Ring magazine infamously picked Holyfield-Tyson 1 as the fight of the year ahead of three far better fights.
I really loved "Duran-Camacho" of 1996. BUT! Then I was pissed when the decision was rendered in favor of Camacho...
Holyfield-Tyson I as Fight of the Year is one of the worst choices for Fight of the Year in recent memory. Great event, but the fight itself was nothing more than good. It was a clinch-fest. Bowe-Golota 2 was a much better fight, so was Barrera-Mckinney and Gatti-Rodriguez. Kelley-Gainer 1 and Liles-Littles 2 were also more worthy of Fight of the Year than Holyfield-Tyson 1.
How do you mean "better"? Tyson vs Holyfield was an absolute shocker/thriller, I don't have a problem with people picking that bout as "fight of the year".
Simple. Numerous other fights had better, more consistent action. The action in Holyfield-Tyson wasn't that great. It had quality exchanges in spots, but was largely a hold fest. A great event/upset doesn't make it a greater FIGHT than others. Barrera-Mckinney had much better consistent action. Two guys going at it, without holding every 20 seconds. Gatti-Rodriguez, Bowe-Golota 2, Liles-Littles 2, and Kelley-Gainer 1 were all better action fights. Holyfield-Tyson I was just a bigger event.
I'm torn on the subject really. Gatti-Rodriguez was a better fight but Tyson-Holyfield was a better and bigger moment. It kind of defined the boxing year of 1996...thus making it the FOTY in Ring Magazines eyes.