If you take Buster Douglas from the Tokyo match in 1990 and put him up against the same Holyfield that beat him in 1991, who would win?
I don't see Douglas beating a prime Holyfield at any point in his career truthfully. It has always been my opinion ( and likely always will be ), that the Tyson fight said more about Mike's performance that evening than it did Douglas's true abilities. If we're honest, I think there were probably several heavyweights around at the time who could have beaten Tyson on the same night. That said, I think a well conditioned and ideally motivated Douglas could have given Evander a decent match for 8 or 9 rounds, perhaps even stealing a few points here and there, but in the end, the Real Deal prevails. 1990 Holyfield by late TKO over the best version of Douglas, whatever that may be.
1990 Buster Douglas would lose to 1991 Holyfield but beat the 1993+ Holyfield. Holyfield lost alot of his speed and combination punching ability when he packed on those extra pounds.
Holyfield's first defense came against George Foreman in April of 1991. He had already held the belt for 6 months by that point.
Did Riddick Bowe have any more ability than did Buster Douglas? I think Bowe would have always gave Holyfield fits, and I think Buster Douglas at his best was just as good as Bowe was. The Buster Douglas that showed up to fight Holyfield was not in the best of shape. Yes, it was Douglas' fault, and he should have trained and prepared better, but the fact - at least to me - remains that Holyfield beat an ill-prepared Douglas.
Douglas did not have the strength nor durability that Bowe had. Skill wise, they were probably very similar in ability, but Riddick had the physical tools that Douglas didn't.
You might have a point. But I think Douglas was the better mover and probably the better pure boxer. They were both about the same size, but I'm probably with you in that Bowe was probably the stronger of the two. I think it would be a toss-up between who had the better left jab.
