King (s) of the underdogs

maybe even against Ken B?:huh

Being underdog against Moore seems crazy looking back on it.

 

Is there a site with such information??

 

Clay/ Ali

8/1 vs. Liston
3/1 vs. Foreman

 

I just Googled "Mosley Wright Odds" and ran through the hits.

 

Barrera Naz

and wasnt barrera - morales I favoured highly towards morales

even tho he lost he derserved the win

 

steve robinson under dog against

Paul Davison
Colin McMillan
Freddy Cruz
Duke Mkenzie

 

Chris Eubank.

Underdog in the biggest british fight of all-time.

Nigel Benn vs Chris Eubank

Chris Eubank vs Michael Watson I & II

These where massive fights, and the fact of the matter is Chris Eubank found a way how to win.

 

Was Hearns the favourite against both Leonard & Hagler?

 

He was against Leonard but Hagler was slight favorite against Hearns.

 

I just wish I'd had £1000 spare to put on Holyfield at 25/1 when the markets opened for the first Tyson fight :-(

I bet at the time it was a massive upset...... in hindsight it doesn't seem like anything other than the expected result :nut

 

It was seen a bad style matchup for Evander. He'd have to trade with Tyson and that would be the end of it. I didn't have the 28/1 for the first fight but I had a good bet on Holyfield at 4/1 for the rematch.

It says a lot about Tysons aura around that time that he was still the heavy favourite for the rematch when he'd been so comprehensively beaten in the first fight.

 

Hmmmm true... but 28/1

It's easy to say now obviously, but there ought to have been nearly as many question marks over Tyson as there were over Holyfield.

4/1 on the rematch.... bet the bookies lost a fortune :yep

Again hindsight - but it wasn't the sort of fight that warranted a rematch - $$$ notwithstanding - as you say the result was pretty clear and could hardly be described as a fluke. 4/1 for the first fight I would understand, maybe pretty even for the return.

Another is Mosley vs Margarito, a pretty sick beating in that one.

 

Thats the thing mate Holy wouldn't have been 28/1 or 4/1 if there had been a lot of money on him. Not many people at the time (which is the key thing) gave him a chance.

I didn't think he would win the first fight but I thought he was a racing cert for the second. That first fight he beat Tyson every way one fighter can beat another, mentally, physically, more heart, better chin, more skilled...

There was a real mystique around Tyson that defied logic and it was thought he'd taken Holy lightly in the first fight but would set the record straight in the re-match but in reality he'd been in decline for quite a while, was still good enough to be KOing his opponents early but didn't have enough left to beat top, determined, skilled fighter like Holyfield.

Even during his comeback after prison people were talking of him as still having the skills he had in his prime when you could clearly see he was nowhere near that level. It was all about that aura, some people just couldn't see past it.

 

Yeah, I remember reading an article about a year ago that said only Ron Borges and Teddy Atlas picked him to win.

It just really surprises me.... I guess if I'd been following boxing a bit more back then I'd understand it - but still now you listen to casuals talk as if Tyson was unbeatable from his pro debut until Holyfield beat him.

Douglas was a fluke, everyone else would have been scared :tired

Would love to have seen Tyson vs Bowe in around 1992 :yep