Hard to say, I think both victors were far ahead at the times of the stoppages but one could argue that the Holyfield fight was closer, or at least it seemed that way. Holy allowed the fight to be in the trenches, which is where I’m sure Tyson wanted it. This gives the illusion that things must have been going Tyson’s way more, but not sure it was any closer on the cards.
Douglas was not far ahead at the time of the stoppage. Tyson had completed a comeback and looked like he was going to win the fight and then it all came tumbling down. There was no such shift in momentum in Tyson v Holyfield.
In both fights he was clearly weaker, against Douglas from the beginning and against Holyfield from the second half of the fight. The judges heavily favored Tyson in Tokyo, so I wouldn't take it into account too much as the scorecards looked. None of these fights were very even, but in Tokyo Tyson had his 14 seconds in the entire fight, in Las Vegas he basically had no chance since he ran out of fuel in the tank and it ended quickly. The answer is - none of them were equal. But he looked better against Holyfield and had the advantage up to a certain point, so if I had to choose, I would choose Las Vegas, although he was closer to winning in Tokyo. Paradox, right? or maybe my thinking lacks a bit of logic
Not much in it, but I feel Douglas was a bit more in control. Of course he was close to being counted out, which you can't say for Holy. So a toss up I guess. Don't think I gave Tyson more than two rounds in either fight.
Buster Douglas did it against a much fresher version of Tyson than Holyfield did. He also used his stylistic advantages much better than Holyfield. ( Other than the knockdown) Douglas's fight was much more impressive and complete ( Again, other than the knockdown)
I don't think the fights were as one-sided as it's sometimes portrayed. It was far from a walk in the park for Douglas and Holyfield as they constantly had to smother Tyson and be aware of his attacks. For me, Tyson won the 6th and the 8th against Douglas, with the 1st even. It's also worth noting that everytime Tyson landed quite cleanly he wobbled Douglas. Of course, Douglas was also down in the 8th but brilliantly came back in the 9th. Against Holyfield, Tyson started well by staggering Holyfield with his first punch and won a close 1st round, a close 4th and unquestionably the 5th. He was also winning the 6th before the knockdown, had good moments in the 9th (one judge gave him the 8th, the other the 9th), and came back quite well during the 10th before being stunned by an excellent counter right hand when he carelessly stepped in. So Tyson had a slight edge during the first five rounds, and while it's true that Holyfield took over from the 6th, it was mostly by using spoiling tactics and not by putting a true beatdown (excluding the end of the fight obviously). So I will say that the Holyfield fight was closer but the Douglas version of Tyson was better.
I agree 100%. I have the feeling that Douglas boxed more (and beautifully) whereas Holyfield adopted a rougher, spoiling (and necessary) type of fight.
Hard to say, it's difficult to say the fight against Buster was closer as he received a beatdown, and in the Holyfield fight he got outmuscled and out fought by a past it 34 year old version of Evander who was the ring general in virtually every round .
