Douglas vs. Holyfield - Did Buster...

It would depend on what would have happened afterwards.

He would immediately move into the top 20 ATG HW lists. But his blemished record up to Tyson would hold him back. Most people would see him as the 90s version of Jimmy Young who on occasion has the ability to hand a ATG fighter a loss.

 

If I remember right,all the bad stuff happened to Buster-after the Holyfield fight;what I remember about Holyfield-Douglas is that Buster looked like he hadn't spent a single day in the gym-and I think they gave him his money up front.That said-I have always believed his fight with Tyson was no fluke.His problem was that he was inconsistent.I still measure all heavyweight performances against Douglas's.I followed him and I knew what he was capable of when he was on and motivated.

 

I get the idea that if Douglas could have recreated his performence of the night he beat Tyson he might have edged Hollyfield.

All it would have done at the time is downgrade Holyfield and anybody he beat.

 

Douglas should have came in shape and used the same jab he did against Tyson in Tokyo. Had he came prepared and ready to defend against Holyfield, I think Douglas would have made it much more competitive winning more than just a couple of rounds. In fact, Holyfield probably doesn't beat Douglas the night he KO'd Tyson.

 

I see a clear victory over Holyfield for the version of Douglas that beat Tyson.

As Janitor said, this would lead to a downgrade of Holyfield himself (as a HW),but also impact on who Holyfield beat, and who beat Holyfield.

 

Very probably, no.

Holyfield applied real pressure, and could box a good lick.

In the moment where Douglas was floored by Tyson and hurt, he really did have to drag himself up from the seven depths of hell - his self belief at that point, after his efforts, went right down.

Holyfield would be doubling up on his jab, moving around the ring, forcing a high pace and spurting out combinations - he could take Douglas' best, counter and fight hard. He would not be bossed, as Tyson was.

Holyfield is a man who makes things happen in the ring, and the younger, lively version would iron out any problems Douglas posed to a later round stoppage - had Douglas prepared better.

 

This is absolutely credible.

But then so isn't the view that sharp and inspired Douglas who beat Tyson would beat Holyfield.

I am of the belief that Holyfield had real problems with big guys with skill and a jab. Douglas was overall more skilled than Bowe and considerably more skilled than prime Lewis. He was at least as fast as Bowe and his ability to be as mobile as he was, as active, and as focussed on grand strategy would have made it rough on Holyfield. Holyfield would have been outboxed had he boxed and had he 'fought' Douglas, he's have been countered well and jabbed half to death. I'm using Bowe II and Bowe I as loose points of reference.

The qualifier with Douglas is always the same. He'd have had to come in at least as sharp and ready as he did in February 1990.

I'd give the edge to Douglas via decision.

 

Buster Douglas liked to throw that long right uppercut from the outside, and Holyfield's trainers George Benton and Lou Duva had Holyfield practicing the right hand counter, it was planned and executed perfectly by Holyfield.

Douglas was throwing the same punch against Tyson, and Benton, Duva and Holyfield had studied that film and they fully expected Douglas to fight like that.
The punch Holyfield landed was perfect and a real shocking punch. If Douglas had got up, Holyfield would put him down again sooner or later.

Holyfield had Douglas's number.
I dont see Douglas doing much better, whatever shape he was in.
People seem to totally ignore Holyfield's fine performance.

Coming in shape and doing the training IS part of the fight. Douglas wasn't good enough to beat Holyfield.

"Tokyo" Douglas is overrated, Tyson is overrated.
Holyfield tends to get underrated, considering that he smacked the ungodly **** out of both of them.

 

Absolutely not. On his best day, he had no chance with a fighter like Evander Holyfield. He was overmatched, and it showed. He would have been overmatched against Tyson too had Mike properly trained.

 

Buster had his moment in the sun ,closely followed by one on the canvas Mills Lane said he could have gotten up but chose not to,he quit against Tony Tucker too ,in a fight he was winning,he didnt have the heart of his Father Billy ,but he did summon up one great performance in his career,that night he was terrific,imo.Holyfield at his best beats Douglas at his best ,imo.By Dec

 

The assertion that Douglas was more 'skilled', as the word was used (more talented/in possession of a greater 'skill set') than both Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis is a huge one.

It was lovely stuff by Bowe, but that was tough going, both men were tired. He never really 'out boxed' Holyfield, who always found it easy to rest up close and throw hooks, he was just eventually out fought by the stronger man with the better shots.

There were no long moments of 'outside control', Bowe's decision to ‘rumble‘ and work the uppercut made things happen, and it sure as hell was not set up by his jab, but rather from these mutual periods of falling onto each other in their varying exhausted states.

Douglas was a V. good fighter that night he beat Tyson, he was not great, and this needs to be honed in on. Ted Spoon does not believe he was willing to walk through hell, fire and brimstone that night, he did not have it in him.

Douglas beat Mike Tyson, which meant more than anything in boxing up until that point, but that night Mike Tyson would have been bested by many, not to such a degree, but that was down to styles; Douglas, the smooth boxer found it easy to pound on a sloppy Tyson, who relied on sporadic, sloppy assaults, save one quality uppercut that technically won him the fight.

Tyson was an opponent that was made to order for Douglas - a good, solid, rangy fighter with a jab and not a dot of intimidated claret for Tyson the shark to smell.

Holyfield is of such a different mold to Tyson that any images applied to Evander from Douglas’ one defining result must be heavily scrutinized for blatant stylistic reasons.

The Bowe series was tough work, but in the end Bowe had not been particluary dominating in all those 32 rounds - the last fight had the credibility to lead to a fourth.

Yes he won the series and convincingly won the first ruckus, but they were all hard fought bouts were Holyfield had good success and was certainly not out boxed or controlled to the degree that Douglas would need to in order for him to win.

The moment when Douglas was floored by Tyson was an insight into the 'hard-to-motivate' Douglas as he hit the canvas and lay on his side, neeeearrly packing his bags...not a true fighter mentally, and tools will only take you so far as his record shows.

Never said better than the Mauler himself; "A champion is a fighter who gets up when he can't" - Douglas could of got up against Holyfield but chose not to, and he lost his title to a real championship fighter.

 

"Skill" and "talent" are not synonymous in this corner. Skill is taught. Talent is God-given. I see a similar difference in "knowledge" and "intelligence". Douglas was a skilled boxer and he had some talent to go with it. He had a foundation of fundamentals, could slip, move, counter, throw combinations, and all of this operating behind a first-class jab. He moved well... when ready and sharp.

Best for best, I think he edges Bowe, who could be defensively deficient in there. Lewis made several basic errors -especially late in his career when he contented himself by relying on power. He went out with sloppy fundamentals. If you doubt this, watch his last fight again.

Strictly speaking, Bowe never outboxed Holyfield because when you're the larger and stronger man, you do not want to give the lighter, faster man a chance to outpoint you... you emphasize size and power. However, Bowe wasn't fighting him like a gorilla. That "rumbling" had serious method to it and was fashioned around tight shots and beautiful inside fighting (which is in my estimation the mark of a doctorate degree in pugilism.. because its not only difficult to learn, it has more risk).

We differ here. I think that the Buster Douglas v. Tyson was a glimpse at Douglas's true potential -the potential that he and his camp always claimed was there. You say that Tyson would have been ripe for a number of HWs and I agree. However, I also believe that Douglas would have stood up to many more champions than anyone would have previously expected on that night. He fought a beautiful fight.

Now, I'll grant this to the detractors: Douglas's ring generalship seems to be tied into his opponent's output to some degree. If the other guy is active, then he is not as impressive. Tyson was not very active that night... and Buster took over... or was he the reason why Tyson wasn't active...? The answer there is subjective. I know that when Douglas fought Tucker he wasn't as impressive given the active offense against him. Benton and Duva formulated their plan for Holyfield around this. Douglas landed 27% against the active Tucker and 52% against the less active Tyson. Incidentally, Tyson is also less impressive if he is forced to defend (particularly when moved backwards) then when he is allowed to punch with impunity.

Far be it from me to equate Holyfield with Tyson, stylistically. The point was that Douglas was large and Douglas could fight and Holyfield had historic trouble with Bowe and Lewis who were both comparable to some degree with Douglas if only in size and skill.

Bowe got the better of Holyfield, there is no doubt about that. Douglas would not win a trilogy, and I wouldn't argue that, largely due to Douglas's infamous consistent inconsistency.

This is your lynchpin to flush Douglas against Holyfield. His "lack of courage" in adversity. I would normally agree, but I don't agree that the norm for Douglas is applicable to that one shining night of inspiration in his life. The man was fighting for the memory of his mother! Douglas got knocked down, slammed his fist on the canvas, listened to the count, got up at 8, went back to his corner as the bell sounded, and then came out for the next round and proceeded to beat... the... living hell... out of Tyson. That Douglas was a burb in the belly of the gluttonous, issue-laden blimp that appeared against Holyfield.

PS/ Douglas was not technically "counted out". The referee was right in that fight. Refs are allotted some discretion there and are obligated to see that the other man is in a neutral corner. The point is really consistency. He used his own count for Tyson as well, who was down for about 14 seconds as well.

 

Quite.

It's a big shout.

Of course, that was some well educated 'rumbling' by Bowe, but he had to tough it out in many ways before he found the honey in the 10th to seal the festivities.

You contradict yourself to some extent. If you are indeed willing to underline yourself the difference in output in relation to the difference in opponent than you must see the counter in your stance that is Evander Holyfield.

Putting it simply, Holyfield would make it hard, Douglas does not like 'hard'. Tyson was 'beautiful' because it was relatively easy - a rusted, confused fighter to make Douglas' attributes shine.

^

For a time he looked pretty comfy on the canvas and somewhat submittive-gloves steadily removed off the canvas at the count of 9, it was a close shave. This is a personal view laced with his patchy record.