Douglas-Tyson is no. 1 without question. Turpin-Robinson 1 would be my no. 2. Clay-Liston 1 was huge and bigger than Ali-Foreman.
From what I could find, Rahman was a 20 to 1 underdog in South Africa. 2001 had a lot of upsets. Randall was a 15 to 1 underdog when he beat Chavez. Leon Spinks was about a 10 to 1 underdog when he beat Ali. For Spinks-Holmes 1, I’ve read it being from around 4 to 1 to 6 to 1. I couldn’t find the odds on Michael Bentt-Tommy Morrison, but that was a huge upset.
It was a huge upset .. people were worried for Ali's life going in ... it became crystal clear after the fight just how overrated Foreman was ..
Some people were worried for his life, some people picked Ali to win. 4-1 is 4-1, there's no way around or under that, that what was happening with real-world money.
Foreman was a 3 - 1 favourite coming into the fight. That's not exactly huge odds. As I said in an earlier post,Muhammad was very much a LIVE underdog. There were a few who went overboard in fearing for Muhammad's life - probably because of what George did to Frazier,Roman and Norton. It was Muhammad's greatest victory but not a great upset along the lines of Honeyghan-Curry and Douglas-Tyson or even Spinks-Ali,Clay-Liston I.
From what I could find, James Toney was a 20 to 1 underdog when he beat Michael Nunn. Carlos Baldomir was about a 15 to 1 underdog when he beat Zab Judah. I can’t find the odds for Simon Brown-Terry Norris 1, but that was a big upset. Corrie Sanders-Wlad Klitschko was a huge upset. Douglas-Tyson is in its own league for both the official odds, and public perception. Tyson had such an aura of invincibility.
That's not even the biggest upset loss of Nunn's career. According to this article, Steve Little was a 40-1 underdog when he took the SMW title from Nunn in 1994.
From readings, most experts favored Foreman over Ali with a good number expressing legitimate concern for Ali's welfare - such was the manner of victory they envisaged in Foreman's favor. Even Ali's own team was apparently somewhat pessimistic, and they were duly shocked and concerned when Ali began to unpack his strategy. Of course, there were some who favored Ali. Most notably, Ken Norton picked Ali by decision " This content is protected " though that wasn't the actual complexion or outcome of the fight. I've just read that Joe Frazier apparently said: This content is protected . That's the well qualified opinions of two guys that gave Ali hell. Frazier didn't specify but he did defer to the intangibles: Ali's proven ring IQ and adaptability. On paper, it seemed Ali would get wiped early - with his two main antagonists, Frazier and Norton, already having been disposed of thusly. For those who did favor Ali, there might've been a measure of "blind" faith or, if dignified by any rational, the understanding that Ali could adapt himself to any situation - even if the finer details of how he would do so couldn't be necessarily calculated. Ali had already defied the odds set against him several times previously. The odds of 4-1 against him were decent, but Ali's sheer reputation for defying the odds might've actually figured in preventing the odds being higher for Zaire. Ali won in a manner that no one foresaw or predicted. Any other strategy might've seen Ali in fact fall to Foreman. We actually saw Ali utilize one of the few options available to him to secure possible victory - making the most out of the, say, 1 or 2 chances he had versus all the other options which might've seen him lose - and lose emphatically. At least one boxing mag. of the time ran with the headline, more or less: This content is protected . I guess if you work enough "miracles", the odds against you doing same the next time naturally shorten despite conventional thinking otherwise. Betting odds are for real dollars bet and won or lost, but in the case of Zaire, I think the odds might not have reflected the true magnitude of the UPSET. There are a number of factors that impact on odds which have nothing to do with real world chances - at any rate, I believe Foreman opened at 3 1/2 to 1, lengthening to 4-1 by fight time. Look at the odds for Holmes vs Ali. Anyone but Ali (in name) would've/should've been a much greater underdog. Such was Ali's aura and the belief he would just "get it done" even if the specifics of "how" he would do it couldn't necessarily be reasoned.
I was a bit suprised but defin itely not shocked when Brewster beat Wlad, Wlad was still very fragile getting crushed by Sanders, and he was throwing a lot of punches every round, but Brewster kept coming at him, despite being floored.
I'm on holiday this week, the film footage I have of this fight is at home and its been a while since I watched it ;-) Seriously, it was a 10 round newspaper decision. Reports read of a close fight, with the bigger Greb struggling, particularly early, to adapt to not being the faster fighter for once. Greb avenged the loss 3 times. Soldier Bartfield has a remarkable win resume for such an unheralded boxer. In addition to Greb, he beat top 10 all time MW lock Mike Gibbons, top 10 WW lock Jack Britton and top 10 WW possible Ted Kid Lewis. He was far too inconsistent and lost too often to be considered an ATG, but was clearly capable of beating ATG's over 10 rounds on his best nights.
Frankie Randall was a 16/1 underdog against JC Chavez That said its nice to see Vince Phillips's upset of Tzyu highlighted.
