If they'd beaten him? So If any of Mike Tyson s Title Opponents had beaten him before Douglas, which would have caused the biggest WTF!! We have Trevor Berbick James Smith Pinklon Thomas Tony Tucker Tyrrell Biggs Larry Holmes Tony Tubbs Michael Spinks Frank Bruno Carl Williams
Maybe Holmes because regaining the title after 20 defenses would have been huge accomplishment, regardless of Tyson's name.
It's a very good question that. I think Holmes. Most people considered him a bust and the commentary and build up saw that as very much a Tyson win n the making.
Holmes sounds like a fair answer though, as it so happened, Larry did manage to last the longest out of Mike’s 1988 opponents. Don’t know if Larry wore it for other fights but, IIRC, he had Shock The World emblazoned on the back of his robe for the Tyson fight.
No one was worse than Buster, but apart from him, it would certainly be Bruno or Carl Williams, because after 1988 Tyson looked absolutely dominant; probably no one in history had an aura like that at the time.
Massive shock. At his age and two years out of the ring,to over come all that and still defeat the most ferocious heavyweight in year's, would have been a miracle.
Per the set odds, Douglas was, apparently, by far the challenger least likely to win so we instantly put him aside to sort out the others. While some might say hindsight is a wonderful thing, the odds set against Douglas were far fetched - accented more on the perceived and overstated invincibility of Mike which probably pivoted on the 91 second destruction of Spinks more than any other fight. Suffice to say, many only afforded Buster pretty much the exact amount of time that Spinks managed to last against Tyson - about a minute and a half. Busters record going had its glitches but wasn’t as bad as the crazy odds suggested, imo. So, putting Buster back into the line up, is there any way to argue that, based on all info going, Buster perhaps should’ve been at least rated a better chance than old, less than ideally prepared Holmes?
Vitali Klitschko did it after four years; Wlad came very close after two. Both were roughly the same age as Larry. What if Rico or Ngannou had won their boxing debuts? Wouldn't that have been an even bigger shock? Im convinced that if the Tyson-Holmes fight had never taken place, many people today—considering what happened later—would favor Holmes in hypothetical matchups. From today’s perspective, no one would view a victory for Larry as an upset, and arguments such as "a 38-year-old Larry was better than a 30-year-old Buster" would frequently be cited. After all, Larry performed far better against Holyfield than Buster did—or even Tyson himself.