Holmes, Tyson and Lewis did.

 

It wasn't an upset. Consult with Chris Rock's pre-fight analysis on snl.

 

Yeah people bought in to whatever hype and were not actually thinking straight. Same thing happened for Pacquiao vs DLH

 

Ok and Douglas never had a prime

 

Re: Holyfield - Douglas going in...

In the days up to the Holyfield-Douglas fight I certainly didn't know who was going to win. Per BoxRec the odds were 7-5 for Holyfield, but I don't think odds were published in my local paper until a day or two before the fight. 7-5 is pretty close to pick 'em.

Prior to the Holyfield fight I'd seen Douglas fight three times. Once, early on, on the USA Network (I don't remember the opponent) where he looked HORRIBLE. The only reason I took note of this fight was that I was familiar with Buster's dad, Billy 'Dynamite' Douglas. I couldn't understand why Buster was moving up in the rankings in '86 and early '87. Then I saw him against Tony Tucker, where I thought he looked great in the early rounds ("He's improved a lot! That's why he's moved up."). So then he looks great in stopping Tyson, who we didn't yet know was mortal. So in my mind Douglas was an improving fighter who'd looked great in pulling off a huge upset and who could conceivably have a long reign as champion.

So, again, going into Holyfield-Douglas, I certainly didn't know who was going to win. Remember, this was a time with limited newspaper coverage of boxing (especially in a small town) so the average fan didn't hear rumors of Douglas being unmotivated and overweight. Until the weigh-in. In those days I'd sometimes revise my predictions once I heard the weights. When Douglas weighed in 15 pounds heavier I knew something was not right and picked Evander. Odds for Holyfield went up to 9-5.

As for the fight itself, very few people could have beaten Holyfield that night. He was ON. He was focused, fit, and motivated. Hindsight tells me that there was no way that Douglas was going to beat that Holyfield.

Hindsight is 20/20. But one way I enjoy classic boxing is to find out (or remember from 1976-onward) what the perception was leading up to events. Like, where were boxers ranked before a fight? What had they done prior? What are the odds going in? Sure, now we know that Buster Douglas or Riddick Bowe would never again reach their title-winning heights, we can see signs pointing to their downfalls, but at the time of their triumphs we had little idea of what lie ahead. Conversely, it was impossible to know that Larry Holmes would be an all-time great. He'd quit in the amateurs against Bobick, had been floored by a Shavers who six months previous was thought to be past it (and would be thought of past it again after losing to Mercado and Cobb less than a year later), and had been floored by a not-all-that Renaldo Snipes. Hindsight shows us that Holmes was an all-time great, but it took some time for him to earn that respect and I could easily see someone like him becoming a Douglas or Bowe if he'd had less mental fortitude.

Sure, sometimes we KNOW what's going to happen in a fight (a couple of mine were being certain going in that Norton and Moorer would not make it out of the first round against Cooney and Tua, respectively). But it's a multi-faceted game with a ton of intangibles. And that's what makes it great.

 

Holyfield's entire reputation built on Tyson ?? Are you kidding ?
He was former undisputed champion in cruiserweight, and heavyweight, a two-time lineal heavyweight champion (only the third man in all of history to regain it).
He was a big name.
He was fighting 15 round title fights with Qawi in his 12th pro fight.

Holyfield was a washed-up, used up, twice-retired, bashed-in has-been against 1996 Tyson.
He'd been in so many wars in was obscene. As you yourself point out.
That was a very over-the-hill Holyfield.
Holyfield was already declining in 1992, 1993. The Moorer defeat in 1994 showcased him as a past prime fighter.

Holyfield's resume is better than Tyson's.

Tyson's one-sided loss to Douglas prevented Holyfield from beating up Tyson back in 1990 (Holyfield was the rightful #1).
Holyfield smashed up Douglas, making himself the undisputed champion.
Tyson pulled out in 1991.
When they finally fought in 1996, a washed up Holyfield battered a washed up Tyson something awful.

Holyfield and Tyson were contemporaries. Bowe and Lewis were the next wave.
Tyson couldn't even reign long enough to face a prime young Bowe. He didn't even manage to get as far as his natural rival Holyfield.
Tyson's reign was ended by Douglas, a routine contender who'd been around years. Tyson was 23.
So much for "consistency".

Tyson was fortunate he came along at the right time. He faced the likes of Berbick, Smith, Tucker and Spinks to become champion. Berbick and Smith were mediocre, Tucker was unproven, Spinks was a weak 'heavyweight' with bad knees and hadn't fought in a year.