Why doesn’t Buster Douglas get a pass for the Holyfield loss?

63, I watched Frazier Ali I,,,Carlos Monzon, Zarate, Wilfrdo Gomez, Sanchez, Foreman, etc.,etc. Now Tyson was unfocused?
Leading up to this fight Tyson had 4 fights in less than 2 years he beat:
Tony Tubbs KO 1
Spinks KO 1
Frank Bruno KO 5
Carl Williams KO 1
After Buster in a year and a half he beat:
Henry Tillman KO 1
Alex Stewert KO 1
Razor Ruddock KO 7
Seemed focused to me....

 

I am obviously missing the point but what does 'a pass' actually mean? When discussing fighters and fights it's not unreasonable to put things in context is it? If I said Muhammad Ali's losses to Spinks or Berbick have to be seen in the context of his health, age and condition am I giving him a pass?

 

I personally don't know too much re: Sonny Liston getting a pass. Duran I think had to live that down then accomplish far more after that to get his good name back. Both of them were the man were the man though and I think Buster was never considered as a great before or after and both Sonny and Duran had made their bones already so they had a little bit of political capital to fall back on.

 

Think you're creating a narrative that doesn't quite exist. Duran and especially Tyson, have plenty of detractors that bring up those losses whenever they're rated in all time ranking. But both men have a body of work that can be judged to balance out how they're remember. They're still considered ATGs despite those low moments.

Douglas has never accomplished any thing before or after Tokyo that can compare to Duran and Tyson's resume. So Douglas is considered an after thought that hit it big, just one time.

 

He did get a pass.

It means that Douglas was out of shape vs. Holyfield. If he had been in shape, it would have been a different story.

 

Just rewatched the fight, here's why I would not give Douglas a "pass", he displayed almost no ring IQ/didn't try to capitalize on the possible advantages he could have

He kept trying to jab with Holyfield who was clearly beating him to the punch, he had a 5 inch reach advantage on Holyfield (83 vs 78) and not once did he attempt a left hook counter

He made that one attempt at a decent right power shot but never attempted to time Holyfield with a feign when he was trying to jab with him, choosing instead to go for a wild uppercut which Holyfield countered and knocked him out

As good as Holyfield was on the inside, Douglas outweighed him by 38lbs and made no attempt to handle him on the inside, instead opting to hold behind the neck and get called for it, Holyfield's counter wasn't near as devastating as Tyson's uppercut and he still didn't (chose not to for 24 million?) make the count

 

See? Douglas does get a pass.

 

Would you agree Ali's age, health and general condition were factors in those fights? If so how does acknowledging that mean giving him a pass?

 

Bang on point Freddy.

A solid definition of “pass” would help - and that’s even IF a single, generically defined term such as “pass” even suffices.

I prefer context, detailed per each case on its own merits.

I like Duran but he isn’t necessarily one of my favourite fighters.

Just imo, Roberto could’ve taken a one way downturn after Montreal and still left an amazing career and legacy behind him.

He already had numerous fights behind him, was past prime and competing at increasingly higher weights.

That he still had the successes that he did was the understood exception, rather than the expected norm imo.

Even given my contextual view, it’s not mutually exclusive to also hold the opinion that the quit in New Orleans was a mark against his resume.

However, the key word is “against” - also meaning “relative to” to that resume, a resume built before and after New Orleans.

I don’t think Buster gets a “pass” per se. He will always be primarily known as the fighter who was GREAT for one night only.

If we’re talking in relative terms in just respect of two key fights, - vs Tyson and then Holyfield, then I personally would still calculate a net credit in Buster’s favour - but of course, as an unprecedented underdog, it would be that much less than the absolute credit he gained from his historic win over Tyson.

When we talk Leon Spinks - the obvious highlight and primary discussion point is his win over Muhammad Ali.

Again, omitting Leon’s other, much less successful endeavours in the ring doesn’t translate to a so called “pass” being given - those fights also defined who Leon was, duly taken on board and accounted for - the first Ali fight being the exception as opposed to the rule for Leon.

 

The difference w Buster from Duran is that Duran came back and Buster bailed , took the money and never rededicated himself to the game with conviction .. when you look at Duran's career you have many highlights and No Mas today is forgotten my many and seen as a stage by most .. he came back to crush Cuevas and Moore, go a terrific 15 with Hagler, upset Barkley and fight very competitive fights well into his forties against guys like Paz and Camacho ... Buster upset Tyson , an incredible high, then was destroyed and embarrassed by Holyfield and essentially bailed which is why his legacy is what it is ..

 

Excellent post, and not just because we agree! Context, and not just with respect to boxing, is vital I would think. It puts things in proper perspective. Where it would most likely become trickier is the relative importance we each give to the various factors involved. Our interpretation on those will obviously differ. That can also be part of the fun of discussing things though - hearing and learning how other people view and assess these things. Hearing/reading them can better inform my opinions, though not always!

Apologies to Saintpat if I have misunderstood but it does read like why do some people not evaluate and critique fighters in the same way and critcise them as much as I do for certain performances. I still do not understand what 'a pass' means, as to me I think you just have to look at the whole picture. Am not sure how that equates to saying a loss does not count or count as much. From the opening post.

"Seems like anyone who wants to put an asterisk by the Tyson loss to Tokyo Douglas and the Duran loss to New Orleans Leonard would be sympathetic to Douglas and say that loss doesn’t count … or doesn’t count as much."

I suppose if we are talking about those fanboy nuts (and there are those on this forum) who excuse anything and everything about their favourite fighters then that might be an example of people giving a pass, but that's not the type of celebrity obsessive fans who should be the standard for anything.

 

I’m struggling too with what a pass means….if we’re taking about fans having a double standard in terms of excusing the losses of their favorites as opposed to others, it definitely happens but I don’t think that’s a boxing thing…that’s life. People do it all the time with sports teams, politicians….even friends and family. That’s just confirmation bias.
If we’re trying to be more objective…I always thought “No Mas” was a big blemish for Roberto Duran and it did take years for him to repair his reputation…if he gets a pass now, he didn’t back then. And as others have said with Douglas, he does get a pass in that most seemed to dismiss his loss against Holyfield as being unmotivated and out of shape. Holyfield didn’t get full credit for it if I remember correctly.
If we’re talking in terms of how various losses are interpreted in the overall “assessment” of boxers careers, I think with Douglas it’s just harder because he had one of the biggest upset wins of all time and one of the most disappointing losses, with nothing of note either side, and people really did want to see more from him.