Twenty seven years ago, Holyfield "upset" Buster Douglas

Tyson's 9 successful defenses were good. He came along during the alphabet belt merry-go-round. He stood out as better than the rest, unified, defended, unified, defended .... and then lost to Douglas, an also-ran.
Tyson reigning to Feb.1990 is no more consistent than Holyfield staying unbeaten until 1992 (and losing to a younger fresher challenger).

Holyfield started out as a cruiserweight, won a belt in his 12th fight, and unified the belts, he made 5 successful defences at cruiser, and 3 successful undisputed defences at heavyweight (and later regained).

People for some reason talk about Holyfield being "inconsistent" but he turned professional at 22 and didn't lose a fight until he was 30, and picked up undisputed cruiserweight title AND undisputed heayweight titles before ever tasting a defeat.
How inconsistent is that ?

 

Why were those titles at heavyweight unified?

 

Don't be silly. Everyone knew Holyfield was over-the-hill going in to the 1996 Tyson fight.
Holyfield was brought in as Tyson's "next victim" by Don King, precisely because he was way past his best.

Watch the 1994 Moorer fight. Watch the 1995 third Bowe match.
Evander was an old fighter. He was half used-up. He was damaged goods.
Tyson was a huge favourite in 1996. Precisely because Holyfield was over-the-hill.

Holyfield's win over Tyson was one-sided. You're right, he clinched a lot. Tyson clinched a lot too.
Both of them were past their bests, what do you expect.

No, Holyfield and Lewis didn't build their reputation around beating Tyson.
Only to casual fans who don't follow boxing.

Anyway .....So, who did Tyson build his reputation beating ?

 

Tyson won the HBO tournament and defeated Spinks (the lineal champ). He unified all the claims.

He then LOST all the claims to Buster Douglas.

Buster Douglas then LOST all the claims to Evander Holyfield.

 

So in comparing Holyfield to Tyson, pointing out that Holyifeld was defending the undisputed title is worthless because Tyson is the one who went through the trouble of unifying the titles.

It's true that Holyfield had a successful run without a loss like Tyson but he struggled to a victory fairly often and not always against top comp. Furthermore, his heavweight opponents leading to Douglas weren't very good--has beens and never weres.

Bowe was the first prime, top shelf heavy he fought. Foreman was sort of a Bonecrusher Smith type by then and Holmes overperformed.

 

Holyfield beat the man who beat Tyson. The undisputed title is the undisputed title. It's not worthless.
If Tyson didn't exist someone else would have unified the titles. But that doesn't take away from the achievement.

Tyson deserves credit for unifying the titles and for holding and defending the undisputed title.
Holyfield deserves credit for winning the undisputed title and defending it.

But when Holyfield DIDN'T "struggle to victory" - for example when he schooled the champion Douglas in 3 rounds - people diminish the performance by talking about Douglas being below-par.
But you can do that with many of Tyson's "dominating" victories too.

Michael Dokes was better than anyone Tyson faced pre-Berbick.

Who did Tyson beat who was prime and top shelf ?

 

At this stage in the game, arguing Tyson's worth over Holyfield is almost like arguing Foreman over Ali, based on Foreman crushing Frazier and Norton easily.

Douglas beat Tyson.
Holyfield beat Douglas AND Tyson (twice).

People want to argue Holyfield some sort of inferior because Tyson easily beat Alex Stewart or something .....

Holyfield won some hard tough fights, yes. Douglas wasn't one of them.
But Tyson couldn't even win a tough fight with Douglas. He got knocked out.

hey, I'm not even sure Holyfield is a top 10 all-time heavyweight. But it's funny how critics go to such lengths to make him seem like some lucky nobody who "built his reputation against Tyson".

 

Which critics are those? You're so full of it, nobody here takes you seriously.

 

Dokes was not better than Marvis Frazier, and arguably not better than Green and a couple others by that point.

I said if you're comparing Holyfield's early heavyweight title run to Tyson's, it doesn't matter that Holyfield had the undisputed title. Tyson unified it to begin with and defended the fractioned titles against better opposiiton than Holy did the undisputed title prior to Bowe.

I'm not big on Holyield's pre Bowe opposiiton and think thise guys were either on the level of some of Tyson's most limited title opponents or best pre-title opponents, George included.

 

Read the thread. It's been said in this thread.

I hope nobody here takes anything on this forum seriously.

 

I like both Tyson and Holy, and I find it strange when Tyson's hardcore fans try to diminish Holyfield's reputation while it's clear as day that it can be done with every fighter, including Ali AND Tyson himself.

Ok. Holyfield lost to Moorer, dropped by Cooper etc etc. So what?

Lewis was KO'd by McCall and Rahman.

Ali was knocked down by Cooper and Banks, lost to Norton (arguably 2 times).

Holmes lost to Spinks and knocked down by pretty average Snipes.

Tyson himself was knocked out by Douglas while being a champion with 9 title defenses. Stopped by Holyfield when BOTH were clearly past their primes.

It's HW boxing, these things has happened to anyone.

There wasn't a HW who could've dominated any other HWs in history or even his own era without getting dropped or losing a few times. Rocky and Tunney came closest to that and still had their shaky moments.

 

I disagree. He was active, clean and giving it one last run towards a title shot. Dokes was very good.

I wasn't measuring Holyfield's Hw title run against Tyson's. I was telling some facts about his career.
Holyfield turned pro in 22, didn't lose until 30. He picked up the undisputed titles at cruiser (which he unified) and at heavyweight. He beat Douglas (who beat Tyson). He lost to Bowe, a member of the new young crop coming through, in 1992.
That's a good run.

These are the facts.

People want to say "inconsistent", "didn't dominate" or whatever, but he beat everyone he was put in with for 8 years.

Well, they weren't great by any means, but one of them was Buster Douglas.
The reason Holyfield faced Douglas was because Douglas beat the holy **** out of Tyson.
That's the fact of the matter.
Tyson lost to Douglas. Holyfield lost to Bowe.
These are just facts.

 

Yeah I don't see Holyfield doing what Tyson did in the 80's. No way. On paper those opponents aren't huge names. But Holyfield struggled with an older, fatter Holmes, an old and fat Foreman, Bert Cooper, Moorer, Bowe and couldn't help himself in brawling against Dokes and Stewart. Impressive as it may seem, it's still far less impressive to what Tyson did.