Twenty seven years ago, Holyfield "upset" Buster Douglas

I also see Holyfield struggling big time with the likes of Berbick, a younger Thomas, Bonecrusher, Tucker, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno, Truth Williams and whoever else Tyson beat during his championship reign. And yes, Marvis Frazier was on equal ground with Dokes and probably would've won a belt had he not fought Holmes first.

 

Exactly.
All losses count against fighters but few fighters are without losses.

Those Tyson's hardcore fans are quick to say "Tyson dominated his opposition, he didn't struggle" but that's not even slightly true unless you EXCLUDE Buster Douglas. That was a tough fight, he struggled and lost.
But they want to exclude it and then say "Holyfield struggled with X, Y and Z", mostly fights he actually came through and won.

I appreciate Tyson's skills and abilities to score quick KOs and put opponents on the defensive. His style was dynamic and dangerous. He destroyed some good fighters. He made 'easy work' of some fighters who'd give other great fighters trouble.
But he lost some fights too. He lost at age 23.

Holyfield was primed to challenge Tyson in 1990. They were contemporaries. Tyson was losing to Douglas instead. Getting himself knocked out for the title. These facts get ignored.

"But Holyfield had a tougher win against Alex Stewart" ...

 

Yes, for your sake.

There are reasons why Holyfield was always called an overachiever. I would've loved to see him fight guys like Ruddock, Bruno, Carl Williams, Bonecrusher, Tucker and the like.

 

"Overachiever" is meaningless. It's nonsensical.
No one can achieve more than they are able to achieve.

Good fights, yeah.

As long as we keep Holyfield away from the mighty Marvis Frazier, I think he should come through okay.

 

Bingo.

 

yes, holyfield came to heavyweight later in his career. pretty near over the hill.. 30 yrs old when he lost to bowe I

 

Nice work.

 

Exactly.

 

I liked this post because there are is a lot of truth to it. Holyfeild did not dominate. Holmes and Tyson both did. This is absolutely true.

However, when you study the extraordinary sequence of events that created the Tyson-mania you soon realise the kid really had far too much stacked in his favour than any other fighter in history. There was a conscious effort to keep Tyson looking like a great dominating champion more so than any other champion in history.

There was no conscious effort to keep Larry champion was there? As soon as Ali retired the WBA refused to acknowledge WBC champion and created their own one. Cooney was groomed as the second coming. Larry was quite unwelcome.

And whilst Tyson was champion was any other reasonable prospect groomed into looking anything like a future champion? Any body new couldn't really break into the scene because rated contenders were not fighting each other. The elite went stale.

I think the whole top ten was on hold whilst the challengers were lined up to make Tyson look good. Go through the records. Most of Tysons challengers went three years without beating rated contenders! Three years! Bruno, Tubbs, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks. This was unprecedented. Tyson was literally the only world class fighter allowed to beat other world class fighters.

So yes. Tyson did dominate under those circumstances. I think a lot of champions would have too.

 

That is some strange stuff right there.

 

Holyfield is one of the greatest of all time, without a doubt. On his best day Tyson would have still struggled with him because he was one of the only guys he didnt have a speed advantage over, holyfield was physically strong as a SHW and Holyfield had studied him inside out and was obsessed with beating him.
Prime for Prime i think Holyfield wins the most times/10 against tyson compared to Bowe and Lewis.
I just dont think that his win vs Douglas means that much compared to the rest of his body of work

 

Strange but true. There was a conscious effort within the entire industry to keep Tyson looking like King Kong wasn't there?

Governing bodies, HBO, the promotional climate all geared around Tyson.

 

It's true to some extent.

But the managers of Frank Bruno and Michael Spinks, to name two examples, didn't have anything to gain by building up Tyson.
Tyson's management had confidence in their fighter. They put him in with the ranked fighters regularly for a couple of years.

Bruno stayed inactive because his managers prefered to wait for Tyson rather than risk developing Bruno with matches against contenders.

Spinks and his manager could have done anything they pleased. Butch Lewis didn't fancy his fighter's chances against Tyson. And he was very open in saying he'd avoid dangerous heavyweights who brought no money to the table. They took a risk with Cooney because Cooney was a big attraction.

In the case of Tyrell Biggs, he managers cashed him in. He wasn't ready for Tyson. But they weren't going to risk him against other contenders. They did, of course, have an interest in Holyfield too, so maybe they thought they could afford a loss with Biggs in the long-term too.
But I doubt that's any motive for making Tyson look good. They must have been hoping Biggs would suprise and win.